Wikipedia:Deletion review

Special school (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin did not address the arguments for deletion. Rovea (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse as closer. The Delete votes were effectively that the article is a duplication of Special education, but that article is not particularly better sourced, and the two are not necessarily the same, as the last four Keep comments noted. The alternative to Keep would have been Merge, which is effectively what the nominator was asking for ("I or someone else will add all of the information on Special school to Special education" - attribution requires that the history be kept in this case). Black Kite 16:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I said that I would add all the information from Special school to special education. In my note to closing admin, I recommended deletion. I meant "merge" as in adding all the information from Special school to Special education. I didn't mean merge as keeping the article. Rovea (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the inclusionists here need to compromise. The deletionists have compromised so many times by allowing all these school-related articles to exist. This has gone too far. Rovea (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have saved the copy of Special school in my sandbox. That way I can add the information into special education. Rovea (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly not an inclusionist. However, I did not feel the nomination reasons (which didn't appear to address WP:DEL#REASON) or Delete reasons were sufficient to delete this article. As an aside, the first sentence of the nomination reads "When I searched for "special school" on Google, it only relates in the US" yet most of the hits on the first page of that search are in the UK, including the UK Government's website. Black Kite 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I was being "sarcastic" which I regret I shouldn't have added that in. Clearly other editors did not get my intentions. You still failed to mention the other arguments that I offered. Rovea (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The first page was all in the US. I checked it. But I also stated that the content of the article (which means we are disregarding the notability) was not the reason for deletion. Rovea (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Disregarding notability? Now you've lost me. If there were other good and policy-based deletion reasons given, then I would have addressed them, but given that your other reasons included "The content of the article is not the reason for deletion but about the "differing perspectives on how to edit an ideal encyclopedia." and "A student who is expelled from high school would not be interested in reading about special education" I didn't see any reason to. Black Kite 17:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I used the arguments from here: Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Rovea (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps next time it would be better to read WP:BEFORE and WP:DEL#REASON. Black Kite 17:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I did read it. However, this was clearly an exceptional case that you failed to address. Rovea (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. Close was not clearly erroneous. Tim Song (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? This was clearly a mistake on the nominator's part. Rovea (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That it was well within the closer's discretion to close the debate as keep - indeed, it might have been an abuse of such discretion had they done otherwise? I see no argument in that discussion that explains why special school should be a redlink. Tim Song (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I explained my intentions above. Rovea (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. The issues here clearly involved editorial judgment rather than notability issues or other issues involving the encyclopedic suitability of the content involved, and therefore it was perfectly appropriate, if not mandatory, for the closing admin to base the decision on the expressed consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion is not a vote and is based on logical arguments. Rovea (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• I can't fault Black Kite's close there.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse AfD is not ideally the place for merge discussions, and neither is this. but from the AfD discussion, I do not think there is currently consensus for a merge. Any other close would have been erroneous. But it's better to give reasons in the first place,--conceivably a fuller close might have made this Deletion Review unnecessary. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The AfD was to delete Special school, not to merge to Special education. I don't understand why all of you keep endorsing it. This was an exceptional case, which was not about the content of the article. Like I said before it was about the "differing perspectives on how to edit an ideal encyclopedia." This was about inclusionist vs. deletionist. It has nothing to do with the content of the article. I don't know why everyone keeps saying this. Rovea (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (schools). I don't understand why school articles are included when it has never even achieved consensus. Rovea (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. Numerically this favoured keep, or no consensus. Arguments wise it certainly was a keep. Quantpole (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

People please read Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia especially when it says this: Much discussion concerns not only the content of each article in question, but also "differing perspectives on how to edit an ideal encyclopedia." Rovea (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse; no compelling argument made for deletion to outweigh the majority opinion to keep. Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia has been mentioned multiple times but its relevance to this discussion remains unclear. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse- I saw no delete consensus in that discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

AXAH (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Inappropriate, out of process deletion by Altenmann. The page was previously redirected as a likely search term. The deletion log claims it was an expired prod but it was not. Seems to be related to these AfD's the deleting admin just initiated: [10] [11] [12] [13]
--Tothwolf (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The prod was removed, so I'm not sure that rationale holds water. However, have you tried asking Altenmann about this? AniMate 23:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn Tothwolf had handled it correctly according to WP:BEFORE. The deleting admin seems to have removed a good and useful redirect on the basis of it having being a prodded article. there were two prods on it previous to Tothwolf's redirect: prod1 gave no reason; prod2 said "The article contains only a dictionary definition of a technical term. Details are well-covered at AHAH." a very good reason to change it to a redirect, as was done, rather than delete: the article contained only the text "Asynchronous XHTML and HTTP, or AXAH, is the similar to AHAH. The only difference is specifying the markup as XHTML." and a link to [Examples of AXAH]--clearly not supportable as an article. This sort of thing usually happens as an e.c., but the deleting admin did it 15 hrs after the change to a redirect. I suspect the reason to be that they had opened a window or tab for it earlier, and not finished it until half a day later & forgot to look for changes. An edit would have given an edit conflict message, but apparently a deletion does not. I consider it simply a careless technical error on their part--it could happen to me easily enough also. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The article was prodded on 14 July 2009, [14] redirected on 21 July 2009, [15], and then deleted 20 November 2009 [16] as an "expired prod". --Tothwolf (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • My mistake. I was looking at several similar pages. This one was a redirect to a wrong (IMO) page, so I opened an old version to see the content. Then I proceeded to nomination for deletion of some of them. This one (opened on old version) I mistakenly assumed as "prodded" and deleted myself. I guess there is a bug in the software, since the deletion page automatically substituted the "expired prod" text, so I suspected nothing. - Altenmann >t 01:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    Please, someone more experienced, report the wikimedia bug, easily reproducible. - Altenmann >t 01:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    • It isn't really a bug. If you restored the old revision, that's exactly what you'd see. Basically the "expired prod" text comes in because it has been more than 7 days since the prodding; AFAIK the template's logic has no way to tell if it was an older revision or not. Tim Song (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • IMO it really is. If you look ito the history, I did not restore it: I only viewed it in history. - Altenmann >t 05:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• From deleting admin: In any case, the redirect target was about a different software which has no slightest mention of AXAH. A single letter in name may be a totally different product, such as Synopsis and Synopsys. This is expecially sensible with abbreviations. If AXAH is notable in itself, such a redirect is misleading and hence harmful, rather than helpful. The deleted page says that it is "similar to AHAH". Well, we have zillions of similar products, which are nevertheless different, and not all of them are notable. For all we know AXAH may be a college dorm knock-off of AHAH, no reason for promotion in wikipedia, unless solid references of notability provided. Then there is no problem with article recreation. - Altenmann >t 00:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Undelete. This was just a little mistake? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• I'm confused. If this was deleted as an expired PROD, why isn't it simply restored at a user's request, and whatever other issues are involved addressed in the appropriate places? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It wasn't an expired prod, which is why I listed it here. See my reply to DGG above. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think it was not the same software, and that a redirect was inappropriate, then the best way to clarify the situation would be to restore the article, and list it at AfD for a proper debate which can be better cone there than here. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. - Altenmann >t 03:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The redirect was appropriate based on the information I could find. The proper procedure would have been RFD, but that was not done. Now it is listed at AfD like the other 4... --Tothwolf (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"AXAH" is not mentioned nor somehow hinted in the AHAH page. Please never redirect to a page when a reader will not find the term he is looking for. If you have found an information which allows you to believe that you may create redirect, and it is missing in wikipedia, please add it, with the corresponding reference, and only then redirect. - Altenmann >t 05:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You are of course free to argue for a redirect at AFD. Tim Song (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

But first create a basis in wikipedia itself: notability, sources, you know the ropes. - Altenmann >t 05:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘

• Honestly, I don't really care anymore as I'm growing tired of people attempting to game the system. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Dorian Davis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Dorian Davis' Wikipedia article was deleted two years ago, and since he has gained more notability and I would like an opportunity to improve the article. I have collected some references. Feel free to review my contributions and user page. Dan Leveille^TALK 02:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Unsalt per S Marshall. It's been two years, and an editor in good standing wants to work on it. Tim Song (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to get a copy of the article as it stood, so I have something to work with-even if it's placed here temporarily: User:Danlev/sandbox/Dorian_Davis. Thanks. --Dan Leveille^TALK 03:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. AniMate 05:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Tim Song correctly predicted what I'd say! Unsalt per, er, well, me.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  :) Tim Song (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Pet-Tao Pet Foods (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Some of the world's foremost veterinary and animal science experts have helped establish Pet Tao Pet Foods and their products. The Chi Institute and Dr. Huisheng Xie from China have been instrumental in the formation of Pet-Tao Pet Foods, which combines both Western and Eastern veterinary and medical science principles. The company is helping animals live healthier, longer lives. This article deserves to be on Wikipedia. Dougmac7 (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted multiple times as blatant advertising. I think the author strengthens that argument here; pretty obvious attempt at advertising. See thread on my talk page for more information. Tan | 39 17:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The cached page strikes me as pretty blatant advertising, and thus would seem to qualify under speedy deletion. I have no arguments with its deletion. Also, User:Dougmac7 appears, on multiple occasions, to have recreated the article at a different spelling, as evidenced by his talk page (Pettao, Pet-Tao, and Pet-Tao Pet Foods, etc.), thus trying to circumvent the process. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 17:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Spam. GlassCobra 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• There's good news and bad news for you, Dougmac7. The bad news is, when an article is written in the first person plural, including phrases like "Our education, dietary innovation, credibility, and ultimately, the performance of our products, strongly support our mission...", it's very hard to censure an administrator for deleting the material as pure marketing spam. We see a lot of advertising material at DRV, and that was definitely it.

  Wikipedia is not your free webhost. We demand that material is encyclopaedic in nature and has a neutral point of view, and if it doesn't comply we can and will delete it.

  But the good news is, a G11 deletion is not a judgment about whether Pet Tao Pet Foods is allowed to have an article. All it means is that you can't have that article. If you write something that's neutral, non-promotional and sourced to reliable sources, there's no reason not to upload it.

