Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 February

< January 2017	Deletion review archives	March 2017 >

Steve salis – Speedy deletion endorsed – by about 2 to 1, so at best we would have no consensus to undo the deletion. Normally, contested speedy deletions tend to go to AfD, but there are no arguments here that indicate that a case could now be made for keeping the article because of new sources, etc. – Sandstein 07:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

User_talk:JzG/Archive_142#Disagree_with_speedy_deletion Hate to bring this up here but I was just straight up ignored and quickly manually archived by the deleting admin so I did. I'm not saying this article was in any way a good article, but I don't believe it was within CSD criteria and think it just needed some editing and removal of statements. Even if it is worse (can't actually see the page now) I think it probably would deserve a AfD or being userfied... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was speedily deleted three times and salted at Steve Salis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where it was created / edited by three users with little or no other editing: Jomid7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Donaldwmeyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and EmailIsTheDevilsWork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The deleted article was created by the third of these, EmailIsTheDevilsWork, and is incorrectly capitalised - a blatant attempt to bypass salting by an editor who knew it was deleted and salted at the correct title. You already asked on my Talk page, and I gave you exactly the same answer there. When a spam article is deleted and salted, and one of the spammers then re-creates it with different capitalisation, we do not require the filing of forms in quintuplicate. I am greatly disappointed that you have chosen to go to bat for spammers who are blatantly trying to bypass the technical measures we put in place to stop spammers form repeatedly re-creating spam articles when they are deleted. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, revisiting this it looks as if there is a nest of PR accounts at work. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Not going to bat for spammers, just going to bat for filling the encyclopedia with notable information. I have good intentions here but it appears it has been all taken the wrong way. Still I agree the accounts making these are 100% in the wrong, just don't believe it instantly means an article deserves deletion if it is notable and a fair quality article. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion the original article was properly salted and the creator of this version knew why it was salted yet tried to get around it rather than address the problem with promotionalism. This was clearly addressed on JzG's talk page and bringing the matter here smells, to me, as process for process sake - and not even valid process at that because the article was spam recreated by a spammer, again as has been clearly explained to the OP. Jbh ^Talk 16:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Guy, correctly-deleted non-notable spam article, complete with deliberately-incorrect capitalisation to get around salting at the original title. If there's one thing more disgusting than throwaway spam accounts it's "real" users who enable, support, and defend spam. I hope you got something out of this, EoRdE6, because you just lost a whole lot of respect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Starblind: Ouch now that's just not necessary, be nice. I brought this here because THE ARTICLE seemed like a fair article. In this situation I don't give a crap who created it or why, I just felt like the community was losing out on a notable topic? Maybe I misinterpreted everything here but I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to make an encyclopedia covering all notable topics in depth? And did this deleted article not contribute to that? I rest my case however, I just came with good intentions of adding more information to the Wiki, that's all I ever try and do... @Jbhunley: EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be trying to feign some sort of plausible deniability here ("I'm not saying this article was in any way a good article...") but with every word you dig yourself deeper. JZG pointed out to you on his talk page that this was a thrice-deleted spam article, and you decided to proceed with the DRV anyway even knowing exactly what the article was. Now, why would a supposedly "good" user seek to undelete an article they knew was spam? I can think up a scenario or two, but frankly they aren't anything nice. Assuming good faith only stretches so far, and if you really somehow forgot that this was a spam article (despite having been told so two days prior) then you would have closed the DRV the instant it was pointed out as spam (again). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes I think you are misunderstanding me. Yes I know, under the circumstances which this article was created, it is spam. I get it, no point in repeating it. I'm saying the article has a large amount of salvageable material on a notable topic... Or maybe not, I can't see it but my memory says yes. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Spam is spam and evading a salted title is evading a salted title. Dealing with spammers is sufficiently tedious without make-work deletion reviews. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the deleted article was indeed spammy, and while it might be possible to come up with a vaguely acceptable version by removing/rewriting most of the content I'm not surprised that didn't happen. "large amount of salvageable material on a notable topic" isn't accurate, the article had about 130 words of prose when deleted and while the subject may well get pass the GNG he isn't exactly of earth-shattering importance. Hut 8.5 07:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD. While I don't condone the salt-evasion, looking at the article, there's enough there, and enough reasonable looking sources in mainstream media that WP:CSD doesn't apply. It's entirely likely it'll get deleted, but at least after an AfD discussion, we'll have a clear consensus. I have temp-undeleted this for review -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I originally asked for this to be deleted, because it was incorrectly capitalised in order to bypass salting . Theroadislong (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Clearly a promotional/paid editor. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is not a CSD criteria (unless something has changed recently). Hobit (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - G11 applies to promotional creations, but A7 also appears to apply here. Co-founder of a pizza shop which has no article (and questionable notability) and owner of some cafe? I don't see that as a credible claim of significance. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It can't possibly be an A7, it cites third-party coverage. —Cryptic 07:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of a business, not of a businessman. Throwing a few external links that casually mention somebody in an article doesn't make that person significant. It proves existence but little else. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD. Article as it was deleted isn't overly promotional. Probably meets WP:N, though just barely if at all. I agree with Roy on all counts--this should go through AfD as no part of CSD would seem to apply to the current article. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if you don't accept that it's a G11 (and I do), it's clearly an open-and-shut G5. Unless someone wants to try and argue that it wasn't the same person creating it this time, despite most of the text being the same as the last time?
  Endorse on that basis, and specifically do not give it a pro-forma AFD unless someone volunteers to take full responsibility for the contents of the blocked user's edits. Just like with any other G5. —Cryptic 07:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not strictly a G5 as none of this person's accounts was blocked at the time the article was created (G5 requires block/ban evasion). However I don't think it's a good idea for us to go to bat for a promotional sockmaster. Hut 8.5 07:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right. I just looked at the last edit date of the accounts (since it handily shows up with popups) while comparing to the deleted revs, without clicking through to their actual block logs. That was careless. (There's a good argument to be made that users acting in obvious violation of the terms of use should be treated as banned ab initio, but this isn't the place.) —Cryptic 07:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion -Salted articles should not be recreated under different titles anyways. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD'. Plausibly notable, and it hasn't had its discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, creation was clearly a bad faith attempt to get out from underneath a salting. Even if we overlook that, it's G11 and the whole thing stinks to high hell of undisclosed paid editing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Note. I have started a discussion at WT:CSD about making articles created in evasion of salted titles subject to WP:CSD. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - page creation protection is the result of a community process determining that the page should not be recreated. Recreating the same page at a different title is an obvious effort by a bad actor to defeat that community process. Removing the page at any title improves the encyclopedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if it's suspected that a deleted page contains salvageable encyclopedic content, there is a correct procedure to handle that fairly common situation. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and assuming good faith is not a suicide pact; when spammers repeatedly recreate pages like this, we do ourselves no favours arguing whether or not the content was deleted in exactly the right way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: WP:REFUND Specifically excludes G11 so no that isn't a correct venue, this discussion is at the correct location to get a deleted page back. Regardless of the articles creator, it has usable content and was NOT deletable under current CSD criteria. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EoRdE6: Yes, REFUND excludes G11 because we are not in the business of enabling spammers. By my count, 8 editors (not including myself) have reviewed the article and found it irredeemably promotional. We're not going to entertain yet another sockpuppet recreating the irredeemably promotional content with a detailed review because they lowercased the subject's surname, it's a waste of time. If you think it's worthwhile to write about the subject, I trust you can draft a pretty decent article in your sandbox and show it to one of the deleting admins. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SALT, any admin can protect any page from being created, without any formal consensus. Usually, it is done after a few recreations, even if the deletions were speedy ones and there was never any discussion. As such, there is no community process that has been circumvented here. Plus, WP:SALT explicitly mentions DRV as a venue to revert such decisions. Regards So Why 07:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The formal consensus is that the protection level exists at all. If you don't think admins should be able to create-protect titles, or you'd like to modify the criteria, start a discussion to reverse that function at WP:VPP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing against create-protection per se, I'm merely pointing out that in this case the protection was the result of a single admin's decision and thus recreating the page at a different title does not circumvent any community decision about this page (since there was none). Regards So Why 13:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List at AfD. Did the creator try to circumvent the SALT? Possibly. Did the article meet the speedy deletion criteria? Certainly not, so there is no reason to endorse this deletion just because the creator might have acted in good faith. I understand that some users think any article that might contain some spammy sounding bits can be deleted as G11 but that's simply not the case. G11 can only be used if removing the spammy language would mean removing everything. And only if every single revision meets the criterion. Here we have a stub with some peacock words but nothing more of a possibly notable individual. Plus, G11 speedy deleting any article that multiple editors in good standing have removed a speedy tag from [1] [2] has to be considered a mistake because policy only allows speedy deletion in "the most obvious cases". Those arguing to endorse the deletion should remember that the point of DRV is not to assess why an article was created but whether a speedy deletion criterion applied to the specific page. PS: It shouldn't be necessary to point this out but of course coverage of someone's business in reliable sources suffices to make the subject pass the very low threshold of A7. After all, the credible possibility of significance or importance is enough. PPS: Of the previous three deletions mentioned, at least the latter two were mistakes as well, since neither G11 nor A7 applied to those versions. Regards So Why 20:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He possibly tried to evade salting? Try definitely and blatantly. By, you know, miscapitalising a proper name when he'd already edited the article at the correct capitalization. Using three separate accounts. Two of which created the article (three times between them) at the correct title. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am hesitant to assume malice when simple lack of understanding how Wikipedia works can explain the behavior equally. Besides, as has been pointed out above, this is not relevant for determining whether your deletion was correct or not. A rule-breaking user should not be dealt with by breaking the rules as well. Regards So Why 21:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the addendum above? We have a nest of spammers who have been promoting a walled garden of articles, almost certainly for money, for years. You're treating this as if it was some clueless newbie. It isn't. It's a sock farm, here to spam Wikipedia. The best rule for dealing with spammers is to show them the door, clear up after them, and move on. Which is what we did. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that none of those editors had been blocked, banned or even warned because of the problems you mentioned. And I did notice that they were not blocked when the article was created, hence G5 didn't apply. I understand the sentiment but as long as WP:CSD does not say "Admins can delete pages created by users suspected of COI or paid editing without discussion", the motive of the creator does not mean that the page can be deleted without discussion. As I said above, I am not arguing for or against assuming good or bad faith. I'm merely pointing out that (assumed) rule-breaking behavior should not be answered by breaking the rules. And since you cannot justify the deletion within the strict boundaries of WP:CSD, the only correct solution is to send the article to where its fate should have been discussed in the first place: AfD. Regards So Why 13:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: You'd be surprised about how many editors who believe undisclosed paid editing and/or COI themselves constitute "blatant advertising". I'm not saying they're right: just pointing something out. Adam9007 (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 February 2017

Kerry Lee Crawford – Endorse Clear consensus here that the AfD close was correct. – -- RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The page was deleted today with the claim that the page had already a discussion page for deletion and they reached that the page should be deleted. I'm not the author that made the first copy of the article. I built another one and tried to be accurate when it comes to creation, phrasing and citing sources. I was NOT NOTIFIED that the page is proposed for deletion and the page was deleted immediately. I have put a lot of hard work in order to come up with that result. I had a discussion with the admin who deleted it. Till he replies, I tried to create another one with an older version that I had and added {{underconstruction}} to try to resolve the problem with the admin who deleted it, but it was again deleted immediately and then he responded to me. His claim was that the page is identical to the one that was deleted and that is not true. And that's his claim why he deleted it immediately without notifying me. After creation of the article before that all happened, there is one admin who reviewed my article and I had a notification that says, "The page Kerry Lee Crawford has been reviewed". It has gone after deletion of the article. He was not convinced that happened. When asking him what is wrong with the article, he kept telling that my article is identical to the one that was deleted by another author and referred me to the deletion discussion of it. I tried to defend my claim that he was notable by mentioning that he was featured on CKFG-FM (already has a wikipedia page), CityNews (already has a wikipedia page) ,but received no response regarding this point. Now my work is gone without even notifying and I think that is pure vandalism. If he is doing his work, which I appreciate, give me my right to even discuss issues with my work. If I have a misconception regarding Wikipedia rules, I'd be more than happy to understand. Thanks you. Khaled Abolaynain (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - Per WP:NOTINHERITED and per the consensus on the AFD page. I was featured on an CNN article back in 2011. Despite that claim to fame, I am not notable. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 23:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request temp undelete of Khaled Abolaynain's new version, and of the old version, to whether it is much improved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- SmokeyJoe - For your benefit, I've undeleted the version previously deleted and the one specified by Khaled above. In my opinion, although the grammar is slightly improved from the first version, the additions make it sound even more promotional. Deb (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Thanks Deb, but can to point me to them? Which is which? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, you're too late. Another admin deleted them as promotional within a day of my putting them back. Deb (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deb, I think someone deleted it before I had a chance to look at it. Can you please get the version that I specified back? Khaled Abolaynain (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - SmokeyJoe, did you reach something regarding the page?
Okay, that would be the deleted (12:24, 21 February 2017) article, SmokeyJoe. Yoshiman6464, please consider that I didn't get even a chance to be educated and get feedback about what may have been wrong with my article. Khaled Abolaynain (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please see the long exchange between this user and myself as to the reasons for deletion, on both his talk page and mine.Deb (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, I'm a little baffled that the nominator claims they "didn't get even a chance to be educated" when their talk tage shows that Deb responded to them several times. Regardless, the consensus to delete arrived at at the AFD was unquestionably the correct outcome. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The talk that we had, me and Deb, was after the article was already deleted. There was no consensus regarding my version of the article. Khaled Abolaynain (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Paul Joseph Watson – Endorse. I'm not going to userfy this, but if some other admin wants to, that's OK. – -- RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Paul Joseph Watson had appeared as the primary focus in recent reliable sources, especially in a recent BBC article called Alt-right editor challenges journalists to visit Sweden as well as a Business Insider article entitled Inaccurate InfoWars report leads 100,000 to sign petition for Comedy Central to fire comedian it doesn’t employ. When the article was last proposed on 12 July 2016, there weren't many articles that focused primarilly on Watson. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 15:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got anything else? Right now it would be a poorly sourced negative BLP with minimal biographical data. At best it's borderline for meeting the GNG. And the negative BLP thing makes me want to err on not having an article. Hobit (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: This article by Huffington Post notes that Watson has many followers on Twitter and YouTube of Febuary 2017. Meanwhile, another BBC article from December 2016 notes that Watson it the "the most high-profile" Trump supporter (albeit a minor mention). There is also an article posted on Daily Beast on August 2016 regarding his role is spreading rumors of Hillary Clinton's Health. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These new sources are not direct non-trivial coverage of the reporter, instead he is mentioned as part of a bigger story. Are these bigger stories covered in other articles, and do they warrant more than a mention of Watson? Do they mention Watson? I don't see him passing WP:BIO, but if there is any hope, you should ask for userfication, build a better article, before asking again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow userfication. Per above, I don't see this passing WP:BIO I'm afraid. Alternatively, you can userfy the article to work on it outside the article space. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Exadel – Decision endorsed – EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 17:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

