Wikipedia:Deletion review

This page deals with the Deletion discussion process. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Articles (today, all, closing) Templates (today, all, closing) Files (today, all, closing) PUF (today, all, closing) Categories (today, all, closing) Redirects (today, all, closing) Miscellany (today, all, closing) Undeletion Deletion review Request a copy Speedy deletion (candidates) Proposed deletion (all, books, BLPs) Deletion log Policy, Process, Guide Administrator guidelines

Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily for disputed deletions and speedy deletions, and for disputed decisions made in deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Deletion Review may be used:

1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly,
2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed,
3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page,
4. to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page (called a history-only undeletion),
5. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted, or
6. if there were a substantive procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion Review should not be used:

1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment,
2. to point out other pages that have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits),
3. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion to challenge these),
4. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests), or
5. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

1. discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #What is this page for?.
2. please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, please:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.
2.	Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |reason= }} ~~~~ Copy this template skeleton for files: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |article= |reason= }} ~~~~
3.	Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
4.	Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
5.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
6.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2013 May 25}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2013 May 25|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is different than the deletion review's section header:

Active discussions

24 May 2013

Wikipediocracy

Wikipediocracy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After this AFD resulted in a decision of "keep", someone decided to challenge the decision by opening a new AFD, rather than by coming here. I've closed the AFD procedurally in favor of coming here. The nominator's rationale is as follows.

I have no opinion on the matter, so I'm neutral. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

---

I completely realize that this article was recently taken to AfD. Heck, I realize that I voted Keep in that AfD. However, after comments by others about the sources, i've taken a closer look at them, which I didn't really do previously. And what I have found does seem to indicate a violation of WP:SIGCOV here, where the source coverage is extremely trivial. While this was occasionally mentioned in the previous AfD, it does not appear to have been properly represented and that is why I am opening this new discussion. I will now go through the sources in the article to show what I mean.

This source is used to reference the Bicholim conflict hoax material, of which on Wikipediocracy it states, "Users of the Wikipediocracy forum have pinned down a likely suspect, however, a Wikipedian who went by the handle "A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a."" That is the entirety of the mention of Wikipediocracy within the article, clearly trivial.

This is a recent source about the Qworty incident. on Wikipediocracy, it states, "The Qworty fiasco came to Leonard’s attention, he writes, when members of Wikipediocracy, a site that details instances of Wikipedian fakery and bias, contacted him." Also a trivial mention, not even counting that it is referencing information from a different news article.

This article could actually be an issue of original research being used in the Wikipediocracy article. At the bottom of it, it states "H/T Wikipediocracy", with that being a link to a tweet by the Wikipediocracy Twitter that itself just links to two diff changes in a Wikipedia article. H/T generally means "Heard through" on Twitter, but that is certainly not enough information to back up the sentence currently in the Wikipediocracy article that it is attached to. This isn't even a real mention of the site at all.

This article is about somewhat recent discussions with Jimbo about Kazakh Wikipedia. Its comments on Wikipediocracy amount to, "Wales was responding from comments by Andreas Kolbe, a moderator at Wikipediocracy, an external forum whose members are often harshly critical of Wikimedia's management." This is, again, a trivial mention, and really, from what the rest of the article says, is a better reference to be used on Andreas than Wikipediocracy.

This source is about Gibraltarpedia. About Wikipediocracy, it states, "Kolbe wrote on Wikipediocracy, a site often critical of Wikimedia’s top brass." Again, this article has a fair amount to say on Andreas, but only half a sentence on Wikipediocracy. Even more trivial than trivial.

This source I could go on about its reliability, with it being The Register and about its author, Andrew Orlowski, but I have no need to. Because this article makes absolutely no mention of Wikipediocracy at all (other than in a screenshot of a Wikipedia conversation). Honestly, I have no idea why this source is in the article, other than for POV pushing.

This source, likewise, has no mention of Wikipediocracy and is merely being used to source the statement "co-founder of Wikipedia" for Larry Sanger, which doesn't really seem necessary, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. This source, like the previous, confers no notability to Wikipediocracy, not even through a trivial mention.

Now i'll go back to the source that I skipped and saved for last here, because it is the one we have to focus on, that offers slightly more to the subject. However, it is about the recent Qworty incident and is the only source of any real length on Wikipediocracy, so we also have to bring up the question on whether this single event adds much by itself.