  I would advise you to ask an experienced Wikipedian to help you write it rather than writing it yourself, though. Try asking the people at articles for creation.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, an objective response. Amazing. First, I am experienced editor- more than two years on wiki. No one mentioned the article sentence which is not neutral, which I would have immediately taken out, and which should not have been in the original article. SMarshall, that is the only sentence like that; it was an oversight and should not be there. You make it sound like the article had other biased sentences. The only thing I have gotten is hostility, belligerence and lack of response, explanation and communication from the few people who are hostile to me and the article. They are not following wikipedia policy (deletion policy; see below), and who have been hostile to this page. There 67 pet food brands who have pages on wikipedia. Pet-Tao Pet Foods is more notable and noteworthy than many of the brands. Pet-Tao is innovative and actually revolutionary. I have no connection to this company. The company is helping animals live longer, healthier lives. Just like the other 66 pet food brands who have pages on Wikipedia, Pet-Tao deserves to have a page. I have fully followed all policies and the spirit and letter of the Wikipedia policy, mission and purpose. I have repeatedly been attacked, and my work has repeatedly been attacked against Wikipedia policy, which explicitly states there should be 7 days of discussion about article deletion, followed by a ruling about the article based on a consensus. This policy has not been followed, and I request that it is followed in this case. I also request that those who belligerent and hostile tone down their attacks and focus on the issue at hand. Thank you. Dougmac7 (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite honestly, the only belligerence and hostility I see anywhere is from you. Tan | 39 19:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The number of other pet food companies (your competitors) that have articles literally does not matter. At all. And I can't stress that enough. Their articles are not written like blatant, obvious advertisements. The seven-day hold on deletion does not apply to speedy deletion actions performed by an administrator. --King Öomie 19:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And in response to you touting the company's benefits over pet food products- Nobility is not notability. --King Öomie 19:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To Tan, I apologize for any negativity. It was not directed at you. This situation is unfair and unjust. I feel strongly I am in the right. I now realize there are a small group of volunteers who make it their mission to 'win at all costs' rather than deal with the issues at hand. Life is too short to waste it on these people. Dougmac7 (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You may continue to feel that you are right, and everyone else (seven or eight editors, including several admins) is wrong. It is not our responsibility to change your mind; it is our responsibility as admins to ensure Wikipedia policy is upheld. I'm glad you so graciously accept the outcome, and are willing to move on - and not waste your life on us. Tan | 39 19:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. Reasonable G11. Tim Song (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, in this discussion, there are two editors against, one for, one who has presented for and against statements (SMarshall), and one administrator involved. Of the two editors against, one almost makes no sense. Some others have come in late to endorse without being a part of the discussion. SMarshall brought up the only legitimate issue, which was agreed with and which can be easily corrected (neutrality). I wish you all the best. Please forgive me for any statements that have come across as negative. To all of you, best wishes and blessings. Dougmac7 (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to your claim "[s]ome others have come in late to endorse without being a part of the discussion," please note that this is the discussion. DRV is the forum where any community members may comment and share opinions on the validity of specific deletions. GlassCobra 20:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you're classifying my arguments as "making almost no sense," but what I was trying to get at is that blatant advertising (which I what I deemed the cache version of this article) is not allowable. Blatant advertising is a condition for speedy deletion. Speedily deleted articles do not need to be discussed before being deleted--that is well established. I endorsed the deletion of this article because I thought it met the criteria for speedy deletion (blatant advertising). There could be 1,000 articles about pet food companies, and still it would not make any difference, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We are discussing this article, not any others. In short, I based my endorsement of this deletion entirely on policy (as always) rather than gut feelings or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To me, it wasn't just "one sentence" that I considered advertising--much of it was, in my opinion. Hopefully, in writing this response, I am not showing "hostility, belligerence and lack of response, explanation and communication from the few people who are hostile to me and the article" --I always try to assume good faith, I hope other editors do, too. I'm merely trying to do what I think is best for the project, holding policies in consideration and as my foundation. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 20:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Child marriage in Judaism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

I dispute the closing admin's claim of consensus to merge. He himself states that the difference between the support for keep vs. that for merge was marginal. Therefore it is my view that the correct closure would be no consensus. I believe this dispute to be significant because as a result of his actions the article has an afd-merge tag on it stating that the afd said to merge. Yet the lack of consensus requires further discussion - which he himself states; the tag undermines that further discussion by presenting the proposal to merge as a fait-accomplis. I don't have the authority to remove such a tag, and he refuses to do so. He suggests I list the matter here.

Therefore I propose that the so-called result be overturned and changed to no consensus. Newman Luke (talk)

• Speedy close. No deletion for us to review, and no overturn to delete was requested. In such cases the proper venue is the article's talk page. See WP:ND3. Tim Song (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Erb. I would like to see some policy/guideline on exactly what to do with these. The essay Tim cites is not unreasonable, but probably should be hinted at in policy somewhere. So endorse including the part about figuring this out on the talk page of the article. Hobit (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Siling labuyo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate page since the interpretation of the closer at AfD was merge but I think it was interpreted incorrectly so in case this is the correct venue I'm posting it here. I tried to ask the closer his/her rationale but my question sat on his/her page for a week with no response and then was automatically archived.

My interpretation of the discussion was that verifiability was the main criterion for consensus. I was the only one in the entire discussion to cite a reliable verifiable source in support of a position, my claim being that siling labuyo is distinct from Thai pepper. Because of this I feel merge was the wrong conclusion and "keep as is" the correct one. However the person who nominated for deletion and made only claims by assertion throughout took the close and decision to merge as leave to merge the contents into a new article Bird's eye chili. I think the resulting article is factually incorrect and the concern seems shared by others. I would reverse the merge or at least restore the siling labuyo article as it was to correct this but it would seem as if I'm going against an admin's decision and proper due process if I did so. I'm seeking permission to restore the article as it was or at least advice on the proper course of action. Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, Lambanog. The short version is that the proper course of action is to seek consensus to reverse the merge on the article's talk page.

  The (much longer) version is that from a DRV point of view, a "merge" and a "keep" are the same thing. DRV is for reviewing deletion decisions, the test of which is whether the article was actually deleted (in such a way that only an administrator can restore it; if it was merged or turned into a redirect, then any editor can restore it by undoing the relevant revision, so no administrator intervention is necessary and there's no administrative matter to review).

  Basically, because you can restore it yourself, no process beyond the normal Wikipedian ones available to any editor is needed.

  I'm going to close this, but if you'd like more support with this article, please feel free to ask me on my talk page.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Closer If the separate article is reliably sourced as a separate article then I have no problem with it being restored. I apologise for not responding to the talkpage note - I must've missed it in a busy time. (And yes, this is the wrong venue, but that doesn't really matter). Black Kite 19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Easy Projects .NET (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Although being relisted twice, there has been very little discussion. The article however has three external links that provide significant coverage. The rationales put forwared as delete are in my opinion rather meager: one is more of a tirade against using Wikipedia for advertising purposes rather then judging this articles merits, another calls for speedy deletion. The article was originally proposed for deletion (PROD), but this was challenged by another editor. For convenience, the external links were: Easy Projects .NET: Does It Live Up to Its Name? - WebWorkerDaily, Get Industrial Strength Project Management Online - BNET Business Hacks and Review - A Girl's Guide to Project Management Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Other than those dubious blogs that don't really fit WP:RS, most of the other hits appear to be derivatives of press releases and other spammy things pushed out by the company onto the Internet. Also, WP:VSCA. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe that 3 sources that are borderlining on failing RS, but are otherwise fine sources demonstrate notability. Press releases do not, but finding press releases and other spammy stuff doesn't negate notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It shows a pattern of using poor sources failing WP:RS to try to show non-existent notability, in addition to a pattern of WP:SPAM by the company itself. Cirt (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn - This software has been featured in industry publications such as PM Network published by the PMI, twice in 2 separate issues May 2009 and August 2009 respectively. These types of publications are not freely available on the web to the general public, as they are distributed to subscribers and members of the PMI. Googling "Easy Projects .NET PM Network" will produce proof of coverage. This product has also been featured in other print publications including Inc as well as project management related books and whitepapers by industry consultant David Coleman (42 Rules for Successful Collaboration). Because the software does target professionals in the project management field, the coverage by industry experts and publications is thus significant. Other web coverage includes reviews and new announcements by the respectable blogs and websites. The original article editor has made effort to improve the article by consulting with a Wikipedia administrator on the subject (Nihiltres). The article also noted the importance of this software in development of an open source data access framework. Xbammy (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Xbammy = no contributions whatsoever for over three years, and now this? Possible WP:SPA? Cirt (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• While I don't disagree with Cirt on any of the above, in this case let's send it to AfD for a full discussion, so it can be properly and thoroughly discussed, and the nominator can see that FairProcess is being fully followed and the article's had every chance we could reasonably give it. Then it can be properly and finally deleted.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• The AfD was relisted twice before it was closed. So that's ~21 days of debate already. WP:RELIST, IIRC, prohibits relisting more than twice. Endorse closure - the third relist tends to indicate that an admin thought there was no consensus, but a delete close is reasonable. Nonetheless, I agree with nom and S Marshall that the debate is rather inadequate, even after three weeks, and for that reason, I would not oppose a relist by DRV. Tim Song (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep on the basis of there being no consensus to delete. If so little consensus that a third relisting is necessary, there should be more than five minutes' given for comments .We've no rule on the length of time, bit this is ridiculously short and amounts to another admin overruling the relisting. I notice in the way of sources it was on the the 5 DrEDobbs finalists for Project Management tools in 2008. as reported by Reuters. DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Update: I restored the page. And reverted my close. So it is now back to being relisted. Feel free to engage in a notability debate there, and this DRV can be closed. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Cortney Tidwell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Cortney Tidwell (singer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

I have a perfected article for Cortney Tidwell, however I cannot add because the page is now protected by deleting admin. This admin is out to get me, my most-current article is in wiki format, notable and does not advertise (the reasons why Cortney Tidwell pages were deleted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncerlan (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: malformed DRV fixed. While it's probably not G11, I can't find any indication of importance in the article. Tim Song (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Cortney Tidwell is a recording artist with three albums. She is on tour with other famous artist. She has a county singer for Mom. Her whole family is associated with the grand ole opry. Is that the kind of importance your looking for or do you mean something technical? like a link or citation (im bad at those)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncerlan (talk • contribs)
• Can you please explain:
  1. How Ms. Tidwell meets your choice of criteria at WP:NMG?
  2. Why you chose to repeatedly recreate the page, including recreating at a different title to circumvent page protection, rather than engaging with the administrator who deleted the page or seeking to improve it?
• Thanks in advance. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• I have deleted a further recreation of the article at Cortney tidwell. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• The above questions were answered at my talk, viz:
  1. Tidwell has coverage from reliable sources. MSNBC and The Guardian [26] [27] She has 2 albums from two known labels. She has been on tours with other famous artists and some of her music is collaborated with members of the famous band Lambchop (band)
  2. Its not against Wikipedia's rules to repeatedly create a page if you make improvements upon it. Wikipedia is never a final copy article.
• I am prepared to !vote permit recreation on the basis of the above, on condition that there are no further circumventions of process, i.e. you should wait until this discussion is closed by an administrator before attempting to recreate the article at whatever title. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion as deleting admin. Where were those reliable sources before? I've restored Cortney Tidwell and added the sources to the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• I take it this can be closed now?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

help!

Hey everyone, thanks for the comments on the deletion review. S Marshall I'm all up for your help editing these articles and trying to make them the best they can be. That was what I was trying to do all along.

However, the user that speedy deleted my pages-- despite my only starting a deletion review-- has decided to block my username from editing anything which means I had to go through a few hoops to even get this message on here. I'd really appreciate it if someone could lift the block so that I can edit these pages so I can do exactly what I'm here trying to do-- make a good article.

I'm uncertain what this admin has against me or what I have done that would require a block. If I have done something I would really like to understand as I was not trying to promote anything or offend anyone.

I really appreciate your help on this. If only to be able to participate openly in my own deletion review discussion it would be nice to understand what is going on.

(I'd have emailed one of you, but couldn't actually figure out how to do that since I'm still new to all this.)