<Article Exadel was deleted without any explanations, despite the fact that it was updated with new links and I expected feedback on my corrections. Admin Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus wrote: "you can request that it is instead moved to your sandbox for future refining. If the conclusion is that the company is not notable now, it could become notable later, so your work wouldn't have to be wasted." So according to his advice, I wrote request to move this article to Sandbox. Instead , it got deleted without even further discussions. Regardless, I have added new good links and nobody answered wheather they are ok or not! Could you please help to move the article to Sandbox or if possible, just send me the source code of it, because I spent a lot of efforts to create it and now I don't even have any copy of it. Natallia Sasava (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exadel. If an independent third party wishes to work on this article I have no problem providing the content in draft, but the lister and main author is too conflicted to proceed and write the article sufficiently neutrally. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion I'm fine with it being userfied, but yeah, it would be best done by someone without a COI. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as consistent with reasonable discussion consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A difficult discussion with an unfortunately brief close. I was on the verge of saying "endorse but allow userfication as the AfD was borderline" until I read DGG's vote, which is very probably completely right. Moving forward, I think the best thing to do would be for Natallia Sasava (talk · contribs) to gain some editing experience on other topics before coming back to this topic with promotion-problem aspects. Note that WP:CORP is exacting, Wikipedia is very sensitive about being used for promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Fails WP:NCORP. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 February 2017

Aika tappaa – "Delete" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Closed against consensus and contrary to standards for notabiliity. Has been brought the the attention of the closing administrator, who has been unresponsive. See reasons cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aika tappaa and User talk:Vanjagenije. Requested relisting or close as Keep per consensus. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notified closing administrator. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that I was "unresponsive" is a plain lie. This user attacked me on my talk page (User_talk:Vanjagenije#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FAika_tappaa), threatening me with the deletion review from the start, if I don't comply to him. I told him that I am ready to discuss the issue, but that he has to tell what exactly was wrong with my closure and its rationale. He just continued to threaten without trying to explain what exactly was wrong and why he thinks the consensus was different. I hoped that he would at least explain it here, but I see that he is still not ready to provide any argument to support his view. When I closed the discussion, I left a clear explanation on why I think the arguments for keeping were weaker than those for deleting. This user just keeps saying that my closure was wrong, but I would like to hear elaboration: what exactly was wrong? Without that, there is nothing to discuss here. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unresponsive in the sense that I asked, and other users asked, and you said, "No." Speaking of 'plain lies' there was no "attack" on him and no "threat." Under the rules I was required to try to get User:Vanjagenije to reconsider. I politely and repeatedly asked. I and other users told him why we thought the closure was wrong, and he was given many reasons by me and other concerned editors. I incorporate all of those arguments by reference here. We were sending, and he was not persuaded. He is taking a position like a 'common law pleader.' The decision to close as a delete was and is still wrong. He left me with only this appeal. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a personal attack: "Closing the discussion as Delete is bizarre. Recognizing that 'it is not a vote', the overwhelming consensus was plainly Keep. We are supposed to accept his because you said so?" Apparently he still does not know the meaning of Wp:consensus. This was not a personal attack; apparently he has become personally invested in the result. In fact, he was repeatedly and politely asked by me an other editors to reconsider. We are here now. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He confabulated his personal opinion about the sources with the decision to close the discussion. This was a different function in which he applied the wrong standard. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The AfD close was brave, but correct. The entire argument to keep (echoed by multiple participants) was that it was selected for inclusion in a national archive. I do agree that WP:NFO says that inclusion in a national archive does, generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist. But, the problem here is that there were no sources presented to back up the assertion that it was selected for a national archive. Maybe such a source exists, and it's simply difficult for me to find because I don't read Finnish. It would be useful if one of our Finnish speakers could provide a specific link to a WP:RS which supports this claim (and a translation of the relevant passage would be even better, because then I wouldn't have to rely on the robo-translations). But, it should also be noted that inclusion in an archive is not a guarantee of having a wikipedia article. It's just a heuristic which says that it's likely that sources exist. The sources themselves are the important thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if there was actual hard evidence to support the claim that this film had been preserved in a national archive then I think Keep would have been the appropriate close, but there isn't - the only evidence provided was rebutted in the discussion. The other arguments presented were far weaker. 7&6=thirteen's behaviour on the admin's talk page falls some way short of the standards of conduct we expect here. Hut 8.5 22:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I ever said was that the closing was contrary to consensus. Namely Closing Discussions and Wikipedia:Consensus. And it was. Meanwhile, I have sent a note to the Finnish national archives to try and confirm the facts. If they respond, I will let you know. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of your comments was very aggressive, you accused the admin of acting dictatorially, compared them to Donald Trump and said they were going to be taken to Deletion Review regardless of what they said. And I don't see you offering any sort of actual argument against the admin's decision there. Hut 8.5 07:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you said was:

Closing the discussion as Delete is bizarre. Recognizing that 'it is not a vote', the overwhelming consensus was plainly Keep. We are supposed to accept his because you said so? This will be submitted for deletion review. As required by WP:Deletion review I am asking you to 'work this out' and rescind your action. If I don't hear from you, I will seek the appropriate remedy in the appropriate forum.

Let me suggest a way to rephrase that which would be less combative:

I respectfully disagree with your close. It looked to me like a Keep. Would you consider reclosing it? I feel rather strongly about this, but I'm writing to you in the hopes that we can work out a mutually acceptable solution and avoid having to invoke a more formal process such as WP:Deletion review.

It expresses the same thoughts; that you disagree with the outcome, what you thought the outcome should have been, what you would like to see happen now, and what you plan to do if that doesn't happen. But, in this case, the reaching out looks more like an offered handshake than a balled fist. And it's more likely to get a positive reception. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, correct and courageous closure. The policy WP:V is not subject to being overridden by local consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith Thank you. I will add that to my quiver. I did not mean any disrespect. I will use that in the future. I apologize.

I was, however, surprised by the abrupt closure, given that their was a WP:Consensus supported by a lot of established editors. The existence of review is no threat, it is a statement of fact. And I would expect that administrators have no vested interest in the outcome, and that they will look at these requests objectively, understanding that they are not the final word. When an administrator chooses to ignore the clear weight of consensus — which in the normal course would result in a closure Keep due to 'lack of consensus' — it does strain credulity and is not part of the normal way of analyzing a W:PROD and WP:AFD.

I am glad that Stifle at least addressed the merits of this abnormal administrative response.

Given how this appeal is going, appeals are at best a pro forma promise of review. Apparently those who choose to be involved here are closing ranks with other admins. Perhaps I am wrong; we will await the outcome later.

In any event, how you feel about my lack of diplomacy has nothing to do with whether the article should be kept or deleted. I did send a note to the Finish national film archives, in the hope that we can get to the bottom of whether this is listed there or not. If I hear anything I will let you know.

Thank you for your wisdom. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close without action as moot. The article has been userfied, improved, and returned to mainspace as Aika Tappaa. The state of the article at the point of userfication and the simplicity of the successful improvement call into question the appropriateness of the closer's decision to override the expressed consensus, but going into that at length here would not be a productive use of time and effort. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uf! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, thanks for pointing this out, but I think this is a problem. First, copy-pasting an article to userspace and than moving it to the mainspace is very wrong. That way, the edit history of the original article is lost, and its authors are not attributed. That is totally unacceptable. Every text in Wikipedia has to be attributed to its author(s), for legal reasons (See WP:ATTREQ). Also, the article should not be moved to the main space if consensus was reached to delete the article. Dr. Blofeld moved the article to the namespace with an edit summary "notable enough", despite just 4 days earlier I closed the AfD as "delete". How can it be "notable enough", if the discussion was closed as "delete" just 4 days prior? It's worth noting that the current article is almost identical to the deleted one, except that some sources are added. If my AfD closure was wrong (and I think it wasn't), then deletion review is the only acceptable way to reverse it. Recreating the article in the same form is not acceptable way to oppose what one perceives as a wrong closure. For those reasons, I think the article Aika Tappaa should be deleted per WP:G4. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vanjagenije, you're wrong on several important points here. Deletion review is not "the only acceptable way to reverse" the outcome of s deletion discussion. It never has been. Writing an article which demonstrates notability is not only an acceptable action, but preferred to taking the dispute here. As you say, ~~Dr. Blofeld's~~ Aymatth2's improvements to the text added several new sources. That often means that the new text is not "substantially identical" to the AFD-deleted text, and that is very likely to be true when the sources are added by an experienced editor -- as happened here. Since the central issue at the AFD, as stated in your close, was the number and quality of sources, it's very difficult to see how the texts could be "substantially identical". This is not a case where someone simply added trivial sources to verify claims deemed substantively insufficient. The length of time since the underlying AFD is irrelevant, if the improvements made the texts not "substantially identical". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Now, we have two separate issues. One (which is the topic of this DR) is whether my closure was correct. The second one is whether one may re-crate deleted article if there are new sources to prove notability. Regarding this second issue, you are right, in theory. Adding new reliable sources with significant coverage (that prove the notability of the subject) makes the article substantially different from the one that was deleted as non-notable. But, I think that what happened in this particular case is actually a case where someone simply added trivial sources to verify claims deemed substantively insufficient. The sources added to the re-created article are those: [3][4][5][6][7][8]. Although I don't speak Finnish, it is obvious to me that none of those are reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the film. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And deleted as a G4. That said, could someone do a temp undelete of that version? I'd like to see the sourcing. Hobit (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit, you can still see the Gcached version here [9]. Before the G4 occurred, I looked at the history and saw that ~~Dr. Blofeld~~ Aymatth2 had added a new section to the article, with new sources. It clearly was not "substantially identical", and really wasn't eligible for G4. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My only addition to the Gcached version would be a mention of its inclusion and a wikilink to National Audiovisual Institute (Finland).7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have endorsed User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz solution. But the involved administrator does not.

Indeed, there was never "WP:consensus" to delete. There was a decision to close the discussion and delete. I see the difference, but User:Vanjagenije doesn't. In any event, this appears to be the Finnish national film website regarding this film. If I hear further back from them I'll let you know. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be able to use personal correspondence from them as a source for anything - WP:V requires that articles use reliable published sources. Hut 8.5 22:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish national film website regarding this film. Published. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it was pointed out during the AfD that a listing on that website doesn't mean it's in their archive. Hut 8.5 18:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The unsourced claim of significance (national archive) would have been enough for the article to escape speedy deletion, but not AFD. When no sources were forthcoming from 'keep' proponents after 25 days of discussion, I agree that the arguments for deletion were stronger. That said, now that a newer, different version of the article is live in main space, I suggest a history merge of the deleted one with the new one. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the article to Aika tappaa (correct capitalization) and undeleted deleted revisions to merge edit histories of deleted and new articles. This was absolutely necessary because of the WP:ATTREQ. I still think the article should be deleted because of the consensus at the AfD. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good move, I didn't realize that the lowercase title was correct. In any case, since the two articles are different, I would say open a new AFD to determine if it's still worthy of deletion. DRV isn't really the place to make that determination. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult discussion. Defensible close. Participants are clearly not persuaded, I think a careful review and explanation is demanded. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Dead horse IMO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse continued deletion. It seems baffling that a movie could be included an a national film archive and yet not be notable, but there it is. Apparently elonet.fi is not the equivalent of the US National Film Registry and inclusion on the site doesn't necessarily suggest cultural imporance. I looked up Risto Räppääjä, and guess what, they're all on there! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, some of our Finnish editors can help out with the sourcing. cc @Finnusertop and Caygill:.. 103.6.159.86 (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 February 2017

John_Florescu – Moot. Article (in expanded form) is now back at AfD. – Black Kite (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

significant new information has come to light since the deletion, this is justifying recreating the deleted page MariaOlteanu (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse by default per lack of reasoning. Nominator claims "significant new information" and while that's certainly possible as the AFD was awhile ago, they don't bother to actually state what this significant new information might actually be, nor do they link to significant coverage in reliable secondary sources for said significant new information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to do until someone presents reliable and reputable independent sources covering the subject directly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- There's not a lot to fault the original AfD close for. If there is "significant new information" to justify overturning it, then you need to actually show what it is. Reyk _YO! 10:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC) QUESTION Related to this deletion review MariaOlteanu (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC): Guidance needed please[reply]

ATTN: Andrew Lenahan, SmokeyJoe, Reyk can you please advise where should I add the new information (the article listed for deletion states that no modifications should be made there)? Any link you can recommend for me would be much appreciated. I would be more than grateful to receive any guidance here.

@MariaOlteanu: If you could add the new information right here, that would be helpful. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close without action. The OP is free to write a new article based on new information; "new information" should be used in a DRV only if the article is salted or if the information relates to the deletion discussion itself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:23 GMT, 23 February 2017, User:MariaOlteanu (talk)
CONFIRMATION Thank you (Hullaballoo) and SmokeyJoe. I do confirm that the new information appeared mainly in 2016 (so it is not related to the discussion itself nor is referring to a salted article). The article in discussion was listed for deletion back in early 2015. I will write a new article based on the new information.
QUESTION However, I am concerned about the history related to this article=|old page. Can you please advise if there are any Wiki rules that can be followed in order to hide or delete this page when the new one is up? Any help is very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaOlteanu (talk • contribs) 11:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't specified what this new information is or how you intend to source it, even though you've now posted here three times. Since you have nothing to lose by posting said new information if it exists, the fact that you haven't done so suggests it either doesn't exist or is minor and does not change the fundamental notability of the article subject. Please note that if you make a new article without substantial new notability for this person, backed by substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, it will be deleted once again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The new article has already been created, nominated for speedy deletion-repost, and has the speedy declined. extended discussion here is no longer productive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 February 2017

17 February 2017

16 February 2017

Christopher Duntsch – Moot. Restored by deleting admin RickinBaltimore and now at AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Duntsch. – Sandstein 21:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Deleted per A7, but how is he not notable? There are over 20,000 results on google for his name, and he is the subject of major investigations and lawsuits. Every statement in the article was cited. Natureium (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

list at AfD I can't see the draft, but it's pretty clear he meets WP:N. Not at all sure we should have an article on him (it's going to be a really negative BLP so hard to maintain and he may be a NOTNEWS/BLP1E case), but that's not a speedy criteria (though looking at the deleting admin's page he is citing BLP1E to justify the A7). Hobit (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting admin comment Indeed Hoit, I felt this was WP:BLP1E situation here. While there is coverage about his trial, I don't see how this article may be written from a WP:NPOV (and in fact the article was tagged for A10 for being an attack page). Also, this might be a WP:NOTNEWS situation as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but neither of those things make it an A7. Given that he does meet WP:N in spades and A7 is a lower bar than WP:N, I'd really prefer/suggest you undelete and list at AfD (unless the article is _so_ bad that it needs to go as a BLP violation, but if that were the case, I assumed you'd have picked something other than A7). Hobit (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (Just to be clear) I'd not be shocked at all if this got deleted at AfD per BLP1E, but that's not a single admin's call and speedy deletions are for obvious things. This isn't that. Hobit (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be more than happy to do so. I'll undelete now and list at AfD. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly not an A7 - the article cited numerous reliable sources entirely devoted to the subject. A7 is not about whether the subject satisfies standards of notability or BLP1E, those are issues for AfD. An accurate biography of someone known for committing crimes isn't an attack page either. Hut 8.5 21:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
pro forma overturn. BLP1E is not a suitable basis for an A7, as it is a criterion designed to identify people who are at least arguably notable but should not be covered in individual articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, open and shut BLP1E case, but that's not a speedy deletion criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn. BLP1E is not A7. It's not even BLP-speedy worthy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, list at AFD. I think an argument could be made that this is indeed a BLP1E, but BLP1E isn't cause to speedy-delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Hitomi Tanaka – Deleted under G5 of the speedy deletion criteria. Filer blocked for sock puppetry by Ian.thomson (non-admin closure)– Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 15:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Hitomi Tanaka (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) CSD:G4 - This article was apparently posted twice and deleted before. I have not seen the article and no one so far, but the admin who has set it up for immediate deletion, has seen it. The issue is that this is the same format as the deleted articles before. Here are the issues with that:

1) I have not seen the previous article. I don't know what it entailed. No one does except the admin who reported it for deletion and he has not shared it with us, so no one knows.