The article that I am referring to is this one. Now you can read it yourself and it certainly has a lot of references to Wikipediocracy and the information the writer was given by members there. However, it also says pretty much nothing about the site itself. Really, other than the mentions of their involvement in giving this Wikipedia information to the author, the article has nothing to say about the Wikipediocracy site itself.

And that's it, in a fair bit of length. If there was a single source that discussed the site in any length, even a paragraph, then this might be a different discussion. If there was anything about the site's foundings, its origins, even more about its members. But there's nothing. There are references to the site and that's all.

And as is often noted in AfD discussions, a bunch of trivial mentions don't add up to much. Trivial mentions are still trivial. And, in most cases, these are even worse than trivial. Usually what we call "trivial mentions" have at least two sentences or something on a subject, but these are, apparently, the most trivial among the trivial.

I see no real argument for notability here, once you actually take a look at the sources. Silverseren^C 04:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist Due to the potential for !voters with a conflict of interest, the AfD should have been left open longer. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please describe this conflict of interest ? Is it not the case that every editor has an inherent conflict of interest in a topic like Wikipediocracy, given its symbiotic relationship with Wikimedia/Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Giving the AfD more time gives all points of view a greater opportunity to weigh in. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  23:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete (first preference) or relist (second preference). I'm not sure about the wisdom of not letting the new AfD play out, but here we are, anyway. Silver seren is right to point out the degree of WP:COATRACKing and puffery in this article. Virtually everything in it depends on trivial passing mentions. User:Steve has done a useful exercise to strip out anything from the article that isn't a trivial passing mention - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Steve/Sandbox&oldid=556316884 . Without puffery, the article reduces to four sentences which are mostly about the recent Qworty issue which, other than the linked Salon story, seems to have failed to arouse any significant commentary that I've seen in reliable sources. As others have said, it's hard to argue for significant notability based on one single news article. In the most recent AfD, some editors have argued that a single news article can convey significant notability but that simply isn't compliant with policy. Others have argued in this and the previous AfD that the article should be kept because the subject might be more notable in future, but again that's not compliant with policy (WP:CRYSTAL etc). Silver and Steve's analysis is compelling and suggests that the first AfD was wrongly decided. Prioryman (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment If we decide to relist, could we unclose the second nomination instead of unclosing the first one? If we say that the first one was wrongly closed but that it needs more input, it would seem to me to be better to throw everything out and allow the start-from-the-ground-up that the second one provides. Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• That seems very sensible to me. Prioryman (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• (copied from the second AFD, which was closed just as I was posting this) Keep (i.e., Endorse first AfD result). First of all, I question the value of renominating this or any article for deletion just four days after a prior AFD closed as Keep, in the absence of a supervening BLP issue or the like. (The DRV, while perhaps procedurally better, is its own timesink.) In any event, Wikipediocracy has become sufficiently notable to warrant an article here based on some of the sources that have been cited in the AFD. At this point, the site is at least as notable as its now-moribund predecessor Wikipedia Review, which has enjoyed (?) an article for several years. And although we don't rely on future events as the basis for notability, the notability of Wikipediocracy is almost sure to continue to increase: Wikipedia and Wikimedia, for all of their positive attributes that keep us contributing, will continue to have faults and foibles that Wikipediocracy will seek to expose and publicize, sometimes fairly and sometimes otherwise. If we delete this now, we'll be having an agonizing debate again about whether enough has changed to warrant inclusion some three or six months from now; let's not do that to ourselves. For what it's worth, I do not believe this article should be mainpaged—in general, including articles that the general public would perceive as navel-gazing on the main page should be avoided—but that is a different question from whether the article should exist at all. Finally, I hope that the community will devote only a reasonably proportionate amount of time to this entire discussion, recognizing that while this AFD/DRV may matter very much to our "inside baseball" crowd, the short-term fate of this article is of limited importance in the grander scheme of wikithings. In the fast few days, a lot of Wikipedians (myself included) have looked back at the damage done by Qworty and asked "why wasn't this problem identified much sooner?" Part of the answer is that sometimes we collectively focus too much of the community's most precious resource, which is our contributors' time and attention, not on improving our articles and making sure that we treat our fellow editors and our article subjects fairly, but on digressions like this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at Wikipedia Review's sources, so I can't comment on whether they are adequate. However, comparing this article to another one seems nonsensical when we're talking about completely different sources. Can you please directly address the issues with the sources that I pointed out and how they generally have a sentence or less (a few not even that) about Wikipediocracy? How exactly does this work with our notability policies? Because if something this thin can be considered notable, then there are a huge number of other articles that have no reason to be deleted, even if they have thin references like this does. Silverseren^C 22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps what makes this one different is that it's backed by a community who know how to troll and disrupt Wikipedia to get their own way. I can't help feeling that the article was created specifically to set editors at each others' throats. Prioryman (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think that is unfair, Prioryman. There does seem a legitimate belief among Wikipediocrats that several trivial mentions = significant coverage, but that is also a misunderstanding that other editors hold as well. I think the desire to create the article was legitimate and honest. It is, in my obvious opinion, also premature. Resolute 22:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• They knew, quite obviously, that creating the article was likely to cause controversy. Submitting it to DYK - a project they hold in contempt, by the way - was an even more drama-laden act. Everything about the way this was done suggests to me that they wanted to make the biggest splash they could. In that, sadly, they seem to have succeeded. Prioryman (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I do not intend to offer an opinion as to the DRV itself, but your personal attacks here, Prioryman, are quite out of line, especially considering your own considerable COI in the matter. Mangoe (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse first AfD result. Per NYB. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse first AfD result. Honestly, the second AfD was heading to the exact same result in spite of Seren's arguments. Time to stop the procedural nonsense and face facts: the article is staying.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Re-open second debate. The first AFD was done over a weekend when many editors would not have been aware, and was quickly propped up by Wikipediocrats defending their turf. That said, there were also several keep !votes from editors uninvolved with the site and on that basis, I cannot fault JayJay's decision to close the first one. However, the second AFD is based on a legitimate concern that was glossed over in the first AFD: the article subject simply has not been the subject of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. It does not pass WP:GNG. The site has earned a few mentions as part of articles dedicated to the topic of criticism of Wikipedia, but Wikipediocracy has not yet itself been the subject of such coverage. There is an evident desire to argue notability on the basis of numerous trivial mentions, but that is not supported by the notability guidelines. Moreover, accepting this argument basically renders any politician/candidate or athlete notable if they are given several trivial mentions in articles about elections or games. This is the extent to which GNG is being misapplied. And while that is more of an AFD argument than a DRV one, the simplest course of action would be to simply let the second AFD run its course. Becuase of the nature of Wikipediocracy and several of its users, this article had no hope but to become a drama magnet. The best way to deal with it is to just let the AfD run its course then allow an admin knowledgeable about policy to judge consensus. These silly venue shifting games don't help. Resolute 22:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Determining whether coverage is "trivial" is not about counting how many times something is mentioned or seeing if it is discussed in its own right, but whether the context of the mention indicates it is an important subject. As far as your comparison to articles about politicians in elections and athletes in games, that kind of coverage would be excluded by WP:ROUTINE. None of the mentions of WO that we are talking about are routine.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would say it is. The articles are about Wikipedia and percieved or real abuses within. Wikipediocracy gets a momentary mention in some cases, simply as a hat tip, but it is undeniably not the subject of any of the sources any more than the examples I gave above. Resolute 23:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'll leave the notability issue for others to debate... it's probably not notable enough for an encyclopedia in my view of what notable would mean, but where I think the bar should be is much higher than it actually is.