Thanks rpelton via a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.81.138.49 (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Storks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Speedily deleted per {{db-banned}} despite removal of template at least once prior to ultimate insertion leading to speedy deletion. This goes against the policy articulated at Wikipedia:Deletion#Speedy deletion under "Renominations". I am not suggesting the pages be kept in the long term, but that it is totally inappropriate for such pages to be deleted without an AfD discussion or a centralized policy discussion given that there was not unanimity for speedy deletion. Requesting (possibly temporary) restore and list outcome only. Nomination also includes:

• Fairy Tales Told for Children. New Collection.
• Heartache (short story)
• Little Claus and Big Claus
• Little Ida's Flowers
• O. T.
• Only a Fiddler
• The Buckwheat
• The Garden of Paradise
• The Improvisatore
• The Naughty Boy
• The Rose Elf
• The Storks
• The Traveling Companion
• The Two Baronesses

FWIW, the banned user is not suspected of introducing incorrect material into article space as far as I'm aware. ^Bongo_matic 17:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my understanding is that the additions by the numerous socks of the banned user are sourced mostly from offline references and are difficult to verify. In general, if these articles are going to be restored, then the banned user needs to be unbanned. Wknight94 ^talk 18:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• More discussion on this here and here. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Either User:ItsLassieTime is banned or they are not. If we are going to keep their contributions, unban them and let them run rampant with the 20-30 socks they had that were supporting one another in discussions (ANI and SPI about this editor). And yes the editor IS suspected of introducing incorrect material, at least by some. One or two have been verified. None of the ones deleted were the GA ones, as far as I remember. We cannot just randomly decide to let some banned editors contribute so long as it looks good enough, yet still call them community banned. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason for them not to sock, particularly an editor like this one who primarily does it just because he/she enjoys the accolades of DYK and GA, regardless of which account they are on. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • New discussion now at ANI: WP:ANI#ItsLassieTime banned or not? Wknight94 ^talk 18:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Theses are very reasonable—and maybe correct / compelling / garnering of community consensus—arguments. The place to raise them is in an AfD discussion. ^Bongo_matic 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a speedy deletion criteria which applied very clearly to these - and others for that matter. I should really delete them all but stopped in order for discussion at the MuZemike's page to continue. But now we're here. Wknight94 ^talk 20:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is—and once one editor has removed the template, as in this case, it becomes inapplicable and AfD is required^Bongo_matic 23:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds more like WP:PROD to me. Wknight94 ^talk 01:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) CSDs are not prods. There are no restrictions on retagging them if the CSD is removed, nor does it becoming inapplicable just because a non-administrator went through and mass removed them versus their being actually declined by a reviewing administrator, particularly when the pages WERE eligible for G5, despite your assertion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion a serial liar, creator of hoaxes and banned user socks, gets caught, and the unverified crap is deleted? Very good. Why are we here? Bali ultimate (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn a speedy is no longer valid after one editor not the contributor removes the template. the pages were possibly eligible for G5, but G5 only says they may be removed, not that they must be removed. One good faith editor objecting is enough to prevent it, as for any speedy. It is not permitted to replace validly removed speedy tags, for the same reason , and the admin who did so was totally out of policy. As Deletion policy says, challenged Speedys are taken to AfD. As for the issue, the contributor is banned, and should not contribute. If what they have done is good nevertheless, it would be foolishly counterproductive to remove it. As for being a deterrent, it doesn't seem to work. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "a speedy is no longer valid after one editor not the contributor removes the template" - that is not stated anywhere that I have seen. You and Bongomatic appear to be thinking of WP:PROD. And if you're saying it would be foolishly counterproductive to remove banned users' contributions, then it is foolishly counterproductive to have them banned in the first place. You can campaign for that elsewhere. As long as they are banned, their contributions are reversed. Wknight94 ^talk 03:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Wknight94; DGG, you know at this stage that your feelings on several deletion policies are widely divergent from the actual policy, so please be clear when writing what is policy and what is how you think policy should be. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions" A good faith editor removing a tag qualifies in my opinion for such a dispute. As I said elsewhere, perhaps we need to make this more obvious, since some others do not see it as I do. If the feeling is otherwise, we'd need to discuss whether it applies to all speedies, or just this exceptional class. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
      • "Typically" would tend to indicate that there are some cases when this does not happen, and this seems to be one of those few. If others do not see it as you do, that may mean that it should be made more obvious, but it also may mean that you may need to revise your view of matters into line with what others feel. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletions – if they were created by a person in violation of the ban, then we should not be encouraging that person to come back, evade ban again, and create pages again while still banned – which is the message we would send if we restored the pages. MuZemike 02:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Bali ultimate and MuZemike make arguments that merit consideration. However, they are fundamentally arguments for deletion, not for endorsing a speedy deletion over the objection of an editor who is not the page creator. These opinions should be disregarded by the closing admin as unrelated to deletion policy. ^Bongo_matic 02:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hair splitting aside, WP:DP#Speedy deletion states "Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not." In this case it does, whether you removed the tag or not. That is obviously what the endorsers are saying. If hair splitting is your thing, how about the word "typically" in that same line? It does not say "must" - that's WP:PROD. Wknight94 ^talk 03:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn deletions Our all-wise, all-knowing policies are unclear on this issue. G5 and reversion of banned editors' contributions is a "may", not a "must". There seem to me to be genuine gradations between policies of retaining some of a banned editor's contributions and of automatically reverting them all that do not make a mockery out of the punishment of banning. There don't seem to be real suspicions of hoaxing by the banned editor. Immediate deletion of existing articles good enough to avoid the other speedy criteria, by an author whose problems were more behavioral than content-related, seems to be a clear detriment to the encyclopedia. I would like to see a more explicit argument why and how retention will reward negative behavior and cause enough future damage to outweigh the present cost. So I think that the ruling policy here should be WP:AGF - I think that we should assume good faith of Bongomatic's removals, that he is to some degree vouching for these articles, and thereby making a genuine contribution to them, preventing another G5. John Z (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps for the first time in my life, I'm with Bali Ultimate on this one. Where we've got a disruptive user whose contributions are known to be suspect, I think it's irresponsible to let them stand.

  No objection to allowing an editor in good standing to create this content, of course.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• G5 is an discretionary CSD. Whilst perhaps it might not have been an abuse of discretion to let the content stand - though, as S Marshall et al. noted, there are verifiability concerns - it is certainly not an abuse of discretion to delete them. As such, endorse, without prejudice to recreation by an editor in good standing. Tim Song (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn, since no evidence has been provided that would indicate that this content is problematic. --NE2 13:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - When a banned user -- particularly a banned user with a history of creating hoaxes and other bad content -- creates new content, that content is subject to deletion unless another user goes to the trouble of validating it. The "burden of proof" (i.e., the responsibility for evaluating and validating the content) in this type of case falls on the user who volunteers to rescue the content, not on the user calling for deletion. The only substantial edits to this article were by the banned user. --Orlady (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • People keep saying that this user has a history of creating hoaxes, but not providing any evidence. Can you show me where this was originally determined? --NE2 14:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The user has admitted to sockpuppetry and deception. I don't know of any evidence concerning hoaxes in articles, but I do not think it is very responsible to let a known liar's contributions stand.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I know of many cases of content submitted by known liars that stands. (Exercise: am I lying when I say that? ) --NE2 17:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion unless any other editor is willing to take responsibility for the content. Users are banned for a reason, and until policy changes, edits of a banned user can be summarily removed. Karanacs (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD. per above "As Deletion policy says, challenged Speedys are taken to AfD" that is, if not obviously adverts, hoaxes or spam. Our guidelines need to be equal and consistant regardless of the fact an editor is banned or not. We would not refuse a suspected thief legal defense and due process simply because he/she has stolen before? Shame on endorse voters. Turqoise127 (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Flawed analogy. This "thief" is not suspected, s/he was convicted and sentenced months ago. Wknight94 ^talk 22:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing flawed about it. Do allow me to restate; We would not refuse a previously convicted thief legal defense and due process simply because he/she has stolen before?Turqoise127 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

EVERYTHING flawed about a very bad analogy. Not a thief, a trespasser: no "trial" necessary to throw the bum -- and his belongings -- out. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not quite sure if it is funny or sad that this comment comes from a disruptive user who has recently been banned from posting to another user's talk pages...Turqoise127 (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would strong recommend that you strike this comment. "Deletion review is explicitly a drama-free zone. Nominations which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias may be speedily closed." Tim Song (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if you mean my comment or the one above mine? If you mean my comment, I simply stated what I encountered on the talk pages of user Calton; there was a warning for disruptive behavior and a ban from posting to another user's pages. Why am I not allowed to state what I saw? I attacked no one, made no accusations and nothing of the sort. User Calton, on the other hand, calls another editor a bum, trespasser, and states they should be thrown out. Why did you not respond to that, editor Tim Song? I will not be striking anything, and you should be a little less selective with your repremands.Turqoise127 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It is patently inappropriate to bring in issues concerning other editors that are totally irrelevant to the matter at hand, even if truthful. It is relevant whether the author of the article is banned. It is totally irrelevant whether a commenter is subject to an editing restriction that has nothing to do with the subject matter. Tim Song (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with "sad", to be seeing such evidence of intellectual bankruptcy. Yes, it's tempting, when one doesn't have a leg to stand on, to resort to desperate attacks on the messenger to divert attention from one's shortfalls. But cheer up, I'm sure you'll do better next time! --Calton | Talk 08:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn. If a single editor in good standing supports the retention of the articles, then they should not be speediable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Then that editor should click on those redlinks and get started right away if it's so important. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Banned user? Let'em come through the front door if they want to continue. And if the contributions are so all-fired important, they ought to be easy enough to someone to actual click on those handy redlinks and have at it. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty depressing to see an administrator sarcastically denigrate content in this manner. Not all of these articles are "so all-fired important", but neither is much useful content here. Take a look at Little Claus and Big Claus and you will see a well-researched, encyclopedic article on a topic that meets inclusion guidelines. ^Bongo_matic 19:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not denigrating content in the least: since it's so important to you, starting clicking those red-links and starting adding that valuable content right away! --Calton | Talk 08:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment there seems to be the argument that deleting this will discourage socking. But that it would most likely to be deleted was known prior to this and it didnt work in this case, nor has it worked in many others. The argument is that this is an exceptional case where the articles are worthwhile. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Bali ultimate and MuZemike. G5 was properly utilized. GlassCobra 19:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The outcome should always be the same for banned users; their articles get deleted. The mechanism they get deleted is that somebody notices that the article was created by a banned user or one of their socks, and then gets it deleted somehow. An admin could delete them without even applying any tags or allowing any discussion. Presently I have a prod tag waiting on an article by a banned user, because I don't care how fast it gets deleted; I am happy that it eventually will be. As for the "useful content" argument, if a topic is crucially important, it will be recreated quickly. If it is not important, a longer period of time will pass. On a couple of occasions I have recreated articles that were deleted for copyvio or other problems; it's not hard, nor is it a burden on the vast pool of editors looking to increase their article created counts. People need to trust in the process, and and in the work ethic of Wikipedia's ordinary editors. Abductive (reasoning) 22:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