2) An article about the same person should look relatively the same. Her career and life are going to be the same, minus any developments since last deletion. Please think about this for a second and I would love to hear any arguments otherwise.

3) The arguments used against this article in its previous deletions were WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

4) Anyone could post a bad article on someone here in the same format as I did. It's very easy. a person or star should not be basically banned from wikipedia forever because a novice didn't know what they were doing, and that's what is happening here.

Reasons why she is WP:GNG:

1) Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. - She has appeared in 430+ films. More films than most actors on this website. She has her own photobook that I sourced. She has a non-porn dvd that I sourced. She has been featured in 2 different television programs, amongst others that I couldn't find an internet source for from TV Tokyo and SKY PerfecTV!. Both are big television channels in Japan. I also provided sources from The Score Group, The New York Daily News and Playboy. This is not some girl off the street here.

2)'"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. TV Tokyo and SKY PerfecTV!, The Score Group, The New York Daily News and Playboy are reliable as is DMM, which does not allow user submitted content and comes straight from the companies.

3)"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. This was met.

4)'"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4] Playboy, TV Tokyo and SKY PerfecTV! are independent here. She's never even worked for playboy.

5)"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5] She was in over 430+ movies. If that isn't significant, I don't know what is. She's been featured in tv, she has her own photobook, etc.

Reasons why she is WP:BIO:

1)'Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration She won the AVN award which immediately meets this goal AND SHE DOESN'T EVEN LIVE OR PERFORM IN AMERICA! There is no question or doubt on this one.

2) Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or being a member of an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. She is one of the first Japanese porn actresses to make it in the West. Marcia Hase is the only other one I can really think of. If someone else can give me some names, I'd love to hear it. She won an AVN award, making her possibly one of the first Japanese to do so. She is one of the true first crossover stars and is really famous for her genre of busty girls. If she is not notable, no one is.

3)Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.' I sourced two TV appearances which were on TV Tokyo and SKY PerfecTV! and her Japanese page has more(https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitomi_(AV%E5%A5%B3%E5%84%AA)#.E5.87.BA.E6.BC.94). She has her own photobook which was sourced in the article and she was involved with the AVN awards.

I also do feel there is a bias towards this article. I've seen much worse stuff with people with a lot less notability get published on here without issue. The key issue appears to be that the user who was responsible for getting it deleted last time, wants to ensure it stays deleted.

Even if you disagree with 1 of my points, overall, I do not see how this fails the test for WP:BIO and WP:GNG, especially for porn, which the main stream media in America does not cover and can't cover due to its mature content. The only way a pornstar is getting any coverage in America is if they aren't doing porn, have died or have had an incident....not for their actual work. It is almost impossible for a porn star to get on this site with the current guidelines in place, and the rules on here are very towards America, not Japan, where porn is run completely differently. Hitomi has clearly passed this test and I don't think whatever some random guy did on her page before should uphold forever. ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you don't understand our notability guide. Compare the quality and nature of the sources with those for a guinely notable person like Winston Churchill and you will see a difference. This has not yet been deleted so this is premature but it's going to be deleted and good riddance. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was there a "good riddance" here? Is this because of the subject matter? That's already impartial and that's not what wikipedia is about.

"Compare the quality and nature of the sources with those for a guinely notable person like Winston Churchill and you will see a difference." When was the last time any mainstream non-porn source has covered porn? I know I've never seen it aside from the The Howard Stern Show. It's not due to a lack of interest, as porn sites are some of themost popular sites in the world. Pornhub alone is even beating out Apple Inc., The New York Times, BBC, CNN and others on websites hits and is the 51st most popular website in the world, but yet no coverage. That's not a good argument to make here. She still has appeared on TV Tokyo, SKY PerfecTV!, The New York Daily News and AskMen, all mainstream sources, along with 430+ videos about her(find me some actors who are in that many) and she's had her own photobook - that's right, she was important enough that someone made a book about her.ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List at AfD- The CSD has been declined and I think an AfD is needed. This is also rather premature as the article as not been deleted. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 14:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 February 2017

Overcoming Obstacles – Endorse deletion, read WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NCORP, WP:GNG before stating your argument again. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC) – KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I created an article for the non-profit organization Overcoming Obstacles that gives away free life skills curriculum. The page was deleted due to its "promotional tone". We tried to edit the content in order to just provide relevant information on the organization as well as multiple sources but the page keeps on getting deleted. Can you give us specifics on how we can restore the page. All we want is to have a place where users can read about the national organization. Let us know what we can do.

Endorse deletion. The deletion was spot on correct. The company fails WP:NCORP. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, while the rewritten version was less explicitly adverting than the previous one, it still read like a brochure for the product and was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. This is why it's very strongly discouraged to write on Wikipedia about subjects with which you have a conflict of interest. Ultimately, while editing further could remove the advertising material, changing the tone would not resolve the core issue that the subject is simply not notable enough for Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Read Wikipedia:NOTADVOCACY. Read Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Wikipedia is not for you to advertise your organization. The "place where users can read about the national organization" would be your own website. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Minori Suzuki – Keep Deleted. It sounds like the best thing to do is just keep this in userspace and wait to see if additional sources emerge to demonstrate WP:N. As for the redirect, no consensus on that, so defaulting to the status quo. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The article was userfied to my userspace (at User:Narutolovehinata5/Minori Suzuki) following a discussion where a consensus was reached that, given she only had one acting role at the time of the AFD, she did not satisfy notability guidelines at that time and was at best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Since the discussion, she has been cast in at least one other major role, as a main character in the video game Danganronpa V3: Killing Harmony. I'm not sure how major that role is since I haven't played the game, but if the said role is indeed a main one, then it's possible that she now passes (if barely) WP:ENTERTAINER. If this deletion review does not overturn the AFD consensus, I would suggest recreating the article as a redirect to Macross Delta, with the original history merged into it in case it gets recreated in the future. Closing user Music1201 has not edited since January 3, 2017. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the redirect is probably the way to go. The role in Dangan Ronpa 3 is apparently fairly minor, one of the various suspect characters named Angie Yonaga - I can't say a lot as I don't want to spoil anything, but she is not a main character of the game. Even if we count it as a second significant role though, is that really enough to build a BLP article around? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment pinging AfD nominator Philafrenzy and participants SephyTheThird, AngusWOOF, and Knowledgekid87. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it was already too soon, then news about a character we don't know much about doesn't really change that. Also if it is already userfied I don't see the rush here. Wait until the article speaks for itself. As for the redirect, again I'm not convinced there is a case. However at the same time I have no real objection. SephyTheThird (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's 10th on the list of 17 characters for Harmony so it's hard to tell if she's a lead role. Her character Angie Yonada isn't mentioned in the plot section, so she does not appear to be a main character. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Lilah Parsons – Start a new discussion. Given all the issues mentioned with the discussion itself and the close and the support for a relist, it's probably most worthy to simply restore the article and start the deletion discussion anew. – Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Firstly, I believe the nomination was made in bad faith, as the creation of the deletion discussion was done by a new editor who's only edit thus far is to create the deletion discussion page (which makes me strongly suspect that the nominator may be a sock). The nomination was also incorrectly transcluded at first and secondly, being the creator of the article, I was not notified that a deletion discussion was taking place and had been for two weeks, which is against WP:AFDLIST (The policy states that once nominating an article for deletion, it is considered civil to notify the good faith creator, which did not happen here). Only one editor !voted, and it was to delete, there reason just being "a non notable model". The subject meets various notability guidelines, as there is sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources (I can show them if needed), otherwise the article would have been nominated for CSD under A7 when it was created if it failed GNG! The article just hadn't been sufficiently expanded yet, as I was expecting others who had more knowledge on the subject to contribute to the article (I created the page on the basis of what I knew of her and what sourced information was available, such as she is a presenter on Capital Breakfast and MTV. Therefore, I'd like the deletion outcome to be reviewed. Thank you. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, lets just start by saying that it's not required to notify the article creator when an article is nominated for deletion, although many automated tools do so. What is required is to discuss with the closing admin before bringing things to DRV, but I don't see where you've done this with User talk:Kurykh. That being said, because the discussion was poorly attended I'd be open to throwing it open to relisting if you can provide the requisite sources here which would demonstrate that a relist might result in a changed outcome. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Further Comment, I've temp undeleted the page for the duration of this discussion. Some of the sources appear to be decent, although I've not had time to look at them in detail. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Lankiveil: I thought I was supposed to come straight here if i disagreed with the outcome rather than go to the deleting admin's talk. This is the first time I've had to come to DRV, so I do apologise if I've done anything wrong. Anyway, Here are a few sources: [10], [11] [12] (Source 3 is an interview with Metro newspaper). Lots more can be found by simply searching "Lilah Parsons" on Google.I have looked at some of the sites where other sources which I've listed and not listed here are from and they seem to be all reliable sources. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse while many do choose to notify the article's initial editor when AFDing, it's not required and not doing so does not invalidate the result. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Starblind: That's not the main reason. There are also other factors to why I brought this here. The fact that the nom's only edit to Wikipedia was to nominate the article for deletion makes it highly suspicious that the nominator could have been a sock of a blocked user, but I'm not sure who though (I've been involved in quite a few sock puppetry cases during my time), and there are also sources available which I've listed above which makes the subject pass WP:BIO. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 20:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

relist There was very little discussion and this isn't a clear case given the sources. If the article creator had been notified and !voted to keep this would almost certainly have either A) attracted more discussion or B) resulted in an outcome other than deletion. That said, Class455, the directions for starting a DRV do make it pretty clear you are to contact the deleting admin first. I suspect they'd have relisted on request. That would have been a much better way forward. Hobit (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: yeah, that was an error on my part. On the AfD, I seem to have been mislead when it said that "any further comments should be made in a deletion review",rather than saying anything regarding consulting the deletion administrator. But now we're here we might as well continue here until consensus is reached and I'll know this for next time I have to come here, which hopefully won't be anytime soon. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse but Relist, I'm not completely convinced by the sources here, but this plus the low amount of participation in the original discussion indicates it might be worth a closer look. No censure against the closing admin who did the best that they could with a rather limited discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
~~Relist~~ for further discussion. I do not think a new editor here should be penalized for not understanding our instructions, but the relist would have probably been much simpler if they had done so. The fault is probably ours, in writing instructions so complicated that the essential parts are not included. Notifying the user would have helped also in the original discussion, and again the fault is ours in not requiring it. It should be grounds for an automatic relist unless the matter is so obvious that it would be a valid speedy. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Unacceptable AfD discussion. No notifications, notifications if not mandatory should be mandatory. The nominator should be discounted as a WP:SPA and per WP:DUCK. No disrespect to John Pack Lambert, but his !vote is not strong enough to carry the poor discussion. Has WP:BEFORE been followed? Has anyone reviewed the seven sources? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We judge things at DRV based on what the rules are, not what we'd like them to be. If you want to make notification mandatory, I suggest starting a discussion at the Village Pump. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
It is required to have a sufficient discussion. Holding a discussion in secret, with next to no participants, and no one to speak for stakeholders, is unacceptable. As a rule, notification should be mandatory. Sometimes, there are exception, that is why it is not technically required, the nominator is allowed to make some judgement, WP:NOTHERE authors do not need to be notified, for example. In this case, the single edit DUCK has obviously not decided with good judgement. I consider notification mandatory, with exceptions, and failure to notify a pretty good reason to overturn a discussion as defective. If the policy pages don't say that, then they are failing to document good practice and should be ignored or fixed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to seek to gather a consensus to change policy so that it says that. And there was a banner on the article for north of three weeks – not seeing anything "secret" there. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I'm deliberately not saying overturn, because that would imply the close was bad, which would be an overstatement. I probably would have closed this as WP:SOFTDELETE due to the minimal discussion (not just in number of comments, but in lack of depth of the arguments). The lack of notification to the author, incorrect listing, and nomination by a WP:SPA are all factors. Rather than arguing the fine points of wiki-policy, the best thing would be to just reopen the existing disucssion and see if we can get a cleaner consensus one way or the other. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note See Template talk:Afd top#Protected edit request proposal. Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that not only was the article creator not notified, the AfD template post on the article page has no edit summary, diff. These are both components of gaming the system to avoid the attention of those perceived as potential opponents. Of course, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Should someone start an SPI for the AFD nom? If it is started, I don't see it. Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: I'm not so sure about who the master would be. I'm not sure if we can report to SPI without a potential sock master being found, unless you can report to SPI without a master, and CU can check whether the user is a sock or not. I have left a sock puppetry warning on the nominator's talk page. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually considered opening an SPI, since clearly it's somebody's account, but I'm not sure there's enough disruption or evidence here to justify a checkuser, so I didn't. Would not object if you want to open a case though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I'm happy to open an SPI. Considering I have been dealing with quite a few sock masters and vandals (for example Profile101), however this sock doesn't show that much evidence that would make it obvious . Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 07:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to Incubate IAR There are multiple problems here, one of which is that we have no explanation of the close. The closer didn't need to know that the deletion nomination was bad faith, since the nomination provided no evidence of a problem that needed the attention of the community. As per WP:ATA, WP:JNN fails to explain why the topic is non-notable. The other !vote was also a WP:JNN so had no evidence and no explanation of why. Further, WP:NOQUORUM calls for WP:SOFTDELETE in AfDs such as this one.
As for a relist, the AfD community has already worked on this AfD for three full weeks, so why are they supposed to return to the grindstone to do more work here? Overturn speedy keep WP:NPASR is possible, but the OP reports above that he expected more help with the article than he got, and of the three sources provided here one is primary, and one is an interview, and interviews are a mix of primary and secondary. Since the OP wants to do more work on the article, incubate IAR is a path forward. Unscintillating (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have opened an SPI case for Ascar123; the relevant link is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ascar123. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn on the basis of an insufficient discussion, brought about at least in part by a failure of notification. We should require it. One way in which we can require it is by overturning afd closes where there was not notification -- the rules at WP are made as much by what we do as what we say. DelRev is the place where we interpret the deletion policy, and we can and should interpret it by recognizing that the rule doesn't require it because there can be special cases with a good reason , but in all ordinary cases it should be required. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck second !vote. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it more appropriate to strike the first !vote. <smile>--SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @DGG: Since overturn and relist are not duplicates, this is not an obvious situation to strike the "second" !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes it is. Unless actions are binding and irrevocable, a second action overrides the first. Your latest will overrides all previous wills, for example. Usually, we strike second !votes but usually the second !vote is identicle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either overturn or relist would do. Seeing the trend of the discussion, I now think Overturn would make the stronger statement about the need to notify in normal situations. Stifle, this is where we interpret deletion policy. About the 2nd !vote, SmokeyJoe has it exactly right, and I've marked things accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either overturn or relist is fine, but you do not get two !votes, and neither does anyone else. I've struck your first one as you prefer overturn; leaving it unstruck would give an erroneous impression that the position (overturn/relist both being !votes that the status quo should not stand) has more support than it actually does. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relist for further discussion if there are now people who are willing to discuss. The closer hasn't done anything wrong, nor has the lister – if anyone wants to change the rules, you know where WP:VP is; in the meantime we apply the rules as they are not what we would like them to be – but there is also a reminder that if the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point I am not enthused to modify written rules. The fine detail is nuanced, hard to write, and lengthy rules have strong disadvantages. This sort of case is fairly rare, DRV doesn't see it often. Everyone pretty much agrees, but with different words. Although I do thing you are going easy on the lister. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. If all the nominator says is "just not notable" and the single !vote says "just not notable", that shouldn't be a sufficient basis for AFD deletion. If the closer had declared a soft/PROD-type delete, I could have lived with that; either no consensus or keep (no actual argument for deletion provided) would have been appropriate closes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is it possible the article talk page can be restored too (with all the relevant WikiProjects which were on it before deletion) or do we have to wait for the outcome of this discussion? Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 13:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 February 2017