  FWIW, as a participant on Wikipediocracy, my preference would be delete (as well as maybe have this debate on one page rather than 3). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse - Sorry ladies & gents & others, but as my dream girl once said, "it's all over but the crying". 1 snow keep + 1 bad-faith quick renomination that we all know would've wound up a keep as well == an article that is going to stick around. All we're here to do at DRV is evaluate the closing admin's actions. No fault can be found here at all. Tarc (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse first AfD result per (wikipediocracy member) NewYorkBrad.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Reopen second AfD The first AfD was closed after 24 hours or so, the second lasted less than that. The first was closed with SNOW, but the second isn't snowing, so why not continue it so we have an actual full length AfD? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse I can't see anything procedurally wrong with the way that either AFD nomination was closed, the request to overturn seems to amount to "I disagree with the way people voted" rather than "I think the nomination was closed against procedure". DRV is not itself "AFD Part II" (or in this case Part III), rather we're supposed to look at the deletion process rather than the merits of the deletion argument itself. I don't see where the process was flawed in any way. This does not preclude a new AFD after sufficient time (say 6 months or so) to test the waters to see if consensus has changed, but as a matter of this AFD, I don't see where there's any evidence this needs to be overturned. --Jayron32 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse first AfD result per my comments at the 2nd AfD. - MrX 23:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is going to be an "endorse" by sheer weight of numbers, even if we disregard all the AfD round 2 comments above, but it shouldn't be. We should let SilverSeren have his 7 days at AfD, after which the material will of course be kept, but we're not here to decide that. DRV's function is to see that the process is correctly followed, and the process is that discussions are left open for 7 days. There's no urgent or pressing reason to come to a decision earlier, is there?