DRV is not the place for "should"s of this nature. Policy does not say that such content must "always" be deleted, so speedy is inappropriate when disputed. There is no policy basis for Abductive's point whatsoever. ^Bongo_matic 23:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is no policy basis, then how can the {{db-banned}} tag exist? A speedy deletion tag can be removed, true, but such removal (seems to me, by consensus and frequent usage) based on a dispute about whether the tag is telling the truth. If this was a {{db-copyvio}} case, the article gets deleted unless somebody says it's not copyvio. I've seen copyvio tags removed based on people making the (false) claim that it is not copyvio, and then seen the article get deleted without a tag even being reapplied. Now that these articles are deleted, it's tough titties. If you think the topics deserve an article, rewrite them or farm out the rewriting. Abductive (reasoning) 23:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember to distinguish the article from the topic. Abductive (reasoning) 23:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, consider that an AfD will result in these articles getting deleted anyway. So all that will accomplish is a delay in rewriting them. Abductive (reasoning) 23:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would an AfD result in delete? Judging from the ones not deleted, there would be several snow keeps in there. Without a draconian position on speedying and a wildly optimistic one toward future rewriting, it seems that deletion is causing a delay, not retention. Almost all speedies and G5's serve to eliminate junk. These articles aren't.John Z (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the point of deleting articles of banned users is to take away the only thing they care about. It is impossible to prevent them from returning as socks, right? They (and in particular this user) takes pride in their work being on Wikipedia. So the draconian solution is to take their articles out and shoot them in the back of the head. This policy is designed as a warning to others that if they push the community hard enough, even if they come back as a sock, their legacy is gone. Why else have a speedy deletion criterion for this? Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is valuable and well-reasoned. However, see my next comment, a policy-, not opinion-based, explanation of why your argument needs to be made in a different forum than endorsement of an out-of-policy speedy deletion. ^Bongo_matic 01:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD may not "would" result in their deletion, per precedent and policy. Hence the deletion on speedy grounds should be overturned and you will have an opportunity to argue that they "should" be deleted in this instance. WP:BAN (at Enforcement by reverting_edits) is explicit that reversion is not automatic or necessary. This is not a case of splitting hairs—the policy goes out of the way to make the distinction. You may disagree that these articles are well-sourced and encyclopedic, or that the creation of well-sourced and encyclopedic articles is (as stated in the policy "obviously helpful", but that disagreement means that AfD is warranted. ^Bongo_matic 01:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Then I don't see the point of having a special speedy deletion category for articles by banned users. If the banned user created hoax or non-notable articles, then they could be speedy deleted as vandalism or A7. But {{db-g5}} must exist to delete good articles. Abductive (reasoning) 01:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think your view of the purpose of the speedy deletion process is very different from mine, and in my experience (often on the frustrated side wishing differently) consensus. Speedy deletion is for uncontested deletion of articles that fall in specific categories. Where (a) it is contested whether an article falls into a category or (b) an article in a category's deletion is contested, it doesn't apply. That doesn't mean that the speedy deletion criterion is useless in any way. ^Bongo_matic 01:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So you agree that deletion via the {{db-banned}} tag is fine if nobody contests? That is the most important thing to me. Abductive (reasoning) 02:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I just spend 20 minutes rewriting one of the stubs from scratch. All the remaining articles could take maybe 5 hours. Abductive (reasoning) 02:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes--as you can see from the DRV request, the problem here is that an editor acting in good faith (me) removed the {{db-banned}} tag prior to its reinsertion and later speedy deletion. I don't contest the category of speedy deletion at all. As per Wikipedia:Deletion#Speedy deletion under "Renominations", the convention that an article goes to AfD after any category of speedy tag (even copyvio, which is obviously more problematic) is removed once. This is not a strict policy (as it is for {{prod}}), but there's no reason not to accede to the requests of editors in good standing to get a community view through an AfD whether an article created by a banned user is an "obviously helpful" edit that should be spared per the explicit possibility mentioned in the policy. ^Bongo_matic 02:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. Well, I would prefer to recreate these articles myself. Going blindly by the sources and then looking at the cached articles in Google, I have ascertained that the banned user created stubs on works by a long-dead author that somehow managed to garner factual accuracy tags. The banned user created stubs that seem to make claims about the works that I could not corroborate online. The online sources analyse the works differently than some of the banned user's stubs. This is worrisome to me, and the solution is to just rewrite the articles. Abductive (reasoning) 02:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

From scanning one of the older sock's talk page, the person has a lot of trouble with WP:OR and WP:NPOV, among other things. Wknight94 ^talk 03:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Given that editors who rewrite the article have read the work of the banned user, and continue to have access to cached material, the banned user must be given some attribution. Overturning the deletion for an editor in good standing to rewrite is the solution that my reading of the GFDL calls for. The misbehaviour of an editor does not relinquish our continuing copyright obligations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please compare the two versions of The Two Baronesses; I created the replacement before looking at the cache. They are as different as they can possibly be. Abductive (reasoning) 04:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I suppose that's all right then, although in general I'd prefer to err on the side of attributing unecessarily. By the way, I don't think The Two Baronesses is a worthy article, albeit stub, and should be merged and redirected to Hans_Christian_Andersen#Early_works. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Notability requirements for books are a weak point for me. If anybody feels like merging The Two Baronesses to anywhere, I won't complain. Abductive (reasoning) 07:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is no attribution requirement arising from that, only if there is verbatim copying. Samw wat y that many editors here in order to meet WP:V are reading outside works, if that made the works here some sort of derivative (which would for the GFDL or some CC require attribution) then we couldn't license the work here under the GFDL or CC anyway. Relaistically such a chain of having read something now requiring acknowledgement of the original writings, would end up as a close to infinite list --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse CSD G5 states "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others." Removing a db tag is not a substantial edit. Triplestop x3 21:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

BS.Player (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Download.com's editors have given the software five stars (see [28]), thus it is notable and should not be deleted. RekishiEJ (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse All policy-compliant AFD reasons were delete. I suggest that RekishiEJ find reliable sources detailing the notability of this product, write an article from scratch in his userspace, then come back to DRV. Hipocrite (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I already suggested that to him. Twice. [29] [30]. RekishiEJ (talk · contribs) seems to have ignored that suggestion, and come here, instead. Cirt (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Download.com is a reliable source, and since the software was once awarded, it is notable. I suggest that once a software was given five stars by a particular noted download website or magazine, or reviewed by at least two independent media, it is notable (the reverse is not true, though, as they are other factors making a software notable).--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  The notability guideline covering this is the general notability guideline which says no such thing, if you want to try and propose a new standard then this is not the venue. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• On reading through the debate, I must begin by endorsing Cirt's closure. The closer's role is to evaluate the debate, and it could not have been closed in any other way. It is possible that the consensus itself was in error and the software is indeed notable, but admins should not need to take any shit from DRV when they have closed a debate in accordance with the consensus.

  On the matter of whether to overturn the consensus itself, I would like to point out that Download.com is one source, and our policies require sources, plural. Five stars is not quite the same as a notable software award.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

But given five stars by a particular medium is essentially the same as being awarded. Also it is mentioned non-trivially by others sources [31]. By the way, I think that now English Wikipedia is becoming more and more deletionist, and it can heavily narrow its coverage thus making it less useful to many users.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Softpedia is open for anyone to submit software to. i.e. it is little more than a directory, inclusion there indicates very little. (download.com also is basically for anyone to submit, so mere inclusion there is also meaningless). Five star reviews are given out fairly liberally, they aren't equivelant to a small amount of awards issued on a periodic basis. Five Stars is also a meaningless measure, what criteria were used? what comparison is being made? is it point in time or "forever"? etc. The general notability guideline is the measure. Have multiple indepedant reliable sources written about it in a non-trivial way. i.e. not directory style listings which merely repeat the authors own blurb, or blogs etc. The download.com might pass that bar (I'm not convincded being it's all of three pargraphs) but as above the notability requirement is for multiple independant reliable sources, and the place to argue about notability issues is the AFD, DRV is not AFD round 2. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

* I do want to agree with RekishiEJ that the English Wikipedia is becoming more deletionist. It's an old and deep-rooted trend, that. The concept of a cost/benefit analysis in which we try to decide whether an article might be helpful to end-users has largely evaporated in favour of a near-obsessive focus on coverage in reliable sources. That trend's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does bear watching.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree (or disagree for that matter), the number of articles has steadily risen so you'd exprect the number of deletion discussions to rise also. As to if the proportion of delete/keep decisions has changed, I'm not sure there is any reasonable data on that. The aim has never been to merely include articles which are helpful to end-users, stuff like reviews of websites are potentially useful but it's not what wikipedia is about, and the basic standard for inclusion as the general notability guideline has remained the same as has the verifiability not truth requirements. Debate over those who want to label deletionism and inclusionism have been going on for years and I expect continue for years, I would also suspect the average wikipedian would not label themselves as either. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • Allow me to disagree that the trend is more deletionist. In most AfD, an editor will come up with two reliable sources, they can be as small as one sentence mentions, and then there is a pile-on trend to keep. The term significant no longer has meaning towards notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miami33139 (talk • contribs)
      • Actually, most editors do anything but provide sources, i.e. try to actually explicitly refute the nominator's(s') rationale for deletion. MuZemike 00:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse close. However one prefers to put it, a single review does not establish notability. Tim Song (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per S Marshall. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Toasters still get reviews in print consumer magazines and we don't create articles based on that. Miami33139 (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse – Anyone can say that a something is "VERY popular"^{[citation needed]}; anyone can say that something has "xx million users"^{[citation needed]}; anyone can say it's good and place a 5-star rating on it. Notability is asserted via coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the topic; that is, one should be able to build a reliably-sourced article using said sources and that is neutral and free of original research. None of the rationales (mostly by single-purpose accounts, mind us) for retention address any of that. MuZemike 00:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Well, since this software has been given five stars by Download.com, this time we can apply IAR to ignore limitations on WP:N.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, let's change the rule. If a software has been only reviewed by a reputable independent medium or person once, but awarded five stars, editor's choice or equivalents once, then it is notable.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:Notability (software) is that way. Tim Song (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, DRV is not AfD round 2. GlassCobra 19:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. The close was entirely correct based on the discussion. The new information provided here is at best grounds for userfying the deleted article so that more sources can be added, which does not require DRV. --RL0919 (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Following a discussion on the closer's talk p, I have reverted this premature closure. No evidence of bad faith in bringing it here, so it needs sufficient discussion; 11 hours is not sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

his closing message was: "Nothing to see here, move along please. Article deleted correctly, no apparent process problem and it's not clear what needs to change. – Guy (Help!) 17:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Adamantius (journal) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Page was first deleted by Juliancolton after an expired WP:PROD. Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) chose to unilaterally recreate the deleted page. It was nominated for AfD by Crusio, and I closed that as delete (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantius (journal)). Instead of first contacting the deleting admin, or starting the deletion review process, Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) again acted unilaterally, to restore the deleted page. I deleted it due to G4. Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) has chosen instead of engaging in polite dialogue, or partaking in proper site process, to issue threats [32], so this now comes here. Thank you for your time.Cirt (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep delete. As an editor who voted in the above-mentioned AFD, I voice my opinion that the article has insufficient notability for english wikipedia. As an administrator, I don't understand why an article was undeleted after a closed AFD without a community discussion. Perhaps I'm missing something? Materialscientist (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• (to OP) What? This seems a bit of an unusual DRV request. The article is currently deleted, and you seem to be asking for it to stay deleted? Why not just salt it and get it over with? Deletion review is usually undertaken to reverse a current status quo. It is highly unusual to start one with a request to maintain a status quo. --Jayron32 06:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if you think I should salt it, I will. Any objections or reasons why I should not? Cirt (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just salt it. I can detect nothing improper in either the close or the G4. Tim Song (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Already salted, by Jayron32 (talk · contribs), and I agree. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Please hold this open for a while. This journal is ranked "A" (second highest) in the Excellence in Research for Australia ranking here in Australia. Since the article is now salted, I would like the opportunity to investigate whether an adequately sourced article can be written. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Um I did not think that the purpose of DRV was to repeat the AFD process again, but rather to determine if the AFD was closed properly. Cirt (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That is true, but if it turns out that the journal is notable after all, DRV can still unsalt. Tim Song (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject after searching in five different research database archives. I found none. Cirt (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is best left salted for the moment, unless reliable sources are provided. I've found a few sources in Italian, which I am still working through. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Cirt (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep delete. The article has already been through the process of WP:PROD, and was deleted. It was again deleted after discussion at WP:AFD. The subject fails WP:NOTE, it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Further, it appears from above that users Materialscientist (talk · contribs), Jayron32 (talk · contribs), and Tim Song (talk · contribs) found no fault with the processes involved by which the article was deleted. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse, since I participated in the debate, but I want to say that my position remains as it was in the AfD: if it can be shown that the magazine is peer-reviewed, then I would be in favour of permitting an article, but if not, then I would prefer that it remain deleted.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I took this to AfD after the article was re-created virtually without any change after the expired PROD mentioned above. There were several argumented delete votes and a few comments from editors who abstained from voting. The closing appears to have followed consensus in that debate. It should be noted that Alastair Haines was properly informed of the AfD, but did not participate in the debate. If information would be brought forward that the journal is notable after all (and reliable sources can be found), I have nothing against re-creation, but up till now I have not seen any such evidence. --Crusio (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Deletion reviews is a proper place to discuss this: a close must be reasonable, and an incorrect close is not reasonable. Thus any mistake made in the decision can be considered a process mistake, because an admin is supposed to close on the consensus of reasonable opinion. As an analogy, appeal courts usually do review in some manner the facts of the case, and an unreasonable verdict will be overturned--except that in US criminal matters, a verdict finding the defendant not guilty cannot be reversed. But normal civili disputes can be and often are sent back for another hearing. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse delete (I did not partici[pate in the first AfD) It's a newsletter, not an actual journal . Whether something is technically peer-reviewed is not always the determining factor--any journal can claim to be peer-reviewed while still accepting anything it gets sent, and some very reliable publications are actually simply published on the basis of an editor's sole decision. And a edited professional magazine under strong editorial control of a major professional body can also be notable, as Chemical and Engineering News. But this is simply devoted to publishing whatever he members of its group should send it, as group newsletters commonly do; to quoting in abbreviated form from its home page: (1)information about the projects and programs of the Research Group and about the work in progress of its members (2) it records the members' publications, (3) reports on conferences related in some way to the research field (4)provides an up-to-date list of the members (5) contains lists of the biblical passages mentioned in the newsletter. (It also seems to contain book reviews). This does not make it a peer-reviewed journal, or a well-controlled professional magazine--just a newsletter of a research group. With respect to Excellence in Research for Australia, I've always had my doubts about its methods, which are essentially based in the humanities upon whether a few academics in the field recommend it--that it includes this publication in a high category certainly confirms my doubts on its validity. The proposed WP Journal Notability guideline, as I understood it, is intended to make it clear that publications such as this are below the notability level. (and that even for peer reviewed journals, to make clear that by no means all of them were notable). I've been sometimes called a little too inclusionist on this score, but the reason I did not participate in the AfD, was that I thought this publication so totally non-notable as to be an obvious delete and not worth the argument. this journal is not included in any theological or historical indexing service--and there is no reason why they would, as it includes no research level contributions whatsoever. The sponsor of this article is usually very reliable, but I think this time he's mistaken. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing here suggested the deletion process hasn't been followed properly — keep deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Francis A. Beer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