Draft:Bott–Samelson resolution – Restore. The general consensus is that the very fact that people are objecting to it, means WP:G6 didn't apply because it's not uncontroversial. Also, the arguments to endorse are basically, it's not useful, but nobody's argued that it does any actual harm. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

We don't delete a redirect from the draft space to the mainspace. -- Taku (talk)

So put it back? Redirects are cheap and draft->mainspace is OK, while mainspace->draft is not, but the likelihood that this needs a whole DRV discussion is pretty low. I bet if you asked, the deleting admin was just doing cleanup under G6 and would be fine with it being reinstated if someone actually wanted it. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, it's a bad speedy and the deleting admin should never have done this. And just recreating it would likely have resulted in the same outcome. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore speedy was off base. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought this would be a clear overturn, so I didn't go into detail. My bad. Basic theme: there is no speedy criteria this meets, which is likely why a G6 was used. G6 isn't a license to delete just anything, and as soon as there is a reasonable objection made, it should be restored. Plus, I believe the deleting admin and the user in question have had a number of non-positive interactions to the point I don't think "uncontroversial" is ever likely to be a good description of events. I'm not going to argue INVOLVED, but "uncontroversial" it isn't. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there's really no reason for this redirect to exist. The only reason we usually keep redirects that are the result of page moves is in case there are incoming links from outside Wikipedia, the chances of that for a page in draft space are essentially nil. Hut 8.5 22:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Unclear. If someone had linked to it off site, then the redirect is really useful. That said, redirects like this are allowed and really shouldn't be speedied. IAR is great and all, but I don't have a clue how deleting this _helps_. Hobit (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, I don't think deleting these things in a particularly good use of anyone's time, but we've already wasted far longer disputing the deletion. Hut 8.5 19:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. The speedy deletion rationale was "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup". Because the speedy deletion of the redirect has been contested, the speedy deletion is not "non-controversial", so it should be undone. Cunard (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, unlikely link target. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per Cunard. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 February 2017

Skyroof – Recreate as redirect. No prejudice against bringing this to RfD, as suggested by at least one participant here. As a side comment, this seems like a huge amount of effort over something s simple as a redirect, but whatever. – -- RoySmith (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link to RfD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 24#Skyroof. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Since George Ho requested an redirect at WP:AFC/R. Should be recreated as an redirect? KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we redirect one particular brand of automobile sunroof to the generic term? The The AFC/R says it's a synonymous term, but it's a brand. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that there are multiple other companies with the same name, not to mention half a dozen (at least) cafes and restaurants. No, this needs to remain red. Black Kite (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many words that are used in company names (e.g. "Mart", "Market", "Pizzeria", even the words "Cafe" and "Restaurant" themselves) but which still have a generic meaning separate from any specific company. This is an example of such a word, and as such, it should redirect to the generic meaning. —Lowellian (reply) 10:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent link to George Ho's request at WP:AFC/R, where he provided three sources: [13][14][15]. Cunard (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose populating mainspace with tradename redirects. "Skyroof" is not a topic covered at the proposed target, it is merely mentioned. This is not enough for a redirect. The wikipedia search engine more than suffices. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about sky roof, which currently redirects to sunroof? George Ho (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There are too many redirects. They used to be helpful, when the Wikipedia search engine was no good, but that was almost 10 years ago. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect title, allow creation of the redirect, and list at WP:RFD. The full create protection reasoning was "Excessive spamming" after promotional articles had been repeatedly recreated at the title. The page was not protected because of the repeated recreations of a redirect.
Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting says:
However, avoid deleting such redirects if:
5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do.
Because an experienced editor believes a redirect would be useful, I support unprotecting the title to allow the creation of the redirect.
Discussion about whether a redirect is suitable belongs at WP:RFD, not WP:DRV. WP:DRV should consider arguments about the suitability of a redirect only when an WP:RFD resulted in the deletion of the page (from Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose, "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page"). Note that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 4#Skyroof → Sunroof was closed as "NA" because the article was restored and sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyroof.
Cunard (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 4#Skyroof → Sunroof,
the AfD nominator Lowellian (talk · contribs) supported retention of the redirect of Skyroof to Sunroof:
Delete and redirect. The article about the trademarked Skyroof should be deleted, as the product is non-notable, and "skyroof" is used in casual speech as an alternative term for general sunroofs. The redirect to sunroof should be kept, as the two terms are sometimes confused.
That the AfD nominator supported a redirect indicates there is a good chance that Skyroof would pass an WP:RFD even though it was deleted at AfD.
Cunard (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate as redirect. The original AFD decision to delete was for the spam/promotional article that then-existed at that time. It was not an AFD decision to delete the later redirect, which was created after the deletion of the spam/promo article. The deletion of the redirect was a unilateral action taken afterwards by another editor, without any AFD discussion or even PRODing the page to allow for discussion. Skyroof is used in common speech as a synonym for sunroof, and as such should redirect to sunroof. —Lowellian (reply) 10:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that is true. A sunroof is a ceiling window in a car. A skyroof is a big ceiling window in a building. A similar thing is the skylight, which is a small window in a building roof. The wanted redirect is not right for typical English, and only matches one trade name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion of the redirect was a unilateral action taken afterwards by another editor, without any AFD discussion or even PRODing the page to allow for discussion. – I was unaware that a redirect was created after the AfD was closed as "delete". The deletion summary ("courtesy deletion of nn term") is not a valid speedy deletion criterion, so I support overturning the speedy deletion and restoring the original redirect that had been created in 2008 rather than creating a new redirect.
  Cunard (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
recreate redirect Skyroof and moonroof appear to be common names for a sunroof? A Google search gets enough hits it seems like a reasonable redirect ([16]). No objection at all to a RfD. Hobit (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Discount the trademark capitalised Skyroof, look at lower case skyroof, on google, but more importantly on Wikipedia, and the picture is very different. The redirect relies on a bad assumption. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you are likely correct, but this doesn't feel like a thing that DRV should be making the call on. I'd rather allow the redirect and let RfD sort it out. But I'll admit I don't think it matters much. Hobit (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skyroof and moonroof appear to be common names for a sunroof? – Hobit (talk · contribs), yes, you are correct that "skyroof" is a common name for a "sunroof". I found sources discussing cars from Nissan, General Motors, Audi, and Honda that either use the terms interchangeably or note that the automobile manufacturer uses "skyroof" in place of "sunroof".
The sources confirm that Lowellian (talk · contribs) is correct that "Skyroof is used in common speech as a synonym for sunroof".

Here are sources about "skyroof" and "sunroof":
1. "Meet Nissan's cultured 4x4". North Yorkshire County Publications. 2001-09-28. Archived from the original on 2017-02-17. Retrieved 2017-02-17.
  The article notes:
  One of the reasons people buy a four-by-four is for its high-drive position, and the X-Trail offers this together with plenty of glass for all-round viewing. Also every model has a powered sunroof (Nissan prefers to use the word "skyroof" presumably feeling the word "sun" is over-stepping the mark in this country), and it is bigger than most.
  This demonstrates that automobile manufacturer Nissan has used "skyroof" to refer to "sunroof".
2. Automotive Engineering International, Volume 110. SAE International. 2002. p. 32. Retrieved 2017-02-17.
  The book notes:
  ... included the new, scaled-down "son of Hummer," the H2 SUV with a 6.0L V8 that is slated for production (see earlier story). It has a reconfigurable passenger rear bulkhead to extend the load area. Its sunroof (called a skyroof) is GM's biggest ever.
  This demonstrates that automobile manufacturer General Motors (GM) has used "skyroof" to refer to "sunroof".
3. Parmar, Neil (2012-12-29). "Supersizing the sunroof". MarketWatch. Archived from the original on 2017-02-17. Retrieved 2017-02-17.
  The article notes:
  The sunroof is rising again, and this time the views are bigger than ever.
  ...
  Car makers market them with a multitude of names: Ford advertises its “multipanel vista roof,” while Audi pushes its “dual-pane open sky roof system”—with a wind deflector to minimize noise. The Mercedes-Benz sunroof, which lets drivers darken or lighten the glass at the press of a button, is dubbed “magic sky control.”
  This demonstrates that automobile manufacturer Audi has used "skyroof" to refer to "sunroof".
4. Shimizu, Kaho (2005-04-08). "Honda hopes compact wagon debut snaps slide". The Japan Times. Archived from the original on 2017-02-17. Retrieved 2017-02-17.
  The article notes:
  Honda Motor Co. said Thursday it will start selling its first compact station wagon this week.
  The Airwave features a so-called sky roof that measures 1.1 meters × 77 cm ...
  ...
  The sunroof has an electric sunshade that opens and closes in three stages. The roof itself does not open.
  ...
  Although not many vehicle models have sunroofs in Japan, Honda said they are gaining in popularity in Europe. It believes sunroofs will also catch on in Japan.
  “I think we can appeal to customers,” as the versions with a sky roof cost 100,000 yen more than those without, Dobashi said.
  The article uses "sky roof" and "sunroof" interchangeably.
  This demonstrates that automobile manufacturer Honda has used "skyroof" to refer to "sunroof".
5. Simister, John (2002-03-09). "Motoring: This is no deckchair on wheels". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2017-02-17. Retrieved 2017-02-17.
  The article notes:
  Did you ever hanker after a Citroen 2CV? You may not have longed for its lolloping ride, its meagre pace or a crashworthiness on a level with that of a damp cardboard box, but that happy, curvy shape and that roll-right-back sunroof did help make motoring a refreshingly unserious activity. And now, in 2002, it's time for the updated, reconfigured remake.
  Citroen, once again tuning into its history of innovation and auto-icon creation, is perfectly placed to exploit today's hunger for individualism. The 2CV is not mentioned by name in any of the verbiage that supports the introduction of the new C3, but the visual reference is clear. This time, however, the open-to-the-sky roof is optional and made of glass.
  The article uses "sky roof" and "sunroof" interchangeably.
6. Toljagic, Mark (2011-11-19). "Audi Q7 owners both rant and rave". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2017-02-17. Retrieved 2017-02-17.
  The article notes:
  In the case of this driver of a 2007 Audi Q7 sport utility, a leaking sunroof, electrical glitches, a broken armrest, big fuel bills and a weird MMI controller that flits between languages were enough to sour the experience.
  ...
  Sunroof leaks can wreak havoc with the Q7's electronics - entire instrument panels have gone dark - and the multi-panel skyroof may jam on occasion, too.
7. Torpey, Mike (2002-03-22). "On the X-Trail for success". Liverpool Echo. Archived from the original on 2017-02-17. Retrieved 2017-02-17.
  The article notes:
  Pull back a cover and something Nissan calls a Skyroof is revealed – definitely one of the best sunroofs around.
8. Lennox, Graeme; Steele, Liz (2004-06-06). "X-TRAIL NOW HAS EXTRA HORSE POWER - Our top test team track down a 4x4 that has it all good looks, competitive price, quiet diesel engine and it packs a powerful performance, too". Daily Record. Archived from the original on 2017-02-17. Retrieved 2017-02-17.
  The article notes:
  The X-Trail's 'skyroof' is double the size of a conventional sunroof. The whole cabin is flooded with light.
9. Grodnik, Jim (2003-07-18). "2004 Maxima joins the Nissan revolution". San Mateo County Times. Archived from the original on 2017-02-17. Retrieved 2017-02-17.
  The article notes:
  Another innovation - more of a novelty, really - is the "skyroof," which is standard equipment on all Maximas. It's a long, narrow strip of glass over both the front and back seats. Not really a sunroof - it can't be opened - but it does have a sliding, two-part front and rear cover. A standard sunroof is also available.

Cunard

talk

09:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

[reply]

These uses derive from the tradename for a particular early sunroof. No denying that these uses occur, but skyroof is also used, unrelated to the tradename for an sunroof, for large ceiling windows in buildings. This non-trademark ceiling window use preceded the trademark and is unrelated to sunroof, a term specific to automobiles. The redirect is therefore inappropriate. Readers may instead be looking for skylight. Anyone arriving at the title "skyroof" is better served by the Wikipedia search engine, which yields a selection of both uses. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The common use of skyroof is to refer to sunroof, which has been amply demonstrated in this discussion by multiple citations by multiple users, while no common usage for the term to refer to skylight has been demonstrated. Furthermore, even if common usage of skyroof to refer to skylight were to be demonstrated, in that case, a redlink for skyroof would still be inappropriate. Instead, in that case, either skyroof should redirect to sunroof with a hatlink indicating an alternate usage to refer to skylight, or skyroof should be made a disambiguation page listing both sunroof and skylight. Either way, skyroof should not be a redlink. —Lowellian (reply) 11:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete/resurrect the redirect revision to sunroof. Sources interchange both terms. Best to do so for the benefit of Wikipedia. George Ho (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the target article might need some improvements, but that's a different issue. George Ho (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. The posited redirect is completely inaccurate - a generic skyroof is a panoramic window in a building, not a car. Why do we want to give readers inaccurate information, apart from promoting a particular car brand? Meanwhile, Skyroof (capitalised "S") is a single trade name for a car sunroof, but shares its name with dozens of other companies making everything from sunroofs to skylights to unmbrellas, garden parasols, astronomy software and even air conditioning. Meanwhile there are also dozens of cafes, bars and restaurants with the same name. Many of these are going to be notable - what happens when, inevitably, someone writes an article about one? Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first point, there is nothing inaccurate about this information. Multiple citations from multiple users have demonstrated that a skyroof is used as a synonym for sunroof, while skyroof has not been demonstrated to be used as a common synonym for skylight. Furthermore, even if common usage of skyroof to refer to skylight were to be demonstrated, in that case, a redlink for skyroof would still be inappropriate. Instead, in that case, either skyroof should redirect to sunroof with a hatlink indicating an alternate usage to refer to skylight, or skyroof should be made a disambiguation page listing both sunroof and skylight. Either way, skyroof should not be a redlink. Regarding the second point, there is no notable company known as "skyroof". The word may used within the names of other companies; however, not only has no such company been demonstrated in this discussion as notable, but there are also many words that are used in company names (e.g. "Mart", "Market", "Pizzeria", even the words "Cafe" and "Restaurant" themselves) which still have a generic meaning separate from any specific company. This is an example of such a word, and as such, it should redirect to the generic meaning. —Lowellian (reply) 01:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is {{R from incorrect name}}. George Ho (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's for redirects that are either common typos of common names (i.e. Antartic Treaty), with alternative capitalisation, with ligatures or other non-standard spelling, or from US postal abbreviations (i.e. Albany, CA) none of which are relevant to the subject in hand. Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~You mean~~ What about {{R from misspelling}} and/or {{R from miscapitalisation}}? George Ho (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC); edited. 21:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These particular redirect templates are not relevant, since skyroof, as a common synonym, is not an incorrect name, misspelling, or miscapitalization. —Lowellian (reply) 01:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 February 2017

Scientists' March on Washington – Nomination withdrawn. My notions appear unlikely to gain support here. Plus, DGG has stated "the proper course is to just improve it further and move it back", so essentially, after some improvements, the article could be moved back to main namespace. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I propose for this AfD discussion closure to be overturned to a no consensus result. Per the overall arguments presented in the discussion, this is the most accurate outcome. Of note is that while the delete and drafity !voters have their points, many later !votes in the discussion were consistently for retaining the article in main namespace, and the draftify !votes are actually a minority in the discussion. Furthermore, the topic has continued to receive significant coverage in reliable sources, such as in Time, Voice of America, The Washington Post, and others.