  It's against all reason and logic to endorse a "procedural close" of this kind. There is nothing procedural about closing discussions early. Any kind of snow close is an IAR close, and it's inherently bold, and can be reverted per BRD. People snow close discussions like this in an attempt to bring the drama to an end, but of course it doesn't bring the drama to an end. It just brings it here. The correct decision here is to let editors have their say in the normal way. Relist for the whole seven days.—S Marshall T/C 00:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse per my comments at the second afd. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I think there is a rational IAR basis for keeping a piece of borderline notability here. As I commented at the first AfD if this closes a Delete, chances are there will be a redirect to Wikipedia Review (predecessor website) either coming out of the AfD process or established by editorial decision shortly thereafter. That will cause the other piece to grow an unseemly appendage for a time, before another hard source or two inevitably appears and the Wikipediocracy piece splits off again. I think there is a case to be made that it is a more rational way to build an encyclopedia to not attempt to bury a borderline piece at this juncture; we know with mathematical certainty that it will expand over time. I think the snow keep last time was reasonable. I'm a regular poster on the WPO message board so I will just leave this as a comment rather than as a bolded opinion, but hopefully the closing administrator will see the logic of my perspective. Carrite (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

21 May 2013

Lawrence Kaptein

Lawrence Kaptein (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page (about me, but not originally written by me) was deleted for being unsourced. I've prepared a sourced version (to the best of my ability) here: User:Larrycaptain/ Lawrence Kaptein that I believe complies with the sourcing and notability guidelines. I'd be grateful for input and would like to have the deletion overturned and my draft (or another revised version) reinstated. The original article was brought to my attention by a graduate student doing research on the multicultural choral music movement in the US - an important focus of my professional work. 70.151.3.10 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Permit recreation but I think it is still borderline, and I urge the ed. to make it stronger, to avoid a second delete decision. I'm not sure whether it meets WP:PROF, but it might does meet WP:CREATIVE as a musician. In the effort to make sure that everything possibly relevant to notability was shown , the article is considerably over-detailed--local awards within a college do not contribute to notability, and a strong article does not need them. Similarly, I do not think that a college's own publications of local newspapers are usually accepted as showing notability, and they represent far too many of the references. What we really need are reviews of performances in major magazines or papers, especially the major nation ones on choral music and music education. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. I very much appreciate everyone's assistance in creating an acceptable article. The university publications can certainly be deleted if needed. There are three major national publications (books) listed (Jordan, Garretson, and Noble) that reference contributions to the fields of multicultural programming, music education, choral performance. Larrycaptain (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)LK

• Recreate with similar caveats to DGG. I'd be amenable to helping Larrycaptain do some editing and formatting work on the draft, to try and get it up to scratch. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse whether or not the article was originally added by the subject, it's still vanity / self-promotion, which we should avoid as much as possible. An impressive-looking wall of sources doesn't hold up to scrutiny, for example attempts to use Youtube as a source (!!!) several times. Simply put, I'm not convinced this person's notability has changed significantly since it was deleted in April. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Again, the feedback on what to list/not list is extremely helpful. It seems, as a novice editor to Wikipedia, I approached the revision of the deleted article with too wide a variety of sources. The original article had zero references. Yunshui's very kind offer to help me cull/focus the prose and citations was extremely generous. I am hoping to have the opportunity to see what can be recreated with her guidance - perhaps using just the book and national periodical citations? This article is honestly not intended to be self-promoting, but objectively reflect my contribution to the initiation of the multicultural choral music movement in the United States. I've also heard that Wikipedia has been very useful to my graduate students, as potential employers research mentor's names listed on resumes to gain further insight into an applicant's educational experiences and potential professional focuses. Thanks again for all the suggestions and direction. 98.245.92.62 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Larry Kaptein

• Endorse. The deletion was on grounds of notability and the draft presented doesn't address this in the way required by the general notability guidelines: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Most of the sources given are either not reliable (e.g., YouTube) or not independent (sources from the University of Colorado). Notability comes from who talks about you, not what you've done, and the draft is essentially a CV. Having articles published in scholarly journals and referenced by other academics is what academics are supposed to do so isn't evidence of notability. I appreciate that you've tried to be neutral (for example, including reference to criticism of your work), writing about yourself on Wikipedia is "strongly discouraged" (emphasis in the original). Dricherby (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study

Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Significant new information has come to light since deletion that would justify reinstating the deleted page. Version before merge. Historical discussion from Oct 2012 with closer MBisanz. There exists an amount of online news coverage, and the report has clearly been noted by adjoining Council authorities, residents, pressure groups, etc. The report may apparently be not overwhelmingly newsworthy (although I still maintain that the specialist press will have covered it in some depth), but IMO that doesn't mean it's not notable or is insignificant. Reinstating the article would make it easier for others (e.g. those with access to offline sources) to improve it and hence the encyclopedia. I realise that I could simply be bold (and that consensus can change) but because this may still be a borderline case I'm seeking approval here before doing reinstatement. Thanks for reading.

References

-- Trevj (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Setting aside the technicalities of our notability guidelines for a moment and taking the view from 30,000 ft, I think that the name for the topic those sources are discussing is something like "transport policy in south-western England". I think this specific study is well worth including on Wikipedia but it needs to be a section of an article of broader scope, not a separate topic in its own right. I think that to have a separate article for a single study/consultation document about planning is a little too fine-grained for a general encyclopaedia. In other words, I think the AfD came to broadly the right conclusion and subsequent coverage has not invalidated it.—S Marshall T/C 12:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• comment It meets our notability guideline based on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th references, which deal specifically with this report. That does not necessarily mean we must make an article, but there is clearly more information available than was included originally. A good case can be made for separate articles on major government reports that cause public discussion. In any case, the existing merge, to Bath, Somerset#transport is not a good one because it involves more than that single city--we should look for or create an appropriate article.

more generally, perhaps it is time to look at other things than notability in deciding whether to make separate articles. Of course, since notability is not relevant to contents of an article, this permits us to cover fully a great many things that would not meet the notability criteria for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Í

• Comment (proposer) I'm now adding refs 14-24 above. While most of them may not be individually significant in terms of determining notability, there is now one book which refers to the study. IMO the relatively high number of varied independent sources which have referred to the report would suggest that it may meet WP:GNG. Regarding the too fine-grained comment, we should note that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Including a summary of info included within this report (and possibly some further content, even if from the primary source itself) would be undue within an article of broader scope, e.g. covering transport in south-western England. For this reason (and in order for others to be able to more readily improve the encyclopedic coverage of this topic) I still believe that the study warrants a standalone article at this point in time, be it a stub or otherwise. -- Trevj (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

20 May 2013

Natalya Rudakova

Natalya Rudakova (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Notability of the actress (WP:ENT) has increased considerably, with 4 more movies and a TV series (IMDB). At the time of the previous deletion discussions in 2008/09 she had only one major appearance: Transporter 3, to where the page currently redirects. Therefore I recommend undeletion/unprotection to recreate the page. Theaitetos (Δ•Θ) 22:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Just out of curiosity, are there any reliable sources out there that discuss her career? From what I can tell she is mainly known for playing the lead female role in Transporter 3, which is where the page currently redirects to. I'm not all that convinced by her IMDB page, which lists two rumoured roles, three films roles and a TV documentary. Funny ^Pika! 20:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Holcombe Hockey Club

Holcombe Hockey Club (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Request the article be undeleted as there are a number of reasons as to why it is notable. The club is one of the largest, especially in terms of teams, in the UK. Both the men's and women's 1st XI play in the England Hockey League and so are playing at the top level in the country, with the men's 1st XI narrowly missing out on promotion to the Premier League this season just gone. The club is also home to a few players who are notable on the international hockey scene, particularly Barry Middleton, who has appeared on TV at the 2004, 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games. Is it not quite notable to have such a player as a member of the club? It demonstrates the intent to compete in the Premier League, which is quite notable in its field (being the home of many international hockey players).

Mok9 (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse Being the "one of the largest, especially in terms of teams, in the UK" is not a sufficient claim to notability here. Playing 2nd tier of in the England Hockey League does not confer notability and neither does being associated with another notable person. Sports clubs must meet the notability criteria for WP:ORG, meaning it would need multiple, independent secondary sources discussing the club in-depth to support an article. As the previous Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holcombe Hockey Club) highlighted, it lacks this - as does the above sources. Funny ^Pika! 20:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Archive

2013
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2012
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2011
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2010
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2009
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2008
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2007
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2006
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December