COI Prmwp (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Malformed DRV fixed. Can OP expand on his rationale? Tim Song (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Other discussion on this can be found here here and here. The author of the article and lister here are apparently the subject of the article. I assume User:Prmwp is also a copy of the article. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• I see. Overturn speedy, AfD at editorial discretion. COI or autobiography is not a speedy criteria. A university professor is a claim of importance. The article requires some cleanup, but it was not blatantly promotional as to fall under G11. Tim Song (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP.

I created and posted this page containing my own BLP biography. There may or may not be COI, but I believe that article qualifies for inclusion under Wikipedia notability guidelines.

COI.

Virtually all the listings of living people that I have consulted show some degree of participation--inclusion or exclusion of material--by the subject. Wikipedia guidelines say that this is "strongly discouraged", but it is not absolutely prohibited. This is a normative policy statement that seems to be almost totally disregarded in practice. From my personal empirical observation, it is simply not true in reality. For example, a short search among my colleagues showed 4 husband-wife couples and one father-son couplet

Whether such autobiographical participation involves inappropriate COI, is, in my opinion, something that should be subject to critical analysis on an individual basis. There are potential v. actual conflicts of interests; convergent interests as well as conflicting ones.

I think that Wikipedia and its users have a strong interest in detail and interpretation that only subjects or their closest associates can provide. Aside from the interests of contemporary users, there are those of future ones. When the living subjects pass on there will be nobody to supply those details. Such information can easily be deleted, but it can never be restored.

As you can infer from the comments above, it does not seem appropriate to me to infer either COI or notability from the mere fact of authorship. In my view, each of these should be determined on its own merits, and articles should be edited to reduce possible COI.

I am requesting that the biography be considered on its own merits in terms of notability and COI.

Wikipedia, like many professional journals, is based on a volunteer submission model. Further, Wikipedia whole mythos is "open source" in order to maximize the contribution and dissemination of information. That is clearly what my colleagues who are listed have done in their biographies, and I have benefited greatly from their contributions giving an overview of their professional work. I think that those contributions add to Wikipedia's strength. I am following their example and have used their contributions as a model. I wish that there were more contributions from my colleagues, and I wish that they were more extensive. The Wikipedia community,like the scholarly community, is one where people are expected to contribute what they have. That is what I can do, and that is what I have done, summarizing 40 years of professional, peer reviewed, published research from which I hope that others can benefit.

One reviewer said thatguideline does state, "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article....So generally an article should not be deleted because of a COI.

Notability

Notability guidelines for academics state the following. "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, if they meet the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria...

1.The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

2.The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

Also, the criteria say that "An alternative standard, 'the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor' is often cited. This criterion has the advantage of being concise though it is not universally accepted. Determining the notability of an average professor is difficult in itself and usually relies on one of the nine more detailed criteria above. When used, this criterion is generally applied to indicate that a tenured full or associate professor in a high ranking institution in the US, or equivalent rank elsewhere, is above the average."

1. There was substantial independent Google Scholar coverage under Francis A. Beer and FA Beer.

2. I received not one but two Fulbright Awards as well as others. The Fulbright Award page identifies these awards as "prestigious".

Also, I was a tenured full professor at a Tier 1 research university.

I meet not only one of the qualifying conditions, but three

--Prmwp (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think that Professor Beer merits an article under Wikipedia's labyrinthine and sometimes self-contradictory notability criteria. I do not necessarily approve of the current content of the draft article.

  Under our policies, the article must cite reliable sources for each fact that it contends. This is not optional. On Wikipedia, anyone may claim to be anyone. Anyone may claim credentials that we cannot examine, and long experience of how children, teenagers and even otherwise responsible adults sometimes choose to behave in an anonymous medium has taught us to be wary and mistrustful. In our efforts to correct misinformation, we have been obliged to formulate a policy on the burden of proof.

  Therefore, I would say that this article may be moved to the mainspace, but not until the various claims without evidence are either cited to reliable sources or else cut from the draft. I do not think it ready yet.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

*Note: Most participants in this deletion review will be well aware of the matter of Essjay, but I think it wise to link it here in case anyone is not. It provides important context. It has, unfortunately, happened several times that Wikipedians have claimed academic qualifications or social status (as ministers of religion, etc.) that they do not actually possess. In keeping with our desire to be a free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and in keeping with our policy to assume good faith, the only answer we have found to these problems is to require that everyone, even an acknowledged expert, must cite their sources when writing material—and that unsourced material may be removed on sight if there is doubt.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

S. Marshall. I thought that I had sourced everything. Could you please give me an example? Would a footnote be sufficient? Thanks. --Prmwp (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• A footnote is certainly sufficient, but what is necessary is that citations are more specific. So, for example, where one cites a book, the book should be specified by its title, author, publisher, date of publication and ISBN number (either in the citation, or if the book is cited many times in the same article, in a separate bibliography), and the citation should be made to the specific page on which the cited fact is listed. The purpose of this is is to enable editors to more easily check the content. Likewise, where one cites a web page, the link should be to the specific page, and the citation should mention the date on which the information was retrieved, since websites do change. Each fact that may be challenged should have an individual citation.

  But I do want to emphasize that, even though I am quibbling about details of content in the draft, my position remains that Professor Beer should have his own article on Wikipedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• (later) If you wish, I will go through the article adding tags to those claims where I think citations should be provided? I would not normally do this to material in someone else's userspace, but you may feel this will ease the process.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on a revised version located at user:prmwp. In response to comments before the page was deleted from the main space, I had been making some of the revisions that you suggested. I'm sure there should be more. I'd be grateful for your help and suggestions there, should you find time. Thanks very much.--Prmwp (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn speedy This is not at all speedy material. COI etc are not reasons for deletion. There is no absolute prohibition on autobiography or writing with a COI. Newbies shouldn't be bitten. Professor Beer is mistaken about what can ever be included in an article; everything must be ultimately sourceable outside wikipedia, but there has never been a requirement for immediate citation for everything, even in BLPs.John Z (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure about why its being claimed that COI was the reason given for deletion - the rationale was criteria A7. The article was created by its subject and is pretty much his resume (complete with the author quoting himself) though. This editor has also been trying to insert references to his own books in the NATO article (the books aren't used as sources for anything in the article; he just wants them there). There's probably sufficient claim of notability to reinstate the article (though this doesn't require a DRV process and the article will probably end up at AfD pretty quickly given that the draft article on the editor's page still has no references to independent and in-depth coverage of him in reliable sources), but this is bad faith editing from someone who is using Wikipedia to lift their own profile. Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

About COI being given as the deletion reason, look at the links given at the top by 82.7.40.7 and the deletion edit summary. I think good faith should be assumed of a new editor.John Z (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is hardly my resume, which is much more extensive on the one hand,and, on the other hand, does not include much of the material on the Wikipedia page. The resume can be found at my website.

I thought that my own work on NATO might contribute to the NATO page "early period" section.

The page was blocked on the basis of prior vandalism, so the submission went through an editor.

The editor of the page asked my identity when I requested permission to add the material. Unless I'm mistaken, isn't this considered outing and prohibited?

After I provided my identity, he said that he preferred me to write a paragraph with a footnote to my work. I did so.

He then said that my paragraph wasn't what they were looking for and inserted the original references that I had suggested instead. I wanted to provide additional references of other people's (e.g. Kissinger, Osgood) work but was told that they were not desired.

I thought that this was all rather strange since Wikipedia is supposed to be open-source, and I'm new to the process.

I think that the NATO page could be vastly improved. To me, it looked a lot like NATO public relations material, but I don't feel terribly encouraged to try. Perhaps, inaccurately, I feel that I probably know more about NATO's early period than the people involved with the page, who probably weren't even around then. The research for one of the books was conducted on-site at NATO Paris headquarters (which sadly no longer exist) at the Place Dauphine from 1965-1967 and included personal interviews with 221 notable political and military people. Silly me, I thought that I might have something useful to contribute.

Beyond that, I think that there are significant gaps in the whole Military History project, for example, statistics of war. There is what seems to me a very narrow concept of Military History. The whole enterprise could probably benefit from more input from high level historiographers with a critical and multidimensional sensibility.

I think that the imputation of " bad faith editing from someone who is using Wikipedia to lift their own profile" goes counter to Wikipedia's stated policy of professionalism, collegiality, and civility. Indeed, if I remember correctly, there is a specific injunction against imputations of bad faith. I regret to say that such comments have been a continuing part of my introduction to Wikipedia. Further, such comments have been shielded in the cloak of anonymity, while my own identity has been totally transparent.

As far as profile lifting, my profile is already well lifted by my professional position, my awards, and on such independent sources as Google, Google Scholar, Amazon, etc.