Muboshgu queried the closer about the article being draftified to Draft:Scientists' March on Washington, but the closer stated that the intent of their close was for the article to be improved (diff). However, consensus in the discussion does not support this close. Ultimately, a no consensus closure is the most accurate relative to the discourse that occurred in the overall discussion.

As an unrelated side note, it's also ironic that after the Trump administration placed a gag order on the EPA, a basis for the upcoming event, that this article was then draftified, where nobody will see, edit or improve it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about taking this to deletion review, or just doing a little work on the draft and moving it back to article space. Hadn't gotten around to either yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this is here. I closed according to the consensus, that it needed further work, not deletion. Some small changes have been made. The proper course is to just improve it further and move it back. I didn't protect against re-creation. No admin action is needed. Northamerica1000 you didn't even ask me before bringing it here. If you think the current version is sufficiently NPOV and meets the objections at the afd, then bring it back and see whether it is nominated again. I don't actually advise it without further work, for it has an unambiguous one-sided political tone, making the implication that every decent person would support this action. It is immaterial whether or not I or any one of us, or even all of us, agree with that political statement. WP is not the place to meet it. We don't praise good people and things and politics; we just give the information about them, expecting that the readers will come to their own conclusions. There's no need to slant an article towards the right side, even the obviously right side. The only way WP has a political position is our devotion to free information--that's information, not advocacy. To the extent that events in public life make this difficult, it's appropriate for the WMF to defend our mission. It's not to be done by biasing our encyclopedia articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: I just feel that a no consensus close is the most accurate relative to the overall commentary that transpired. Since another user (Muboshgu) already discussed the matter with you, and you stood by leaving the article in draft namespace (diff), I just took this directly to DRV. Next time I'll discuss more first. Users opining for draftification are a minority within the discussion, and upon a close reading of the discussion, only one !vote for moving to user space stated that the article should be improved ("It can come back to mainspace when there is 1.) a firm date. 2.) a parade permit 3.) ongoing, significant coverage. As present, this is an idea in gestation"). None of the other draftify !votes state anything about draftifying so it can be improved at all, just that it's essentially "too soon" for an article. However, many users opined for the article to be retained and main namespace, and the draftification result comes across as discounting the rationales presented by the many keep !voters in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. A fairly rough a consensus, and a better close would have included a detailed rationale for such a well contested question, and another admin might have called"no consensus", but it is within admin discretion. The topic is inherently problematic because it is speculative future. Unlike the the 2020 presidential reaction, this march may not occur. People pointing to "coverage" were pointing to coverage of speculation, which is not reliable for the event. The draft's first reference "Are scientists going to march on Washington?" begins "The next big march on Washington could flood the Mall with scientists. It's an idea spawned on Reddit ..." Many of the "keep" !votes reflected the speculative sourced content "Keep, especially since details continue to emerge" & "Keep unless some announcement to cancel the march comes out. With something this likely, deletion just gives someone the chore of rewriting it". These severely weaken the "keep" arguments and fit squarely with the draftify close. Actual verified (not speculative) content can be added to Protests_against_Donald_Trump#Planned_protests. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe: I don't view the keep !votes as weakened at all, because new and copious coverage in reliable sources indeed continues to occur (e.g. "especially since details continue to emerge"), and the event is virtually certain to occur. Note some examples below of more recent coverage.

Here's a recent article from Vox published on February 7, 2017: "Scientists are going to march on Washington. Here’s why that’s awkward". Notice the wording in the title, "...are going to"].
Here's an article from Science published on February 1: "On 22 April, empiricists around the country will march for science". Note "...will march" in the title.
From MedCity News on February 8: "On Earth Day, get ready for scientists’ march on Washington". Note "...on Earth Day" in the title.
Here's an article from DCist published on February 2: "The Scientists' March On Washington Has A Date: Earth Day". Note "...has a date" in the title. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Moving the work to draft space and putting a redirect in to an appropriate article is a proper result, given the consensus. While it might technically meet WP:CRYSTAL with the RS coverage, there seems to be a very low bar for getting political protest press releases into the news right now. Jclemens (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – As mentioned by several editors in the discussion, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for political events, no matter how well-intentioned. We are also not a place to right great wrongs. Sure, it's likely that this event will happen and get some traction, but comparing it to the scheduled 2020 presidential election or 2020 Olympic Games is like comparing apples to dwarf planets. It is particularly troubling to see some commenters argue that Wikipedia *must* cover such political activism even before it happens. Recently we saw the List of 2017 Women's March locations blatantly using Wikipedia as an advertising platform complete with the detailed calendar of all planned protest in hundreds of places and calls to meet at 9:30 sharp; this trend is not healthy for anyone. We are writing a neutral encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a pamphlet. A few lines in the Planned protests section of the Protests against Donald Trump article are sufficient. But ironically, the entry about the Scientists' March was recently removed from there, citing the non-partisan nature of this march.[17] — JFG ^talk 09:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 February 2017

10 February 2017

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 America East Conference men's soccer season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1978 VCU Rams men's soccer team – "Delete" closures endorsed. – Sandstein 21:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Fenix down closed the discussion the day after it was relisted "more thorough discussion and clearer consensus", when no one had yet commented. He also closed it on the basis that "Claims below that the articles pass WP:NSEASONS are erroneous" when no one mentioned that in the debate. No one said it passed WP:NSEASONS either, if you read the wording closely. I'd suggest Feix down either comment on the open debate, and we have a discussion, or marks it as no consensus. The same can easily be said for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1978 VCU Rams men's soccer team. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the closing admin, please see the detailed closure rationales I provided both here and here. However, I will deal with specific points here:

Relisting does not guarantee a specific additional length of time for discussion, had I looked at either AfD prior to the previous admin extending, I would have closed with the same rationale.
AfD is not a vote. Per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any).
It is clear from both instances that the claims that both series of articles fail WP:NSEASONS and WP:EVENT, and hence WP:GNG are correct and no significant rebuttal was put forth. I outlined this clearly in my closing rationale but will go into more detail here
NSEASONS failure. There are five criteria by which an individual college season may be notable per NSEASONS:

A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable: In none of these seasons did either program participate, let alone win in the NCAA Div I championship
A national championship season at a lower collegiate level might be notable: these programs are NCAA Div I, so this is not relevent
A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable.: In none of these seasons did either program qualify for the NCAA Div 1 Championship
For programs considered elite in a sport (e.g. Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, in men's basketball; Tennessee and UConn in women's basketball; Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC in football, etc.) many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome (the amount written by reliable sources on a weekly basis for some of these programs is enough that almost anything or anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline): Neither program is included in this listing, the fact that in none of the seasons up for discussion did either program reach the NCAA Div I championship indicates that there is no merit in claiming that they should be.
In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article: this is not a relevant argument for the keeping of individual season articles

It is clear then that all articles fail NSEASONS.

The other argument put forward was that they pass WP:EVENT. Firstly it is questionable whether a sporting season can be considered an event. Let us assume that it can for arguments sake. In every instance then articles must satisfy WP:EVENTCRIT, essentially satisfying GNG. In no instance did an article contain any sourcing that was not drawn directly from primary sources, either the college themselves, or the conference. No indication was given in any article or either AfD that any season had gained significant, reliable coverage in independent sources. There is therefore nothing to indicate passing wP:EVENT and therefore nothing to indicate passing WP:GNG.
It should also be noted that this was only brought here after I, observed the correct course of action to the editor above and had had cause to CSD a number of immediate recreations. Fenix down (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link above doesn't go anywhere. Will the nominator please fix the malformed listing or indicate which precise decision is being challenged?
Note that per WP:RELIST a relisted discussion may be closed as soon as there is consensus rather than waiting an extra 7 days. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked to both discussions in my explanation of my actions. I will leave it to the nominator to fix their own errors. Fenix down (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - as someone who !voted 'delete' in the original discussion, there is no argument for keeping these than WP:ILIKEIT and the close was good. Giant Snowman 18:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - As explained above, the procedural argument is clearly without merit. Given that WP:NSEASON is the applicable guideline here, I find no fault the close rationale. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the explanation provided here by the closing admin. ZettaComposer (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist both this and the VCU Rams AfD. The closing admin should interpret existing consensus in the discussion. If the consensus is not clear, the proper thing to do is cast a !vote, not shut down the discussion. Even if the closing admin throws out all the keep !votes (which he did), there is hardly a clear consensus for deletion in either AfD and there was no reason to shut down the VCU Rams discussion shortly after it had been relisted for the first time. Lepricavark (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist both America East, Big West and VCU: WP:NSEASONS works both ways, and I think there is a legitimate arguments that VCU could be a program "considered elite in a sport". This is obviously subjective, but in my eyes, a team that has made a deep run before, and is regularly ranked, as well as a team that has produced professionals, which VCU's program meets – is enough to be considered "elite" in the sport. Also seasons where a team is ranked can meet WP:SEASONS. These arguments were discussed and brought up, but not only ignored, quickly thrown aside. Furthermore the America East and Big West seasons had ranked teams that had "elite" seasons and had teams make the NCAA Tournament, a postseason tournament which meets WP:GNG and ~~WP:SEASONS~~ WP:NSEASON. Twwalter (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Twwalter: WP:NSEASONS gives specific examples of elite programs in a specific sport. Each example listed has multiple Division I national championships, the lowest total being the Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team with 3. All of these programs have had a prolonged history of excellence. As such in my opinion, VCU Rams men's soccer does not nearly qualify as "elite" by those parameters / examples as they've appeared just 4 times in their history past the 1st round of their NCAA competition and have never made the Final Four. To your point, it is to an extent subjective, but it becomes much more clear when compared to the examples given. GauchoDude (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist I am also concerned that the discussion was closed based on arguments made by the closing admin, that weren't discussed in the AFD. Closing Admin should have commented in the discussion, and left a non-involved admin to close. Nfitz (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the Keep !votes in the first AfD were completely irrelevant to policy, the second one I would have closed as Redirect but in any event that means they don't remain as stand-alone articles. WP:NSEASON is relevant. Black Kite (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it is clear to me that @Fenix down: is misinterpreting WP:NSEASONS per the explanations and the notability criteria provided by @Twwalter:, and is incorrectly interpreting a consensus for deletion per @Nfitz: and @Lepricavark:. Quidster4040 (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Quidster4040:, I don't think that's fair to blanket Fenix down as misinterpreting, more so just a mere disagreement. Fenix has a fair rationale on WP:NSEASON, but can be interpreted differently, like myself. Neither of us are incorrect or necessarily correct. There's fair argument on both ends, so I think it's totally fair game to reopen the discussion as there is no consensus. Twwalter (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. There are two arguments presented here for overturning the close, and both are erroneous. The first revolves around the timing of the close giving the relists, however both discussions had been open for well over the minimum required amount of time, and there is no minimum amount of time a discussion must remain open after a relist. To be honest, the closer deserves a barnstar for decisively ending the discussion rather than letting the can be kicked down the road as is a depressingly common outcome these days. The second argument revolves around an interpretation of WP:NSEASONS, but I don't see Fenix down's call as being contentious or indefensible enough to justify overturning. Other "Keep" arguments in the original discussions were not based on policy and were correctly disregarded. These were "brave" closes, but also quite well within the administrator's discretion to make. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse- Reasonable close based on policy and weight of argument. Reyk _YO! 00:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Per the policy in place, a legitimate close. I commend Fenix down for judging based on strength of argument and policy. GauchoDude (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist: Per Twwalter. Cobyan02069 (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and barnstar. Correct and courageous close, weighting arguments appropriately by how much they were based in policy. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse correct close. and I amglad to havethe opportuity of completely agreeing with Stifle here.... DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Fenix down made the correct choice to close and followed the policy correctly. Spiderone 14:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Life-Link Friendship Schools – No Consensus (so the original AfD decision stands). Opinion is pretty evenly split between, The promotional issues were fixed, and, Even if the promotional issues were fixed, it's still not notable. My suggestion is that if somebody believes a good article could be written about this subject, please write a draft at Draft:Link Friendship Schools and try the WP:AFC route. Please note that from what I'm reading here, it's not obvious that meeting WP:N will be easy, but anybody is welcome to give it a go in draft space and we might be pleasantly surprised. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

It was argued that there are no reliable, in-depth and independent sources since 2007, about Life-Link Friendship schools. I would like to point out that there are in fact multiple sources, also after 2007. In 2009, Marcus Nilsson has written about the influence of an action in Jordan (Here). The Anna Lindh Foundation mentioned and promotes the Life-Link network via their website (Anna Lindh foundation). Sigtunaskolan Humanistiska Läroverket (SSHL) has published an interview on their website with the founder (Hans Levander) of Life-Link in 2013 (Here). They also published a post about the Life-Link conference in 2014 (Here). Additionally, different youtube videos related to Life-Link are still present on the world wide web: aftermovie of the conference in 2014 (Here), presence of Hans Levander on the UNESCO world conference in 2009, posted by Youth Leader Magazine(Here) Hvthiene (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relist the advertising issues seem to have been resolved by HighKing and he seemed to think this might have enough sourcing. I think delete was premature for that discussion given that advertising was the main deletion issue and someone fixed it. (I can't see the article, so it may be that it's still overly promotional, but knowing HighKing that seems unlikely). Add in the sources listed above, and I think we have plenty to discuss at the AfD. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist further discussion would be ideal, especially since the promotional concerns were addressed. Lepricavark (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy on request. I don't see the OP questioning the XfD, and I see no discussion with the closing admin; and while the XfD raises questions, those questions need not be answered. Unscintillating (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Highking did remove the puffery; bu tthe references he mentioned and the ones listed above give me no confidence about notability. Given the outrageous version in the history, I would not userify--there is no way it could be done that would both preserve attribution and not include blatant advertising. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the article deleted, i.e., what are you endorsing? Do you agree that all the objections of the first two delete !votes were resolved? Unscintillating (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse for the reasons given by DGG, which I adopt. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What was the close? Unscintillating (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse rewriting to remove advertising tone is a waste of time if notability simply isn't there, and if the above is a sample of our best sources for this org, it's pointless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion of notability. Your endorse is logically a "Relist so editors can consider notability". Unscintillating (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't object if there is a reason to refuse to userfy, as I'm not interested in seeing the article. But the OP should be given advice that since the article was not deleted for notability, there is no bar to re-creating the article from scratch, although YouTube is not in general a reliable publisher. Unscintillating (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 February 2017

Ryan Long (producer) – "Delete" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 21:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. When originally flagged for deletion over a year ago, the article had some minor claims to notoriety, mainly a Hollywood Reporter article, an article in Variety, and a Presspass LA Article. However, although the consensus at the time was to delete, a significant amount of new information was published regarding the subject of the article. Recently, there were two articles in the Huffington Post as well as another source from Variety, and a mention in The Hollywood Reporter in addition to the previous mentions. There is also an article in Forbes which prominently mentions Ryan Long and numerous articles dedicated to his work (although not explicitly mentioning him). There are many other news articles related to Long that can be found online as well as a mention at the United Nation’s NOVUS summit last summer. These updated sources overwhelmingly push the article over the GNG threshold. DrSangChi (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of the six sources listed, sources 1 and 2 are contributor posts, not Huffington Post articles, and thus the equivalent of blog posts. Sources 3 and 4 are the identical press release, which is about an event and only has a quote from Long, saying nothing about him personally. I can't get to Forbes, as they block adblockers. Oh, and I don't see where he's mentioned in text in the UN link--a pointer to where in which presentation he's mentioned would be helpful to evaluate that. Jclemens (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The Forbes article is a single mention with no details. Hobit (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It reviews the event and credits Long as the producer. The direct quote is, "City Gala 2016 and its producer Ryan Long didn't disappoint in terms of glitz and glam." DrSangChi (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. I'd say that's a single mention with no details, but YMMV. Hobit (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like what has happened is that the subject has been mentioned several more times in reliable published sources... But it also appears that he has yet to be the subject of meaningful discussion in such sources, making the use of terms like "overwhelming" somewhat less than convincing in this instance (WP:CLEARLY). KDS4444 (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the sources provided above do not address the issues raised by those who !voted delete in the AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if it's not clear from my comments above. Hobit (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse while there is new material, it's just mentions, nothing in-depth that we could use to build a biography article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just regarding the two Huffpo articles above. Those articles include biographical information and are not self published sources as they are written by official Huffington Post contributors and published by Huffington Post. According to WP:BLPSPS, "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." DrSangChi (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the disclaimer that appears on each one, "This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site." These can't be used as sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 February 2017

7 February 2017

Vardan Sholinian – AfD reopened by Someguy1221 and closed by Od Mishehu as delete. (non-admin closure) – — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I do not think this was closed properly. It was not deleted but the whole debate has been rife with SPA's (I am loath to yell for SPI) and it was followed by a non-admin closure (also by a SPA). At the very least it was a controversial closure which should not be done via non-admin. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD has been reopened. I think the discussion can continue there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Roman Catholic Church – No consensus, closure maintained by default. Opinions are divided between endorsing because the closure reflected the discussion's consensus, and overturn because that consensus is deemed mistaken. I can't resolve this, ahem, ex cathedra. However, a renomination (or, as suggested, an RfC covering both article and category space) remains possible given the concerns that have been voiced. – Sandstein 21:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This closure 1/ overlooked the fact that the nominator's rationale misrepresented policy, 2/ ignored failure of the CFD to consider previous discussions, 3/ Failed to take previous discussions into account when closing.