--Prmwp (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Overturn whatever might be the notability, and the interpretation of WP:PROF, this clearly and unmistakably asserted notability in the most positive possible manner. Optionally list at AfD, though I think it will stand up there very easily--the multiple publications by major publishers and his having been selected for relevant chapters of major encyclopedia articles. How any admin could have thought this an A7 escapes me entirely DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn, possibly list at AfD instead. I'm not convinced that the subject passes WP:PROF or that I would vote keep in an AfD, but this is definitely not an A7 candidate. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I started this thread by respectfully suggesting that WP:PROF requires that only one of the core academic notability criteria be met and that I meet two of these, as well as one alternate criterion. Though I am not an expert on the rules, it seems to me that the listing would meet three independent criteria when only one was required. So even if there were an interpretive problem with one, the other two would still apply. Isn't that a considerable reservoir of redundancy? --Prmwp (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that you would probably be best off avoiding directly editing the article on yourself per WP:AUTOBIO and also avoiding taking a partisan role in debates on it such as this one — it's more likely to provoke other editors into thinking there's a problem with the article than it is to convince. As for arguing whether the article passes WP:PROF, that's for a full deletion debate; all we need to decide here is whether the admin who speedily deleted your article was correct in doing so under WP:CSD#A7 (articles which don't even provide any reason to suspect that the subject is notable). But since you asked: I'm not convinced the Fulbright is enough. The prominent mention of listing in Who's Who acts as a red flag to me, the sort of thing people list when they don't have anything real to pump up their articles with. And far too little of the article relies on published third-party sources: for a biography of a living person, anything not sourceable in this way should be omitted. But the long list of monographs (for many which it is not hard to turn up multiple published reviews) is impressive even if one ignores the two edited volumes, possibly enough for WP:PROF#1. And as you say it only takes one criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• • David--Thanks for the advice. I'm new to this process, so obviously I don't know the protocol. The page was basically modeled on existing pages of my colleagues. I didn't realize that Who's Who wasn't considered significant. In addition to the Who's Who listings, there are listings in several other bio-directories. And there have been multiple reviews of the books in professional journals. And there have been about 75 articles. I didn't list any of these materials because I didn't want to clutter it up. But I do take your point.--Prmwp (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• overturn speedy per DGG & David Eppstein. As as for the assertion above that "Under our policies, the article must cite reliable sources for each fact that it contends" I believe that the requirement for such sourcing applies only to potentially contentious statements, and I didn't see any claims there that seemed to meet that requirement. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and let it take its chances at AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC).

that is, if anyone actually takes it there. I think it will so obviously be kept that this would be a little redundant, but David E & I are used to having to defend even such clear instances. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. I was the original person to delete this article. I see from the discussion here that I did so in error. Might I request that this DRV be closed, on the basis of my willingness to be reverted? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You can always undelete the article and close the DRV yourself, I believe. Tim Song (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

So do I just undelete the article and just declare this discussion unneeded? Is that the correct procedure to follow? Once I figure out what exactly I need to do I'll do it, but would appreciate some procedural guidance. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Giveit.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

This file was deleted in November 2007, out-of-process with no deletion discussion. It's needed now for criticism of the 2009 fundraising campaign (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia Forever, discussion on the Village Pump, and more). *** Crotalus *** 17:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Have you contacted the deleting admin? If not, is there a reason why? Tim Song (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Given his deletion summary, I don't think it would do any good. *** Crotalus *** 17:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse This image has no place on wikipedia and I can't see that the opposition to the stupid banner this time round needs any help. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Image has no place on this site, although it is not significantly better than "WIKIPEDIA FOREVER". Stifle (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• ... which also has no place on this site.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• POINT - David Gerard (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC) (deleting admin)
• Endorse deletion per Spartaz and Stifle. GlassCobra 19:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

EmoTrance (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

On the 19th November 2008, I missed a deletion discussion on my EmoTrance article hence it was deleted. Please could I have this reviewed, since the technique is starting to gain support in schools [33] here in the UK. Thanks, Alex Charles Kent (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Allow recreation. The AFD's main concern was lack of independent sourcing, but now there's evidence of a source in the Times Educational Supplement. Just doing a very basic check I see two other recent sources. It seems reasonable to say the AFD would have gone differently had these sources been around. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The AfD had a clear consensus back then. However, if there are new sources provided, I see no problem in recreation or writing the article from beginning. --Tone 17:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, that's what I meant to say. Nothing was wrong with the AFD or the closure... it's just new evidence has apparently emerged. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse close, as it could not have been closed any other way. Permit recreation as is the default, provided that the recreated version contains reliable sources on the subject, without prejudice to another AfD at editorial discretion. OP should be free to recreate the article, subject to the normal processes. If they want the deleted revisions, an admin can userfy it. This is without prejudice to a G4 speedy if the recreated article fails to adequately address the concerns raised at AfD. Without a sourced userspace draft, we should not pre-empt a possible speedy. Tim Song (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Before expressing my opinion I want to see a user space draft. Ruslik_Zero 20:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well anyone can recreate the page whenever they feel like it... they don't really need our approval. Although it would be best to include the sources so it can't be speedy deleted. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Permit re-creation If the THE article is included as a reference, and the article written is a less promotional and POV manner, it might even pass afd. I would like to see a draft, because if you write this like you wrote the first article, I't will need to be much modified. Fair close, on the basis of the status of the article at the time-- it fact, had I seen it, I would have deleted it as G11, wholly promotional DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Userspace draft first Miami33139 (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Article Resubmitted For Examination Hi everyone, thanks for giving my article another go. Have resubmitted ^[1]. Alongside the Times Education Supplement article, I have removed a couple of sections and also updated the book list to show the broad range of authors covering the method. I welcome comments. Thanks Alex Charles Kent (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• I believe the suggestion was to re-create the article in userspace, not mainspace. Rehevkor ✉ 14:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse close and re-delete/move article to userspace. As it stands, the article still fails WP:N and the editor writing this article is missing several points. (Among these: what "emotrance" is notable for in the THES article is the fact that it has been described as "psychobabble" by two senior academics; if Wikipedia is to have an article about it, this is one of the things the article would say.) The gun has been jumped, and any recreation should await DRV closure and then inspection of userspace draft if that's how it is closed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Article resubmitted for examination I thought I had referenced THE, but turns out I had referenced TES. Have resubmitted including the THE 'Psychobabble' article as requested. Alex Charles Kent (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, re-delete article created out of process. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Page moved to user space. Triplestop x3 20:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Imonggo POS Software (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

On the 4th of October I deleted the article under speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#G11 (advertising) following the recommendation to do so in the AfD. On the 10th of November I deleted it again when it was recreated (it appeared on my watchlist) as both a recreation (WP:CSD#G4) and as still meeting WP:CSD#G11 criteria. Johnwiki2008 (talk · contribs) asked me on my talk page to investigate this. I explained my reasoning and that I didn't have time to investigate further just then, suggesting they take it here if he wanted to take it further. They replied on my talk page telling me that it was unnacceptable for me to delete without taking the time to review it (missing the point of my message) and telling me he had set up and "investigation log" at User:Johnwiki2008#"Imonggo deletions" Investigation Log. I still haven't got time to investigate it further at the moment (it will probably be tomorrow at the earliest before I do) so I'm bringing it here on their behalf. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• List at AfD so that we can get rid of it once and for all. G4 should not apply when an AfD is closed 3.5 hours after it started in reliance upon a CSD; G11 is a harder question, but I would tend to think that (1) the article was not so blatantly promotional as to justify a speedy and (2) the best method to get rid of this content, if it is undeserving of a place here, is by AfD. Tim Song (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Relist' at AfD and let the community decide in the proper place for it. Thryduulf, this was not so clear a speedy that you should have closed on that basis. Looking at the article, it was certainly spammy, but the spam was removable, and then the question would have been notability, which is for AfD. The inapplicability that you did recognize, of one of the reasons for speedy should have caused you to look more carefully. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Deletion was valid, it's an advertorial written by a WP:SPA. We do tend rather to bend over backwards to help these people spin out the process on Wikipedia, but it is remarkable how often these massively significant things remain stubbornly undocumented on Wikipedia until the company comes along with an article based on its own press releases. Is that what happened here? Hard to be certain but it sure looks like it to me. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy delete I can't see the deleted article but I'm giving Thryduulf some credit here that he has been around the block and knows spam and recreated material when he sees it. Wikipedia has a spam problem. Our prolonged discussions, processes, and procedures are designed to protect content made by our good faith userbase. SPA accounts and PR firms abuse our naivety. Repeatedly dealing with this is overwhelming our limited attention span to separate good content from bad. If the SPA account wants the article, let them provide it to an established user who can decide to insert it and defend it. Miami33139 (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Suggestion to Thryduulf: Your WP:CSD#G4 deletion is an obvious mistake on the 10th of November. 90% of the new page and the old page are different. You claim you don't have time to review the case, while in fact, it would take you only one minute to open the two pages and verify that they are significantly different. Instead of immediately rectify the obvious mistake you made, you would rather spend so much time to post in the discussion. You are not a normal user, but an experienced Wikipedia administrator who represents Wikipeida's image in front of all users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwiki2008 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The article in your userspace is still spam and it is the only thing you have ever worked on. Thryduulf is not your whipping boy and has given your article more time than it is worth already. Attacking him is not going to help your credibility. Miami33139 (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion – while not technically G4, would have met G11 in my opinion, judging from looking at the last deleted version. The user is welcome to continue to work on making a non-advertorial, neutral version of the page in userspace, but what was recreated was unacceptable. MuZemike 00:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The last deletion was still an advertisement although I probably would have AFD'd it instead of speedied if it was the first time I saw it. Although Johnwiki2008 has been kind of a dick about this, which makes it hard to assume good faith and act objectively. Pirate^Argh!!1! 10:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Deleting admin. I have now had time to look again at both revisions that were current at the time I deleted them. Had the first deletion not been a speedy but the result of a full AfD, then I would have no qualms about standing by my G4 deletion second time - while the layout was different almost all the actual content was a minor rewording of the previous version with some reorganisation and omissions. As it was the first deletion was a speedy and as it wasn't a verbatim copy then I should not have deleted it under G4 and so I withdraw that. However, I fully stand by both deletions under criteria G11, and so the outcome would be the same. I have not looked to see whether the subject would pass the notability guidelines or not so I have no objection to a non-spammy article being created, but the version in Johnwiki2008's userspace does not fulfil that criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Thank you Thryduulf for agreeing that your CSD#G4 deletion is a mistake on the 10th of November (Highlighted in your comment above "I should not have deleted it under G4 and so I withdraw that"). The CSD#G4 deletion is the key to the case. The CSD#G4 mistake clearly indicates that the deleted page was not carefully reviewed before deleting. Careful review is a very basic Wikipedia rule that any administrator should not break. Please restore the page ASAP and I hope I can receive a Sorry from you. It's ok if you have any other notability questions to the page, but you have to follow the right procedure to list at AfD as Tim Song and DGG mentioned above, so that we can have a fair discussion in details. The Deletion Review is a wrong place where you post, because it is designed for our normal users' challengings rather than you administrators'(like you who even do not want to take ONLY 1 MINUTE to help check if CSD#G4 is a mistake). Please see the Principal Purpose of Deletion Review. Also take a look at the vote from your supporter like Miami33139, he even did not see the deleted page, but he has already voted "Endorse speedy delete" to you. This is not a President Election! The article is an embodiment of my several days hardwork, administrators can not use its power to carelessly delete it first, then vote it based on friends' help without a fair detailed discussion. I am going to check with all the voters (involved in the case) one by one later and submit a detail investigation report to Wikipedia management so that a solution could be developed to filter out those unqualified administrators.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwiki2008 (talk • contribs)
  • Please do not edit other users comments. I have removed the bolding you added to mine, because it unnecessarily highlights something that was not intended to be taken in isolation from the whole comment. I did review the articles carefully and my comment does not say otherwise. What my comment is saying is that as the first deletion was a speedy and not following a full AfD then despite it containing substantially identical content, and had it also not also been speedy deletable as spam, then I should have taken it to AfD. However as it was also spam I should have deleted it under WP:CSD#G11 with a mention that it was also a borderline G4 rather than WP:CSD#G4 and WP:CSD#G11 equally (emphasised so you don't take the wrong message from this long comment). Also, please do not make personal attacks against other users or otherwise characterise other users comments as you have done at least twice in the above comment. Deletion review is the correct venue for discussion of speedy deletions and the outcome of non-speedy deletion discussions (XfD and WP:PROD), whoever raises it. Additionally you will note that I suggested you bring it here yourself, and only after you didn't did I initiate the discussion. I'm not certain who you mean by "Wikipedia management", but if you do submit an "investigation report" (whatever you mean by that) then please do let those you consider "unqualified" know. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per JzG and MuZemike. The G4/G11 call is a little hazy, but no point in undeleting this if it clearly wouldn't survive an AfD. GlassCobra 19:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• ♦♦♦ The case is under further investigation, please DO NOT close it ♦♦♦

For more information and the current status, please click here

• • The further investigation has been closed. --- JohnWiҚi²⁰⁰⁸ 19:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, err, thanks Johnwiki2008, but we'll do any "investigating" that needs doing round here.