The nominator's central rationale was the categories should have been speedily renamed per WP:C2D. Yet C2D is very clear that it "applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous, and uncontroversial". (emphasis added by me). Note that this wording appears to be unchanged from the version when the nomination was made.
The proposed new title was clearly ambiguous (see Catholic Church (disambiguation)), and the closer should have been very cautious when closing a discussion based on a nomination which so clearly misrepresented policy.
The nominator did not even mention the fact that the same proposal had been made at two previous CFDs where it was rejected overwhelmingly (2010, rejected 8:1; and 2011, rejected 7:1). The 2010 CFD was clearly linked from the category's talk page[18], and the previous CFDs are also evident in the category page's history.[19][20] and in what links here. It would not have been hard for the nominator to be make themselves aware of those discussions before launching a new one, and per WP:BEFORE#B4 they should have done so.
The nominator did not address the arguments made in those CFDs, or indicate what had changed since then, and I see no evidence of any attempt to notify previous participants (which is now easily done, thanks to {{ping}}).
The closer made no closing statement beyond the bare "rename all", so did not account for how they weighed the previous discussions in making their closure, or how the CFD being closed had addressed the arguments made in the previous discussions.

Consensus can change, but asking an already-settled question without considering previous discussions is a form of WP:FORUMSHOPping. When that question is asked again with a rationale which misrepresents policy, the closer should be wary of overturning a consensus reached in previous discussions with somewhat higher participation ... and do so only with a very clear rationale to justify whey they assess the flawed ab initio discussion as evidence that community consensus has indeed changed.

This decision relates to what may be the world's largest non-state organisational grouping, with many thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of en.wp categories. Much greater caution should have been applied in closing a discussion with such far-reaching impact on the encyclopedia.

I discussed this with the closing admin[21]. BU Rob13 was as ever open and civil, but we failed to reach agreement. Rob also felt that even if he took a different view, it would be wrong to revert any of his admin actions now that he had voluntarily relinquished his adminship. (I think that may be an overcautious view, but it is both reasonable and honourable).

I would like this closure to be overturned, so that a new discussion can reach a wider consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also this ongoing discussion. While not speculating on the final outcome of this discussion, I think it's clear that consensus has at least shifted. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It is notable that that currently-open discussion on sub-sub-cats is derived from a misrepresentation of WP:C2D (by ignoring the ambiguity issue), and also flawed by not mentioning the previous CFDs. I am unpersuaded that such a deficient CFD can be reliable indication of a change in consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closing admin. Responding to a few things: WP:C2D is a speedy rename criteria, and so its exceptions are intended to move ambiguous cases to a full discussion, as happened here. Applying the spirit of C2D at a full discussion (though not the criteria itself) is policy-based, in my opinion, and it has a lot of precedent. We also have to consider consensus on whether there's that much ambiguity here, not just personal thoughts on the matter. Potential for confusion was weighed by many supporting editors who came up with a reasonable view that there isn't much potential for confusion. Whether or not I agree with that view (I actually do not), it's not something I can discount as a neutral closer. The spirit behind WP:COMMONNAME was also invoked, and those arguments were similarly reasonable, although note that COMMONNAME itself does not apply to categories. I didn't include a closing statement because this close seemed very uncontroversial at the time, but I believe my interactions with BrownHairedGirl on my talk page satisfied the need for transparency, so that is not a rationale to overturn the close. I did see and take into account the past discussions, but they are so old that I don't feel particularly attached to them. I rarely put much weight on discussions that are many years old (unless they were true project-wide discussions with an incredible turnout). FORUMSHOP doesn't apply to reassessing an issue years after it was first discussed at the same venue it was originally discussed; that's just normal testing of WP:CCC. Other than that, I'll defer to the comments I made on my user talk page. I do not intend to participate further here unless pinged with a question. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that applying the spirit of C2D has many many precedents at CFD, but the purpose of the ambiguity exception is to trigger a full CFD to assess the claim of ambiguity.
  The nominator did not do that at all, and the first three !votes didn't do that at all. The 4th support consists of a blanket rejection in principle of ambiguity concerns, which contradicts policy that they should be considered. The first support which actually addresses the issue is the fifth support, which simply says in the absence of any reason to disambiguate here; that accepts the of principle that ambiguity should be considered, but ignores the evidence of ambiguity identified earlier by Oculi had not been mentioned. And that's it; there is no attempt by any of the support !voters to assess the ambiguity in this case. So there is actually nothing to discount; it's not there.
  Rob is also wrong to say that FORUMSHOP doesn't apply to the same venue; the policy is quite clear that it does apply. That just leaves the question of disregarding older discussions after a passage of time. I don't think there is any precise formula to weigh their relevance, but just as AFD lists previous discussions very prominently in a pull-out box, a CFD nomination should at least flag them up-front. In this case, half of the !votes to support were posted before there was any mention of previous discussion.
  Finally, Riob rightly cites WP:CCC, but it says Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. This discussion raised no new arguments, and made no attempt to reassess those which found consensus support on two previous occasions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Well. I suppose Catholic Church#Name and Roman Catholic (term), both extensively updated since the time of previous references, could give substantial indication of the consensus on Wikipedia (which I perceive is reflected in the current state). If somebody wishes to argue differently, I suppose gaining consensus for editing these two articles in other directions than their current state would make the task seem more serious. Chicbyaccident (talk)

Overturn – Catholic church is clearly ambiguous. There is Catholic Church (disambiguation) and also Category:Catholic denominations, not to mention Independent Catholicism, Catholics explicitly not in communion with Rome; and not to mention the Orthodox Catholic Church, with 200 million adherents. It is greatly surprising that the article has managed to drop 'Rome' without cries of outrage but there is no reason why the category should follow suit. Oculi (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, closure reflected consensus. DRV is not CFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. One of the purposes of Del Rev is to examine if a close is against policy, because closers are obliged to take account of the views supported by policy, not all views whatsoever.It may have followed consensus, but there's a good argument the consensus was against policy.. This needs to be discussed further. We need some mechanism for calling attend to the very few CfDs that pose broader questions, which are lost among the great number that do not., because otherwise people will not notice them--CfD is mainly attended by a few specialists. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, I can't fault the closer for the way they went given the discussion, but as wide ranging a change at this needs more input, especially given the decisive and much larger discussions in the past on the topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse closure reflected the consensus at CfD and while I'm sympathetic to DGG's views that CfD does not attract that many participants, I do not think relisitng would attract that many more uninvolved views. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Strong arguments in the discussion were WP:C2D, the parent article is at Catholic Church, and the category contains "catholic church" things other than "Roman catholic church" things. Another very strong point is that CfD does not attract diverse participants. This is half the reason why categories should defer titling decisions to parent articles. Consequently, I suggest that BHG open an RfC at Talk:Catholic Church, probably to pose the question of whether to rename the article and dependent categories to Roman Catholic Church. Personally, I feel inclined to support a move of Catholic Church (disambiguation) to the base name, asserting that there is no PrimaryTopic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As far as I can see, the correct close was made. Number 5 7 13:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IAR talk about it some more. Looking at the XfD, it seems clear to me that the close correctly reflects the discussion. So, I guess that means endorse. But, after reading User:BrownHairedGirl's arguments, I can't help thinking that it's still the wrong result. I support SmokeyJoe's suggestion of starting an RfC to discuss it further. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @RoySmith: I think that the question of whether the close correctly reflects the discussion depends on two questions: 1/ whether each discussion should be treated as a tabula rasa, without regard to previous discussions, 2/ whether a discussion based on a misrepresentation of policy amounts to a valid consensus. Regardless of the substantive merits of this particular case, it still strikes me as a very bad precedent to treat a discussion on that basis as a valid consensus.
  My main concern is that there should somehow be a broad consensus on the substantive issue, and if an RFC is the way to do that, then that's fine by me, and WP:IAR may be a good principle to get us there. But I would still be sad to see a CFD done in this way being upheld, because it seems to me to be storing up trouble for the future. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Daniel A. Norman – "Delete" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 10:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The sources provided were valid and there are more credible sources that prove significance including social media, http://www.google.com/+danielnorman (33,000 followers), admin of http://www.Flickr.com/rawstreetphotography (40,000 + followers), photographic work on various published books, etc. I believe Norman is a significant artist and the article was valid. ShaNor (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stay deleted. No argument here to do otherwise. There's no claim here of anything improper about the AfD process; and the other "credible sources" mentioned above are described only very vaguely ("photographic work on various published books") or are in fact neither sources nor evidence of notability (the thousands of "followers"). - Hoary (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stay deleted. Your estimation of significance, I am sorry to say, in no way matches the level required by Wikipedia. Please see WP:BIO for details. Their number of followers on social media does not count; being an admin of a Flickr group of other peoples' work does not even register; Wikipedia policy states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Alternatively, notability can be determined by either of: a) "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." or b) "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." or c) "The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." -Lopifalko (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stay deleted. The sources provided do not establish notability per WP:BIO, because they are not what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Endorse deletion the "sources" were each rebutted at the AFD, many did not even mention the article subject at all. Social media WP:BIGNUMBERs are easily gamed and don't really count toward notability for our purposes unless they're SO extraordinary that they're covered in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion the purported sources do not appropriately demonstrate notability. Lepricavark (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 February 2017

AVL Trees in Java – Unanimously endorsed, nominator blocked for poor behavior, WP:SNOW – Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The page is not a self-published reference. It is a major theorem of computer science that is now more than 55 years old. It is not unreferenced as was claimed; rather, it is referenced by Doklady and Robert L. Kruse. Falsely labeling the work as a self-published reference and deleting it is an abuse of Wikipedia's own guidelines. The articles contain information published nowhere else. They were influenced by the main AVL page. The fact that some of the information is published at I++ is quite irrelevant.NNcNannara (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as deleting administrator: These articles were not deleted because AVL trees themselves and the description thereof on these articles was original research. That would indeed be absurd. They were instead deleted because they are all copies of AVL tree, each with a different programming language used for examples. For obvious reasons, we do not generally create new articles with almost entirely duplicated text for each programming language. WP:NOTREPOSITORY, which specifically states that Wikipedia is not a repository for source code, was brought up several times in the deletion discussions, which were completely unanimous. And if it was a repository, we would not do it by creating new articles for each example with entirely duplicated text. I suppose we might have an article on implementing an algorithm in a particular language if there was something noteworthy and interesting, covered in sources of course, about doing it in that language. That is not the case here, as far as I know. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (and all the related ones below). The AfD nomination was spot-on, and in all cases, clear (unanimous) consensus. The AfD's could not have been closed any other way. Taking a step back, nobody is arguing that AVL tree isnt an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. It's just that there's nothing special about implementing them in any particular language. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly pseudo-code is procedural and very dated (back in C and Pascal days). Therefore to provide a sensible discussion on AVL you need to pick one or more of the modern languages. It is impractical to jumble the languages on a single page, so obviously you do it on a separate page. I don't see what all the fuss is about. It seems that you are desperately grasping at different excuses to delete the holy pages.NNcNannara (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if the decision was unanimous, I want to know what the actual reason is for deleting the pages. You have jumped from WP:NOR to self-published to WP:NOTREPOSITORY to a fork of the main page and to various other issues. Now you are saying WP:NOTREPOSITORY means a total ban on source code.
You say that there is nothing special about implementing AVL Trees in a particular language. You are quite wrong of course. In C# you have references to references and these are absent from Java. This means that the Java version is different from other languages in that RotateLeft etc return references. Native C++ uses pointers, which is different from the other languages. Each language is quite unique. There is no other way to present a sensible discussion but to put them on separate pages so your ban on multiple pages makes no sense at all. To ban software altogether would render Wikipedia largely irrelevant to programmers. AVL is the big one, if you get that right you are off to a great start with the Software Industry.
The 4 pages are NOT copies of the original page. The bulk of the content was sourced from 4 separate class libraries. I later copied content from the original page to satisfy requests to 'integrate' the articles into Wikipedia. To say they are copies of the original page is vastly overestimating that page and represents a distortion of the truth.NNcNannara (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in WP:NOTREPOSITORY does it mention source code - that seems to be your creation Erik. You seem to be banning source code in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has syntax highlighting for a purpose I assume. The similarity between the text of the 4 pages is entirely intentional. Clearly the language and source code sharply differentiates the pages. I don't see why multiple pages in different languages shouldn't be included.

You are treating the algorithm like any other algorithm, but my view is that it is the most important algorithm in computer science (finite mathematics). Clearly the AVL Theorem deserves the coverage it is given in the 4 pages. You appear to be making the rules up as you go. Does it say anywhere in the rules that multiple pages on similar topics are not permitted? What is your reasoning behind objecting to multiple pages in different languages for the AVL Theory. Exactly what are you objecting to?NNcNannara (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say that it is absurd that NOR could be used in this case, but that is the very reason that was given in the argument to delete the pages. There was also talk of the pages being a fork of the original page, but I argued that that was equally absurd. Now you are saying 'self published' but I am disagreeing. Then you have jumped to the statement that multiple pages are not permitted. This discussion is all over the place.NNcNannara (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far, you have not provided any reasonable argument for deleting the pages. I assume that you will restore them, and then I will restore the link to them from the main page. The decision to delete them in the first place may have been unanimous, but the reason seems to be oscillating (at the moment) between banning software altogether or banning multiple language pages - both of which are absurd. There is no safety in numbers (re unanimous) your lack of reasons to delete the pages has been exposed. If they remain deleted, I can only assume Wikipedia is just plain evil, right Jimmy?

WP:NOTREPOSITORY says: "Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code... "(emph. added) It's fine to include examples to illuminate the subject; that is why we have the syntax highlighting features, etc. This discussion is all over the place. – frankly, there are several reasons the page was deleted; that happens sometimes. What is your reasoning behind objecting to multiple pages in different languages – we essentially always eschew multiple articles about the same subject; as a programmer I'm sure you are aware of how this introduces maintenance difficulties, among many other reasons. You say that it is absurd that NOR could be used in this case, but that is the very reason that was given in the argument to delete the pages. – I don't see NOR in the deletion discussions. WP:NOT was; that is entirely different; NOT is the same as WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Each language is quite unique – this differences you outline are trivial, nowhere near the bar required for a standalone article. Standalone articles require multiple, independent, high quality sources talking about the subject in significant depth. See the general notability guidelines for more. If, e.g., implementing AVL trees in haskell or something is a major research topic with several scholarly articles about why it is interesting or something, then maybe. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Including examples to illuminate the subject is precisely what I am doing. It is called proving a theorem in mathematics, programming in computing. You are right, that's why you have syntax highlighting - so you can display programs like AVL Trees (being the first and most important).

The 4 standalone articles are multiple, independent, high quality sources talking about the subject in significant depth. You hit the nail right on the head.NNcNannara (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your original assertion was that the work was self-published. You then shifted the debate to a perceived "Muliple Page Problem". I shall now answer the "Multiple Page Problem". AVL Tree at Rosetta Code places the code in one page for all the different languages. When the code gets too big, they place it in a separate page. They considered the code too big to place inline on the front page. I agree. This leaves us with no other choice but to embark upon separate pages, which is the way I did it for Wikipedia, having already gained to clues from Rosetta. The Rosetta Code has no explanations or diagrams - it is just raw code (syntax highlighted however). The explanations and diagrams and mathematics is the same for all pages. Thus they vaguely resemble one another - although, when they were all code they were quite different. I then cut explanations and diagrams into the pages as well as other material from the original page. This was mistakenly taken as the 4 pages being a fork of the main page. It also seems to have resulted in confusion in your committee for they focused wrongly on the resemblances of the pages - when they started out as quite different pages. The pages are standalone and have different search engine characteristics. However, a link from the existing page is much appreciated.NNcNannara (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTREPOSITORY should not be used to ban the main theorem of programming - AVL Trees. This code is like no other - it is of earth shattering importance, just like say "The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus". If this is the only code you include, you would certainly include it. The code is highly structured and represents the proof of a theorem rather than like normal code. It was, after all, invented by Mathematicians. If you include mathematics, then certainly you would include some code - the code more like theorems - and AVL is the most important theorem in computer science. The only way to properly describe AVL Trees is with code. Your current page fails to adequately describe AVL. It presents a few incorrect definitions (like an incorrect definition of balance factor) and not much else. It is skeletal in the extreme and doesn't really attempt to do the job. Wikipedia needs the upgrade.NNcNannara (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On your comment about Haskall, you seem to fail to realize that Java, C#, Native C++ and Managed C++ probably account for 90% of the market. These 4 sources are of staggering importance, far more important than a discussion about Haskall, which is a little known language. I don't know where you are going with that comment, but the sources presented to you are very important and you should pay them due respect. You talk about other scholarly articles, but I could unload the entire theory of Pure Calculus on you.NNcNannara (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as you know AVL Trees are not noteworthy or interesting - is that right?NNcNannara (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that Wikipedia become a repository of code like GitHub. However, we are talking about the main theorem of computer science (finite mathematics) - and of course it must be included. What other code you include is up to you. For example, you could include a couple of pages on the non-recursive merge sort (see Kruse). However, in Calculus, lists are sorted using AVL - so even the good old non-recursive merge sort falls to the AVL Theorem. I have banished it to be forgotten (all other list sorts included). I regard Red/Black Trees, B Trees and B+ Trees all to be rubbish. AVL takes them all out. So AVL is the bulk of the entire shooting match.NNcNannara (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this and the similar ones below. The arguments for deletion (most significantly that Wikipedia is not a code repository) were strong, and there was no support in any of the AfDs to keep any of these articles. No other outcome was possible. Reyk _YO! 11:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments for deletion are not strong at all - they have been totally smashed - hello, can you read? You say that no other outcome is possible - that's just bullshit - you are attempting to coerce the decision by ignoring the arguments put forward. It is running a hearing by ignoring the evidence and defense - the outcome is fixed - "No other outcome was possible". It is rigged - is that what you are saying?NNcNannara (talk)

So you want to reject education by consensus - I'd say you are dumb arses - unworthy of the beautiful works which you seek to reject.NNcNannara (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that not one person has made a positive comment about the pages. It has all been negative shit. The situation is really quite pathetic.NNcNannara (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sweated blood to create the code over a 30 year period. You bludgers haven't even got the gumption to fight to keep it. In fact you are fighting to remove it. It stinks.NNcNannara (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Writing the pages was a real pleasure that has been soured by the actions of you drones - educating humanity is more trouble than its worth it seems - it may be impossible due to massive IQ reduction. All your programmers are like Mathematicians who don't know Calculus - they are just incompetent drones. I am trying to recover the situation, and you, the evil influence, are trying to screw the world up on a continuing basis. Who is the next drone that is going to put their hand up for being evil. You desperately need to come up with some new excuses, the existing excuses have been comprehensively demolished. You have been reduced to blindly stating that "No other outcome was possible". Your response to AVL Source code has been to use WP:NOTREPOSITORY to ban all source code on Wikipedia. That's just destroying the utility of Wikipedia to programmers. You can go ahead and do this and I'll just laugh at you.NNcNannara (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- You are being very unpleasant. Calling people evil and incompetent drones is not the way to get what you want. Reyk _YO! 18:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Just calling a spade a spade. The drones are being quite unpleasant to me, so I'm giving it back. How many of you have congratulated me on the creation of AVL in 4 languages - none right! You have no manners, so don't be so uppity about being called a drone.NNcNannara (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If you lot ever develop manners, I'll treat you with respect. While you behave like pigs, I'll treat you accordingly. Get used to it.NNcNannara (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. What I originally 'wanted', was to cure the incompetence that is widespread in the industry in particular and the world in general. What I want now (after months of being subjected rude Wikipedians) is to blow off a bit of steam then exit stage left. I suspect that the ignorance and incompetence will remain and that evil will prevail. I am a teacher by trade, but the audience is so rude and ignorant as to be beyond teaching. Therefore you can delete the free source code and pay for Pure and Applied Calculus. Delete the freebies - go ahead make my day.NNcNannara (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 'bar' required for multiple standalone articles is in your words, "Standalone articles require multiple, independent, high quality sources talking about the subject in significant depth". The 4 AVL Wikies are exactly multiple, independent, high quality 'sources' talking about the subject in significant depth. Your very words describe the pages perfectly. Clearly they fit Wikipedia's requirements. This leaves you with WP:NOTREPOSITORY - which, given the nature of AVL, implies a total ban on all source code (may as well forget about syntax highlighting eh). So are you going to ban all source code so as the remain incompetent - and that's supposed to be a potent display of your intelligence.NNcNannara (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikis don't count as reliable sources (including Wikipedia by the way). See WP:RS. That said, I honestly suspect there are plenty of sources out there for at least C++ and Java AVL implementations and I suspect enough commentary on such implementations that we could probably justify an article. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Some wikis could be reliable sources, in theory, but as you say certainly not Wikipedia. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to think that the sheep are so nasty that they actually deserve STL (i.e. red/black trees). Stick it to the IQ stinkers right Bjarne.NNcNannara (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I like red/black trees. Never actually taught AVL in class, just 2-3-4 and red/black for balanced trees. Hobit (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually invented red/black trees in C#. They are rubbish, but you can like them if you wish.NNcNannara (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the structure of AVL on disk I can confidently say that B Trees and B+ Trees are rubbish too (shock, horror).NNcNannara (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse there were two basic problems with this article:

The articles mostly consisted of source code. While using source code for illustrative examples is OK, articles shouldn't consist predominantly of source code. Wikipedia isn't a code repository. There are other sites which are code repositories, but this isn't one of them.
We don't like having multiple pages on the same topic, even if they each treat something from a different perspective. It complicates things and reduces maintainability. There isn't any reason to have different examples for different programming languages unless the differences between the languages are sufficiently interesting to involve comment (by which I mean there are reliable sources which discuss them). Just pick one easily understood language and use that, or use pseudocode. The content which isn't specific to one programming language related to the topic as a whole.

These are perfectly valid arguments and I don't see any effective rebuttal to them. Hut 8.5 21:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact of the matter is that there are radically different programming languages that may be used to express the same basic concept. If you wish to cover the bulk of the market then you will need to select at least the 4 chosen languages. Each language has a different approach and different features (as already described). As already discussed, there are a number of options but the code is so large as to require separate pages. How do you intend to handle code from different languages? At least I have made a fist of it - that's a whole lot more than the current lame approach. You have merely winged about separate pages. The code is so refined that maintenance is not an issue - the correct proof of the AVL Theorem has been supplied in each case. Why pick just one language and discriminate against the others? I disagree with you that you can just 'pick a language' and that's it. Only a non-programmer (or an incompetent one) would say such a thing. The more languages you cover the better, but I have covered the main 4. Pseudo code is procedural and outdated.

The articles are a nice mixture of explanation, diagrams and code. You are whinging and whining without giving any thought to how to present the topic. If you focused on the presentation instead of whinging about the size of the code you would see that there is little choice but to do what has already been done. The presentations are near perfect (only the diagrams could be improved).

You have already outlined the criteria for having multiple pages on the same topic. As I have pointed out (twice), the code is a perfect fit for your description. You have whinged again about the same thing without giving proper consideration to the fact that it is done and dusted as a topic (you lost).

I don't accept that proving the AVL Theorem implies that you are a code repository - that's just nonsense.

There is your rebuttal. You even tried to preempt the rebuttal by saying there is none, which is inane.NNcNannara (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the alternative to having code in the presentation is to have none. This is your current position. Having no code to discuss AVL is essentially giving up the ghost - which is what you are currently doing. When I tried to remedy the situation you have thrown a hord of whingers at me who are scratching around trying to look for an excuse to screw it all up. Not a repository, no original research, no self-published works, no multiple pages - any pathetic excuse you can come up with. As I said before, the original objection was WP:NOR and that was your best option -for, in fact, rotations with parents are original, node swapping is original and so on. However you have since moved on from WP:NOR - even calling it absurd. Your next approach was a fork of the main page - which went down. Earlier yesterday, you claimed it was no self-published works. You promptly deleted that (probably realizing that it was ridiculous) and replaced it with not a repository and no multiple pages. The multiple pages thing went down courtesy of your own description. That leaves us with not a repository. If the only code you had in Wikipedia is the AVL Theorem - well, at least you've got the important one. 2000 lines of code doesn't make Wikipedia a repository and anyone who suggests it does just doesn't understand code and repositories. Basically, you are talking nonsense here. That leaves you with diddly squat to go on. The prosecution is down, the defense won. All that remains is to see if you take any notice whatsoever of your 'quasi-legal' structures.

None of you have provided any comments about the code or explanations. While you whinge about the volume of code consider this: that code took 30 years to create, the final Wiki page (the C# one) took 10 minutes. Code is much harder than written text. Instead of criticizing the volume it takes to prove the AVL Theorem, you should be marveling at it in the various languages. It seems that none of you whingers actually understand and appreciate the AVL Theory; otherwise, you would be profusely thanking me. I have given you the gift of knowledge and all you have done is look the gift horse in the mouth. The whole situation really stinks.NNcNannara (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Note, while I understand that of course having your content deleted can be intensely unpleasant, it still doesn't justify violations of WP:CIVIL. Calling other editors "whingers", "pigs" or "drones" is not acceptable, and if it's necessary to hand out blocks so that people can participate in this discussion without being the subject of personal attacks, I will. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
NNcNannara: I think the point that you are missing is that we have rules for what we have pages on. The rules don't include things like this. DRV is about discussing if the rules were handled correctly in the AfD discussion. They were, it's really not debatable. If you want to get that changed, you need to get people to change the rules. Hobit (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. Apart from the "Multiple Page Issue" - which has been covered, the only other objection is the WP:NOTREPOSITORY. As I already stated, I think your committee is in error if they believe that proving the AVL Theorem with a couple of thousand lines of code constitutes turning Wikipedia into a repository. You say it is 'not debatable', I say you are completely wrong. I watch you say that it is 'inevitable', 'could have been no other way', 'not debatable' - all heavy handed attempts at stifling debate.
2. You give yourselves license to be rude but get all uppity when your are called a drone - despite behaving like one. I am incensed that not one person has stood up for the AVL Theorems. You criticize me but your conduct is shameful beyond belief. I have had enough of the situation and regret giving out any freebies whatsoever - to you or to Rosetta. You can delete the pages forever and I will care not a jot about educating the human race any further - they are completely lacking in manners.NNcNannara (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. I have given you the source code of one class - Set; however, Pure and Applied Calculus consists of 24 classes. Given your rude approach, you can go whistle dixie for the source code to the remaining 23. Note that while AVL in memory may appear large, AVL on disk is even larger and much more complex.NNcNannara (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4. The crux of the debate seems to be the belief that proving one theorem constitutes turning Wikipedia into a repository for code. Why do you believe this shaky proposition to the point of saying it is 'not debatable'? GitHub has hundreds of millions of lines of code - it is a repository. Instead of congratulating me on a job well done, you seek to delete the code based upon these shaky beliefs. The more you lose the debate, the more emphatically you claim it is 'not debatable'.NNcNannara (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5. If you were to choose just one theorem of computer science for which to supply source code, it would be the AVL Theorem. After all, this is the central theorem of computer science. Using WP:NOTREPOSITORY on this is tantamount to banning code altogether. Is that what you are doing - banning code on Wikipedia?NNcNannara (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6. Hobit - I am not missing any points - don't be so condescending. It is not about changing rules it is about interpreting the rules. The not a repository rule is there to prevent large scale invasion of code into Wikipedia. You are falsely using it to ban the main theorem of computer science - thus effectively all code. Your committee is in error.NNcNannara (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, you need to stop this. An administrator has warned you that personal attacks are going to get you blocked, yet you still continue to try to dominate this discussion with ranting and raving and calling people names. Let others contribute to the discussion without screaming at them. Reyk _YO! 10:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop what? Stop the discussion? You are losing the debate and have reverted to personal attacks. I am not 'ranting and raving' as you say, but providing careful reasoning. The 'ranting and raving' claim is a vicious personal attack Reyk - perhaps you should be blocked. Clearly you can't handle the heat of a carefully reasoned debate and now you are attempting to silence me. You can block me and delete my code and I will just continue my research. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not the only option for participating in the software industry.NNcNannara (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well that I am talking about your habit of dumping long, repetitive, insulting walls of text on this discussion. You're trying to drown out everyone else with sheer volume and nasty behaviour. Nobody has made a personal attack on you, as you are aware, but you have called others evil, drones, dumbarses, shameful, pigs, incompetent, etc. Knock it off. As for who is winning the debate, not one person except yourself at any of the AfDs or this deletion review has argued to retain these algorithm implementations in various languages. We shall see how this discussion is closed. Reyk _YO! 11:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to 'Knock it off', that is, I am not going to fold the defense because you can't handle the debate. The reasoning is not repetitive. I have supplied you with the AVL Theorems and you call me 'nasty'. I am being a philanthropist and you have just instigated a vicious personal attack. The discussion is not balanced. You are all losing perspective on what is actually going on - which is the rejection of the source code of the AVL Theorem. You should reign in your agression Reyk and get everything in perspective. This whole discussion is about doing humanity a favour.NNcNannara (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What you fail to realize Reyk, it that we have made some progress in the discussion. It is now down to - Do we use WP:NOTREPOSITORY to ban all source code in Wikipedia? That is the question that needs to be answered.NNcNannara (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not 'drowning out' anyone - feel free to contribute to the discussion. Just be prepared for the volume of reasoning that a fine intellect can throw at you.NNcNannara (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am now withdrawing from this discussion because there is obviously no point in talking to you. You seem unable or unwilling to understand anything that's said to you. Reyk _YO! 11:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can spit the dummy if you like, but don't assume that I am unable to comprehend anything that is said to me - that is condescending and insulting.
As for the bitter and twisted "We shall see how this discussion is closed" - I am under no illusions about the outcome. If you delete the pages, ultimately it is humanity that is the loser - I will simply fold up shop and continue my research in private.NNcNannara (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have heeded your warning Lankiveil and will moderate my debating style. But I will continue the debate despite Reyk attempting to silence me.NNcNannara (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please make it stop. I've already commented in this discussion, so it's inappropriate for me to also take administrative action (WP:INVOLVED). Otherwise, I would have long since closed this discussion (which has ceased to be a discussion and turned into a rant), and handed out a long block. I encourage some other (uninvolved) admin to please do those things. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: I have indefinitely blocked NNcNannara (talk · contribs) because they are a single-purpose account dedicated to this topic and are clearly not here to (or able to) contribute productively to Wikipedia. I hope this DRV can now conclude in a more peaceful manner. Sandstein 15:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No indication that the deletion process has not been properly followed. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, walls of text and extremely juvenile insults ("dumb arses"? really?) aren't going to overturn a unanimous AFD consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