  It's quite hard to look past the nominator's Johnwiki2008's conduct at this DRV and examine the issues on their merits, but when I do, I find myself agreeing with DGG and Tim Song. Administrators are entrusted with the "delete" button on the very clear understanding that they will only use it in certain strictly-defined circumstances. Those circumstances do not include assessing an article's notability. An admin can decide that an article doesn't assert notability, but any credible claim of notability is sufficient to exempt material from speedy deletion. Whether something is actually notable is for AfD to decide.

  I would respond to JzG and MuZemike's comments by pointing out the common meme that "DRV is not AfD round 2". DRV isn't AfD round 1 either.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm not entirely sure if you are referring to me or Johnwiki2008 as the nominator, but if it is me then I'd like to say that while the notability of the subject was the reason for the AfD nomination, it was not a factor in either of the speedy deletions. The first deletion was done under criteria WP:CSD#G11 "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.". Pages that meet this criterion can be about either notable or non-notable subjects, it doesn't matter. The second deletion was a combination of the same criterion and WP:CSD#G4 which is for recreations of material that were previously deleted, regardless of why they were deleted. I have said upthread that I have no opinion on whether the subject is notable or not, my opinion is solely that all versions of the article I've seen are spam. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I'd incorrectly thought that Johnwiki2008 was the nominator. Fixed.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Apology accepted, as I brought my own action here for review on Johnwiki2008's behalf it isn't immediately clear which of us is "the nominator". Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yaakov Teitel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

At my talk page (User_talk:Kevin#WP:Articles_for_deletion.2FYaakov_Teitel), an editor has disagreed with my closing of this AfD, and i have been unsuccessful in my attempt to explain it to his/her satisfaction. while I obviously stand behind my close, the editors concern is legitimate and warrants further examination. Kevin (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Its two editors that have complained. -DePiep (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a deletion-closure review I understand. -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What to do now? Repeat the discussion again? I'd like to (& win), but who wants to? -DePiep (talk)

• Overturn to non-consensus. The closer didn't like some arguments, so he rejected them. That's not his job. They were properly based on policy--the key dispute was over the interpretation of One Event. The community decides how to interpret that, and there was no clearly articulated refutation to the fact that the large number of crimes represented multiple events. If the closer has a preference for one interpretation over another, he should join the debate and say so, not judge it. The only time the closer judges is to reject arguments with no basis in policy--not balancing which policy applies, nor judging the interpretation. We're just questioned on policy fundamentals; if we had to know authoritatively what was the correct interpretation, nobody would pass RfA. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• overturn No overriding policy reason for deletion. There was a legitimate disagreement in policy here and there wasn't a consensus that there was a problem. Indeed, it seems that if anything the consensus favored this not being a BLP1E situation. There is independent of this issue the fact that Teitel has now been formally charged[34]. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse looks like a decent close to me, the problem with BLP1E is that we tend to get into situations where one side argues it applies and another just states that it doesn't. In this case the closer has to review which side has the best policy based argument and it is completely reasonable in BLP cases for them to make their own assessment of which sides interpretation of BLP is correct. BLP gives wide lattitude to admins to use their best judgement so I'm not seeing any red flags on the close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn -- there was no consensus for deletion and there was no consensus that there was a problem with BLP1E. How then do we get from no consensus to deletion? The community has not adopted a practice of no-consensus defaults to delete. When there is no consensus in a discussion, it would always be possible to find some means of perceiving that one argument is "stronger" -- but "stronger" is not consensus. And that is the policy problem here: there is no consensus, and yet it was closed with deletion. An additional point: Teitel has now been charged with an impressive array of crimes, stretching over many years: [35]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to non consensus there were equal and opposite arguments and votes on both sides. The closing admin picked which ones he preferred and cast his own vote as he preferred. Given the lack of consensus, this should be overturned as a no consensus. Alansohn (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus for there was none. I love WP:BLP1E myself, and I personally think that BLP1E may well apply at this juncture (recognizing, of course, that there are cogent arguments that it does not), but I don't see a consensus in the discussion that this falls under BLP1E. With all due respect to Spartaz, BLP ought not to be magic letters that admins may invoke at will to justify disregarding arguments with which they disagree (the issue here is clearly not clear-cut), particularly when there is virtually no harm to the subject in keeping the article, as is the case here. I'd agree that, when there is a significant possibility that the subject would be harmed, we give somewhat more leeway to the closer; but this is not such a case. Tim Song (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Appropriate close; the deletes addressed the points appropriately while the keeps tended to pick and choose the arguments, ignoring quite a few sticking points mentioned. Consensus was there to make it both a WP:BLP and a WP:NOT issue. I'd also like to note for those arguing overturn that DRV is not "round two" for the AfD- it's not time to bring up new argument points that you should have brought up during the original debate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Mendaliv, if it is a ONEEVENT as the closer states, which one event would that be? -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The confession/accusation is the one event; at the time of the discussion there were no reliable sources presented which directly and uncontroversially connected Teitel to the crimes to which he allegedly confessed. If a madman confessed to a string of unsolved murders, and his claims were being investigated by the police (as they would have a civic responsibility to do), would this person satisfy WP:BLP1E? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Several matters to consider here. First, BLP1E, which is rapidly becoming Wikipedia's default deletion criterion for BLPs because if you stretch the definition of "one event" far enough, you can trace every single notable person's notability to one event. I mean, a victory on election night is one event. Publishing "The Origin of Species" is one event. Being the first European to set foot in America is one event. Solving Fermat's Last Theorem is one event. Shooting John Lennon is one event. I could go on and on. My point is that BLP1E needs to be tempered with sanity: when the one event is the kind of event that generates serious coverage in reliable sources, BLP1E has to yield. And NOTNEWS likewise needs to be tempered with sanity. Always, the first coverage of a major incident comes from news sources, but that doesn't mean every article on everything that's newly-happened ought to be deleted because news sources are the only coverage.

  The "sanity" that's supposed to temper these criteria should come from consensus, and in this case, there was insufficient consensus to delete the article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn to non-consensus per DGG, S Marshall, etc. Applicability of BLP1E was a stretch, whether it counsels deletion in this case if taken to be applicable is not clear. So no decisive reason to discount !votes, which is what is necessary to avoid a no consensus close. A "stronger case here is to delete" is not enough; there needs to be consensus to delete.John Z (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus – it doesn't look like there was one established in my view of the AFD. MuZemike 00:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus Although I tend to agree with the closer that the arguments for delete seem stronger than the keeps, there are enough votes and arguments on both sides to constitute a no consensus. What seems to be unclear here, do we need a short workshop on no consensus? And we've been through the discussion of BLP default to delete, it has not happened and will not happen. Please desist from attempts of precedents and deleting no consensus BLP's in any which way you can possibly concieve because it is currently against guidelines!Turqoise127 (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to non-consensus per DGG. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus, as there wasn't any. Hobit (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus (by WP:DRV default resulting in a keep). 1st: per DGG and Nomoskedasticity above, who wrote to the point about the process here. 2nd: If it could be a ONEEVENT, as the closer writes, then which single event would that be, out of a list? The AfD-discussion does not mention a specific single one. 3rd: The closer argues along the line (my words here): "one 'week keep' was expressing doubts, so I weigh it as a keep'", which is distorting that editors own statement. 4th: I do agree with the closer, when --implicitly-- concluding that arguments referring to NOT#NEWS and N/CA policies were not decisive, i.e. were resulting in a keep by themselve. -DePiep (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn -- I am frankly flummoxed by the claims, from the closer, and others, that multiple press reports on multiple occasions of multiple arrests and multiple convictions are a single event. When defending their decision on their talk page the closing administrator makes a key admission I wish more of those who make BLP1e challenges would recognize -- whether something is merely a single event is a subjective decision. It is, in fact a highly subjective decision -- and our policies don't define what a "single event" is. This closure is a good example of the need to deprecate the BLP1e portion of BLP. Some time ago I read an argument that the article on former UK PM Tony Blair was a BLP1e, and should be deleted with the sole noteable content merged into the George W. Bush article. The wiseguy asserted that no-one would ever have heard of Blair if it weren't for his support for the George W. Bush war policy. When the wikipedia was first started a wise choice was made when the policy on verifiability was drafted. It says our goal is verifiability, not truth, because what is "true" is the subject of endless acrimony -- whereas whether an assertion is verifiable is subject to much less acrimony. It is too bad that those who drafted the BLP1e section of BLP had not been similarly wise. The closing administrator has been asked to clarify which of the events associated with Yaakov Teitel was the "single event". In the hundreds of times I have seen those favoring delete call on the authority of BLP1e to argue for deletion I have never seen a meaningful, substantive answer to this question. Either the question is totally ignored, or the deletion proponent's response is a variation of "it is obviously a single event". Geo Swan (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

V.V.L.N.Sastry (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Fred, the admin deleted by asking me to go through the deletion review for recreating this article. I think Fred and Spaceman Spiff are justified in their act of asking me to go thru the deletiion reveiw. I am trying to create an article for the first time on Wikipedia, which I love as an encyclopedia which provides info about many reknwon persons across the world. I tried to build an article about V.V.L.N.Sastry, a well known Financial Analyst, Economist and also An Acadamecian. But I came to know that the article earlier went trhough AFD, But I would like to request the administrators to restore the previous version, which I could go thru the Google Search and I am willing to add more credible resources to that to establish credibility. As Fred pointed out for showcasing the reviews of magzines, I am willing to provide the resources from magzines which donot have any websites, but I can upload those PDF's by scanning the relevant portions and very well establish the notability of V.V.L.N.Sastry. Hence request you to restore the article.Venkateshinida (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Close: Close in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/V.V.L.N.Sastry was completely fine. Against my better judgment, perhaps the article could be userified to Venkateshinida, because I suppose its possible more sources exist and a sustainable article could be created, but this article also had a crazy personal campaign around it defending the subject, e.g., "For god's sake, please do not delete this article", "Two great magzines from India covering this youngster cannot be ignored. Keep the article."--Milowent (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse close I participated in the earlier AfD and suggested changing the tag from A7 to G4 on the article created today, and also suggested that the editor bring it up here instead of repeatedly recreating. I know that I went through a lot of links and struggled to search for anything to show notability, but got nothing. At present if an article were to be created, it can be nothing more than a quote farm. I have no objections to userfying either version, but I honestly do not see a benefit. -SpacemanSpiff 20:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment from speedy-deleting admin. While the petition has been filed about V.V.L.N.Sastry, about which I am independent and endorse the close of that AfD, the trigger event was the creation of V.v.l.n.sastry (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore) and my deletion of that article under speedy deletion criterion G4, as a result of the aforementioned AfD. I have no objection to a draft being created in userspace; however, the draft that Venkateshinida created today is inferior to the version that went through AfD and does not belong in mainspace. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse both the afd and the G4 of the recreated articl at a different title I undeleted the original article at REFUND as, i think, a contested prod but listed it at AFD as the sourcing simply wasn't there. An insane campaign by spas then flooded the discussion but failed to provide realistic policy based arguments to keep this. The deletion side was overwhelmingly of the established editors in the discussion making policy based arguments so I endorse this close as a good example of weighing arguments rather then counting noses. I suppose we should get out our tin hats and flack jackets in anticipation of another campaign. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oh well, endorse AFD close, SPA's non-policy based !votes were appropriately discounted. I can't endorse a G4 when I can't see the newer version of the article, though, so I abstain on that one. The version in google cache just has a {{delrev}} on it and nothing else. However, if OP wants to persuade us that recreation should be permitted, a sourced userspace draft is the best way to go. I'm seeing nothing in the talk page discussion that addresses the concerns raised in the AFD, so I strongly suspect that the G4 is probably correct. Tim Song (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse the deletes I did not comment at the AfD, but it seems clear to me that there was insufficient notability shown. The recreated article showed no signs of fixing that. It was incomplete though, so it remains possible that an article could be written in user space., at least sometime a little further on in his career. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Request for permission to create a sourced userspace draft