AVL Tree in CSharp – SNOW endorsed per outcome of AVL Trees in Java, above – Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The page is not a self-published reference. It is a major theorem of computer science that is now more than 55 years old. It is not unreferenced as was claimed; rather, it is referenced by Doklady and Robert L. Kruse. NNcNannara (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please keep discussion on the entry above for Java, unless there is some reason why this request should have a different fate. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

AVL Trees in C++ – SNOW endorsed per outcome of AVL Trees in Java, above – Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The page is not a self-published reference. It is a major theorem of computer science that is now more than 55 years old. It is not unreferenced as was claimed; rather, it is referenced by Doklady and Robert L. Kruse. NNcNannara (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please keep discussion on the entry above for Java, unless there is some reason why this request should have a different fate. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

AVL Trees in Managed C++ – SNOW endorsed per outcome of AVL Trees in Java, above – Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The page is not a self-published reference. It is a major theorem of computer science that is now more than 55 years old. It is not unreferenced as was claimed; rather, it is referenced by Doklady and Robert L. Kruse. NNcNannara (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please keep discussion on the entry above for Java, unless there is some reason why this request should have a different fate. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 February 2017

Matthew Healy – Listed in parallel at RFD, where it has already received some discussion. DRV is not your other parent. —Cryptic 00:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Healy is now notable outside of The 1975 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasabi,the,one (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 February 2017

3 February 2017

Aashish Kalra – "Delete" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 18:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The article needs to be reinstated on the grounds on which this article was deleted. Someone obviously made certain edits in recent times which were not appropriate, but having said that Aashish Kalra is a notable investor who's historically made a huge impact towards the Indian real estate sector in 2001 and most recently the start-up ecosystem. I am not sure who made these edits, but yes the content could've been taken out/edited rather than deleting the page altogether. One of the admins/contributors had suggested revising the content or perhaps moving it into a newer article due to the convolution. The page content until then was in compliance.

Attaching some articles that I found in reference - http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-economy/article1752552.ece, http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/property/dollar-flow-to-realty-mkt-to-grow-over-3x-by-2010-_306055.html, http://www.forbes.com/sites/abehal/2015/12/29/big-datas-cambridge-technology-enterprises-creates-a-new-kind-of-india-accelerator/#2d0b4ed62c0f. Buffer12 (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for raising the matter with the deleting admin and it is a pity he has not been editing for the last few days after you had approached him. If Timotheus Canens is unable to help I think we'll need temporary undeletion to look at all this. Thincat (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- A pretty clear consensus was reached at the AfD. Not opposed to a temporary undelete to let us evaluate the state of the article, but as it stands I'm not seeing a reason to overturn the close. Reyk _YO! 16:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've temporarily undeleted the page so that it can be reviewed. I haven't reviewed in detail yet and I have no opinion at this point on whether to endorse the deletion or not. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse Would support an article on Cambridge Technology Enterprises but the afd was clear in this case, even though I disagreed with it personally. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closer's decision about the discussion. However, in addition to Richard Weiss's suggestion, an article on Trikona Capital could be appropriate. An earlier version of the article on Kalra isn't too bad though even there the referencing was weakish. Our coverage of non-consumer-facing business is pitiful but unless people interested in business topics write with a style and content appropriate to an encyclopedia there is little that can be done. Thincat (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AFD consensus was clear, nobody brought up a valid reason to keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but.... The AfD couldn't have been closed any other way, so clearly endorse that. But, it appears there may be a reasonable article which could be written about a company this person is associated with. My suggestion is to write that article in draft space, and see what people think via the WP:AfC process. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 February 2017

1 February 2017

Israel at the FIBA Basketball World Cup – Restore Israel at the FIFA World Cup, no consensus on the others. These mass discussions are hard to adjudicate properly, so I don't have a very high confidence this is the correct outcome. If anybody feels strongly that Israel at the FIFA World Cup, should be deleted, this outcome does not preclude re-nominating it in a new AfD devoted specifically to that one article. Likewise, if anybody feels strongly that one of the NC articles really deserves restoring, feel free to bring that one specific article back to DRV so it can be discussed in isolation. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Multiple people during the AfD stated that the individual years should be merged into the main pages and then delete the individual years. An argument that no one attempted to disprove as being valid. Due to the large number of articles that were nominated it was impossible for someone to properly review them all and see if they should be deleted.

Another example, people used WP:NOTSTATS as their rationale, but if you look at Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic or Israel at the 2013 World Baseball Classic, it had a ton more than just stats, yet it got lumped in with everything else.

Additionally with Israel at the FIFA World Cup and Israel at the UEFA European Championship being deleted they are now the only country without a page that has participated in the tournament. While I know WP:OSE is not a reason to keep, it shows notability of a counry's participation in the tournament.

In short, I am suggesting undeleting the following pages, as they were unfairly grouped in with the other pages. If they are undeleted, they can be expanded with information that was removed from the individual years:

Additionally I am suggesting undeleting the following, as their rationale given by those suggesting to delete it could not have applied to these, and were grouped in with too many other articles:

Thanks - Galatz ^Talk 14:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Israel at the FIFA World Cup, Endorse others. Based on the information that was available to the participants in the AfD, I feel the closing admin made the right decision. However, as Nfitz pointed out on another AfD, there is Template:Countries at the FIFA World Cup, and if those articles were believed to be non-notable, they all should have been nominated together. Original nominator is welcome to do that if he wishes. Although there is also Template:Countries at the UEFA European Championship, the same rationale does not apply as Israel never qualified for that tournament, unlike the others with articles. I personally voted to delete the FIFA World Cup article, but would have changed my vote if I were aware of the template at the time. Smartyllama (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Object to restoring the ones Israel has not qualified for ever such as the FIFA Women's World Cup. That would be entirely misleading. I would definitely object to creating the 2013/2017 WBC's which were deleted with no objection (as these are the individual years vs the ones that are encompassing all the years) Others such as the European Championship of American football and the lacroses ones should not be created as its rather minor. Instead the information can be stored at their respective national team pages. I am not sure about the other events to comment if the country has qualified for them. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Among the relatively major events here, Israel has qualified for the Men's and Women's EuroBasket, the FIBA Basketball World Cup, and the FIFA World Cup as well as the 2017 World Baseball Classic (but not the 2013 one). It has also participated in lower divisions of the IIHF World Championship, but never the top division. Contrary to Galatz's assertion on the original AfD, Division I, which Israel has participated in, is not the top division. Consensus is that only participating in the top division confers notability on players, though it says nothing about this type of article. Israel has not qualified for the Women's FIFA World Cup or either UEFA Championship, and the others I would consider very minor. Smartyllama (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - When European Baseball was nominated by itself, not grouped in with everything else, they all were determined to be notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2016 European Baseball Championship (2nd nomination) for the discussion. I believe this demonstrates clearly that the nature of the way everything was nominated was just unrealistic and impossible to properly discuss. - Galatz ^Talk 15:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we get some or all of these articles moved to userspace temporarily if they haven't been already? You mention "If you take a look at...." but we can't take a look at them because the pages have been deleted. Smartyllama (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI I previously requested and received the following: User:Galatz/Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic, User:Galatz/Israel at the 2013 World Baseball Classic, User:Galatz/Israel at the 2010 European Baseball Championship, User:Galatz/Israel at the 2012 European Baseball Championship, User:Galatz/Israel at the 2016 European Baseball Championship, User:Galatz/Israel at the 2012 European Lacrosse Championships, User:Galatz/Israel at the 2016 European Lacrosse Championships. However if this request is not accepted I would request the pages I requested above be restored to my userspace so the information can be moved into the national team page. - Galatz ^Talk 19:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore at least the non-year articles. There didn't seem to be consensus in the AFD discussion to delete them. Though I'm not sure deletion of any articles were necessary, the remaining ones could be redirects. I'm quite troubled by such a mass deletion of unrelated articles - it's too many to deal with it once. I don't have any objections with simply overturning the entire AFD and relisting in smaller chunks. Nfitz (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn--regardless of LOCALCONSENSUS, this is simply too many things to be deleting in one AfD. Given that these are all Israeli topics, I would expect a higher bar for deletion, as I would for any other politically contentious topics. The debate and participation levels simply aren't there to support outright deletion, especially in light of the very well argued WP:ATD merge arguments. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? They are the same in scope (Israel at a specific sporting event... which there seems to be a consensus that these sort of articles should be kept to multi sporting events).

In Summary

Israel at the FIBA Basketball World Cup - Restore
Israel at the UEFA European Championship - Do not restore the country has never qualified (would be extremely misleading to do so)
Israel at the UEFA Women's Championship - Do not restore the country has never qualified (would be extremely misleading to do so)
Israel at the EuroBasket
Israel at the EuroBasket Women
Israel at the FIFA World Cup - Restore
Israel at the FIFA Women's World Cup - Do not restore the country has never qualified (would be extremely misleading to do so)
Israel at the European Championship of American football - Minor event, info can be merged into the respective national team article.
Israel at the European Lacrosse Championships - Minor event, info can be merged into the respective national team article.
Israel at the Women's European Lacrosse Championships - Minor event, info can be merged into the respective national team article.
Israel at the World Lacrosse Championships - Minor event, info can be merged into the respective national team article.
Israel at the Women's Lacrosse World Cup - Minor event, info can be merged into the respective national team article.
Israel at the IIHF World Championship - Do not restore, the country has never competed in the top division.
Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic - Do not restore, merge with Israel at the World Baseball Classic
Israel at the 2013 World Baseball Classic - Do not restore , merge with Israel at the World Baseball Classic

Its alarming the person who wants to have this reviewed has not addressed the fact that some of these articles are misleading... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to discuss about it. The name should be recognizable per WP:CRITERIA. If you disagree that your argument should be to move Israel at the UEFA European Championship to Israel at the UEFA European Championship qualifier by that just seems silly. You aren't arguing notability, you are arguing the lack of the word qualifier. - Galatz ^Talk 13:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israel's performance can't be notable at a tournament they've never even qualified for, at least in my opinion. I suspect Sportsfan 1234 is making the same point. We do not have Bahamas at the 2014 Winter Olympics even though consensus is those kinds of articles are notable for the simple reason that, although at least one Bahamanian athlete participated in qualifying, none actually qualified and therefore the nation did not participate at the Games. Consensus is that X at the Winter Olympics in general is not notable in and of itself and should redirect to X at the Olympics, but Bahamas at the Winter Olympics doesn't even do that because they've never participated in the Winter Olympics, only qualifying events. Contrast with other nations that have competed at the Winter Olympics but aren't known for their winter sports prowess, like Dominica at the Winter Olympics, Ethiopia at the Winter Olympics, American Samoa at the Winter Olympics, etc. The reason for the difference is clear, and the same principle applies here. Smartyllama (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your argument to an extent, however not completely. The qualifiers get plenty of attention on WP for certain sports, it really depends on what it is. For example, looking at Template:UEFA Euro 2016 and you will see there are 8 pages dedicated solely to the qualifiers. Also no country, not even the US has a winter olympics page, those are all redirects to the olympics page for that country. Lets say however that Bahamas competed in qualifiers for the Olympics every year but never had anyone ever make it, there could be arguments to the merit of including it. I really think a blanket qualified or not is not a good judgement. Let's say Brazil failed to qualify for the World Cup during this qualifier. It would get HUGE attention and would certainly be notable. You cannot use that as the sole criteria. - Galatz ^Talk 21:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the ones who have participated in the Winter Olympics are all redirects, but the Bahamas one isn't even that, because they've never participated. Also, if Brazil failed to qualify for the World Cup, then it would be their failure to qualify for the World Cup, as opposed to their participation in qualifiers in and of itself, that was notable. Israel isn't anywhere near the soccer powerhouse Brazil is. See, for instance Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup) which is notable not as a World Cup Semifinal (which isn't inherently notable in and of itself) but because of how shocking it was for Brazil, rivaled perhaps only by the Maracanazo in terms of football disasters for the Brazilian national team. Brazil failing to even qualify for the World Cup at all would trump both of those. But it would be notable because they failed to qualify, not in spite of it. Brazil failing to qualify for the World Cup at all would likely be regarded as the greatest tragedy in the history of the country, sporting or otherwise. The situations are not remotely comparable. In short, Brazil failing to qualify, while technically failing WP:NSPORT, would easily pass WP:GNG and thus still be notable. The same is not true of Israel and UEFA. Smartyllama (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- the AfD reached a clear consensus to delete these articles. What evidence is there that the closing admin incorrectly judged policy or the arguments of participants? None. Reyk _YO! 11:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk There were 5 different times it was mentioned that the years should be merged into the main article for each sport, and no one brought an argument to it stating why thats an issue. Its not just about the arguments made but the quality of those made. I think anyone saying to delete per WP:NOTSTATS clearly did not fully review the list of articles (impossible to do due to the volume). Like I said about, its impossible to say that is the case when all the articles are so different, Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic is a lot more than just stats, how could that be lumped in with the others? - Galatz ^Talk 13:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk: At least in the instance of the FIFA World Cup one, the participants and admin closing were not aware of the existence of the Template I mentioned above containing numerous other similar articles, in part due to a failure of anyone to nominate the relevant WikiProject. I, for one, would have changed my vote if I were aware of that, and I suspect others would as well. As I said above, this arguably applies to the UEFA Men's one as well, but I don't think it does since Israel never qualified for that tournament and the other articles in the template are for countries that have. If nominator feels all of them are non notable, he should have nominated all of them, not one of them snuck in with a bunch of others. This would fall under Criteria #3, that significant new information has come to light. Smartyllama (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn; When it is plausibly challenged that articles should not ha e been listed together, the default should be to restart listing them separately. Most multiple listings that have come here--this set included--have has one or more items that shouldhave gotten separate consideration. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted with leave to individually relist a small number such as the FIFA World Cup one which may possibly be notable. As to the rest, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stifle: So you mean exactly what Galatz did? Only a small fraction of those deleted are up for DRV here. The result doesn't have to be all or nothing here - I think it was done the right way. Smartyllama (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me that these types of deletion nomination (whether individually or in bulk) are wholly absurd. What a waste of time. They could have been boldly converted to redirects or have been merged and then dealt with by talk page discussion. My inclination would be to overturn the whole lot except that might create even more disruption. Thincat (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Israel at the FIFA World Cup, it is absurd that the article was deleted. Otherwise, keep deleted Israel at the FIFA Women's World Cup, Israel at the UEFA European Championship, and Israel at the UEFA Women's Championship, as these are misleading articles that Israel never qualified for, which can be covered on the main national team page. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.