I fully agree with all the editors of wikipedia for their great contributions in adhering to the standards in makinig wikipedia a reliable source of information for people across the world. But my humble request to the respected editors of wikipedia is that, across the globe, unlike in developed countries, everything is not available to establish notability of a person through web based sources. In a country like India for commercial reasons, noted magzines donot maintain websites as it may hurt their commercial sales. But those magzines covered as independent third parties, which can establish the notability of V.V.L.N.Sastry. I am sure that, given the chance, I can establish his notability. Yesterday, while i was trying to recreate the page which was incomplete, in talk page, I could see the comments of Fred and Spaceman Spiff and I felt that it is better to approach through Deletion Review as advised by Spaceman Spiff and Fred. I turly believe What they said is correct and right way to go about the recreation of the article. At the same time I request the editors to give me some space and time to recreate this article. To prove notability, I could scan the coverages and can upload the same or send the same to the editors, so that they can judge the quality of the article and take an informed decision at the best.Venkateshinida (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• • You don't need our permission to create a userspace draft. Once you are done, take it back here by filing a new DRV. Tim Song (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sniff Petrol (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

It appears that the admins who deleted this article didn't realise what Sniff Petrol was all about. It's written by some of the most prominent motoring journalists in the UK, many of whom are closely linked to the hugely popular Top Gear BBC program, and is one of the most popular satirical motoring sites on the web. Davepoth (talk)

• Endorse AfD closed correctly, any other decision would have been unacceptable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• That AfD was unanimous. In what sense did Kevin fail to follow the rules?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Indeed, endorse - I can see nothing out of process here. Tim Song (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry, it's my first go at this process so I'm feeling my way a bit. From a UK perspective the decision seems a little odd, given all the places that "sniff" references have popped up (several episodes of Top Gear and on the BBC F1 coverage as well). It's a very well regarded and well read blog.Davepoth (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I'm in the UK and I haven't come across it. Admittedly, I don't watch Top Gear. But where are the reliable sources that discuss Sniff Petrol?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• I'm UK based, do watch top gear and a little F1, haven't come across this. That's not to say it hasn't been mentioned, but I guess if you don't know about it and it's a passing mention or "in joke" sort of reference then it'd be easily missed. The requirement really is have other reliable sources written about it in a non-trivial way. i.e. not just reference to, but something actually about it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse The AfD discussion was not as full as it might be, even after the relisting, but looking at the article, I do not see evidence of notability for this online magazine/blog. Given that every comment at the AfD was delete, I do not see how else it could have been closed. If there ever are 3rd party substantial sources, perhaps an article could be written. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, per DGG. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, closure very clear. GlassCobra 19:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Hard to fault a closure when every !vote was in the same direction and all of them gave policy-based reasons. If the subject really is notable then just create a new version with appropriate sourcing. --RL0919 (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Jane Burgermeister (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Jane Burgermeister videos and articles are currently a lot (approx millions of times, e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PelTWCUmTsU viewed 227853 times, which is one out of many). She seems to have a lot of influence of public health, with her positions on H1N1 vaccination. Neutral Wiki information is required to establish the facts about her. Pc4235 (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. SPA !votes appropriately discounted per policy. Notability concerns were not rebutted. I can't find error in the close at all. If nominator wants the article restored, they need to provide some reliable sources providing significant coverage of this person. We do not "establish" facts about somebody - we report the facts already established by reliable sources, and as far as I can see the consensus of the debate is that the article is unsourceable because its subject is not notable. Tim Song (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Restore I'm not really sure how DRV works but I find 47 news articles (4 pages worth) in Google News. Here are a few (some are foreign language but I believe this is acceptable): [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • How many of those are reliable and non-trivial? I see that a number of them only mentions this person once. Tim Song (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm, not sure. I spose the English ones can't be used to establish notability. I wish I understood more languages. This person HAS been talked about a lot lately, not sure why I can't find more on her. I offered to help the OP improve the article so I'll look around for others. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • How about these? [44], [45] ,[46]. Also, why was the American Chronicle (used in the Spanish Wiki version of the article) determined to be non-reliable? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
      • If you read the American Chronicle article, I think you'd be able to tell why. I wonder how much editorial control there is for the new sources you cited - probably not much. And stuff like [47] with the call to action at the end does not sound reliable to me. Tim Song (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: The OP appears to be a new editor so we should be patient with them while they learn the ropes. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  He/she seems to have managed quite successfully to post a deletion review request, so it seems reasonable to assume that he/she also read at least one of the three instructions that users should discuss issues with the deleting admin before listing here. Stifle (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  Let's try to WP:AGF here. As you noted, it's not mandatory to discuss with the closing admin, so rather than getting bogged down in semantics, let's please just discuss the DRV on its own merits. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I am a new editor and I'm learning Wiki rules - patience is greatly appreciated... I did my homeworks: a 1.5 hour search to find a reliable source. I could not find any. I admit I had a presumption that the article was deleted prematurly, but considering that no valid references have been found, the decision to delete the article makes sense. However, I still think that a wiki article is required to establish some facts concerning Jane Burgermeister. Her videos are viral and viewed millions of time - that can be verified. I may prefer a new article concerning uniquely her viral videos, as a noticeable phenomenon, or the controversy she brings concerning H1N1 vaccination. pc4235 (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The only problem with that is that if no reliable sources can currently be found, she still wouldn't satisfy the notability policy. She may, in time, become notable, so no reason you can't keep the article in your userspace, clean it up and once those reliable refs that are directly about her become available, recreate it. An article about her viral videos or the specific H1N1 controversy as it relates to her may be possible, but again, look around for those all-important sources. Not sure if anyone pointed you in this direction but WP:RS will help you determine what is and what is not an acceptable source. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse delete I do not really see a a discussion with the closing admin would have prevented the Del Rev.--he gave his arguments for the closing very well at the AfD, and could only have repeated them., as we are doing here: insufficient evidence of notability based on the sources available, and invalid arguments by SPAs. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I'm sorry I reopened a debate on deletion review concerning Jane Burgermeister article. I had a good humility lesson today, thanks...! After some more research, I consider instead writing an article on Swine Flu Conspiracy Theories [48] which seems to be an emerging tendency. Thanks! pc4235 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC).

Shop.Com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please consider the Shop.Com entry for undeletion. A dialogue was started with administrator Cirt and concerns were addressed. Multiple references from legitimate third-party news sources were also added to support the notability of Shop.Com. Per the administrator’s request, a draft article was moved to userspace; available at the user page of Bpops721. Bpops721 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: malformed DRV fixed. Userspace draft seems to be at User talk:Bpops721#SHOP.COM. Tim Song (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Technically there's probably been sufficient effort to overcome the concerns that lead to speedy deletion, but it's worth considering that if we undeleted that article now, it would not be likely to survive AfD. I should think it would be wiser to develop the article by further citations to reliable sources before moving to the mainspace.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Huh? This one was AFD'd. Tim Song (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Whoops! I was looking at SHOP.COM, which has been speedied several times but never AfD'd. My point stands, though.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• not yet As S Marshall says, there still is not enough. Some of the articles refer to a $25 million capitalization, which is , frankly, insignificant; the Time story seems to have a one sentence mention. The only indication of possible significance is the hiring of a major ex-Disney exec for CEO, so I am willing to think that it might someday become important. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Yup, keep deleted per S Marshall and DGG. The notability concerns raise in AfD have not been adequately addressed by this draft. Tim Song (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• To clarify, the initial VC funding of $25M for Shop.Com was by any account significant, and the market cap higher. Others in the category received far less in initial financing. Further, Shop.Com has attracted several industry veterans to manage the business, including its CEO, as noted. We will continue to modify the entry and cite reliable sources so, at minimum, a basic entry can be restored to the mainspace. Please note if there are specific concerns that should be addressed. Bpops721 (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep deleted FWIW, US$25M is significant VC funding. So what. That doesn't mean you need to be in an encyclopedia. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Endorse deletion per DGG and Tim Song. GlassCobra 19:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Recently, Cyde deleted a number of cross-namespace redirects, citing Wikipedia:CSD#R2. But these redirects are OK per CDS R2: Redirects from the article namespace, to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. I believe that the redirects should be undeleted.

Note also that at least the titular deleted redirect has 5000 visits per month. Nikola (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: also note that one of the redirects deleted was Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which was kept in an MfD in 2008. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I see that the page listed at the top of this DRV was just recreated:

(cur) (prev) 17:18, 10 November 2009 Triesault (talk | contribs) (40 bytes) (←Redirected page to Wikipedia:Unusual articles)

-- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects sums up the issue pretty well. It's likely that everything said here will just end up being a rehash of the arguments presented there. My personal take on the issue is that cross-namespace redirects should not exist as they create a confusion between encyclopedic content and non-encyclopedic content. It's pretty clear: namespace 0 is the encyclopedia, and everything else is meta to that encyclopedia. Namespaces exist to preserve this distinction, and blurring it by redirecting willy-nilly across the boundary is counter-productive. --Cyde Weys 17:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives/July 2006#Various cross-name space redirects and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Votes for deletion (2nd nomination) are the general precedents I used when making the decision on these recent deletions. I don't think that consensus has changed in the interim. --Cyde Weys 17:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Hmm...Those discussions are from 2006. The RfD for Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents, which closed as keep, was in 2008. Not to mention that CSD R2 explicitly excludes these redirects and hence there is no valid speedy deletion criterion at all. Overturn deletions. RfD at editorial discretion. Tim Song (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • We ran into this problem the last time. RFDing hundreds of nonsense redirects like ANE Resources — which points to a subpage of a highly inactive portal — overwhelms the process and is a waste of the time of everyone involved. I'll grant you that Unusual articles is a different situation, but overturning the deletion of the ANE stuff et al would be a triumph of process over common sense. --Cyde Weys 17:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Then the solution would be to bundle those five and perhaps a couple more together in one nom. I doubt that RFD would be overwhelmed because of that. Tim Song (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Bundling only goes so far. There would still be over a hundred separate bundles to push through RFD. (You can't bundle together unrelated redirects.) --Cyde Weys 18:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Maybe an RFC, then? Like what was done with the {{future}} templates? I feel uncomfortable using a three-year-old discussion to justify deletions that are outside policy. Tim Song (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
          • For what it's worth, I tried to get Nikola to post this to WP:VPP, but he insisted on posting it here. I agree that a more general discussion on the issue is merited (independent of the specific redirects mentioned in this DRV). The existence of certain high-profile cross-namespace redirects that may be too externally referenced to be deleted has unfortunately ushered in a whole new generation of cross-namespace redirects created by people who seem to think that such things are normal and acceptable. At the very least, I'd push for a moratorium on all new cross-namespace redirects in article-space, and deletion of the vast majority of the ones presently in existence that don't have any significant incoming traffic from off-site. --Cyde Weys 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Am I right in thinking the two justifications presented for these deletions are a speedy criterion that explicitly doesn't apply, and an essay?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I go to edit, which I usually do with the help of info from Citation templates, and I can't find it (that's the link that's returned when you Google Citation templates). Looks like you missed killing Citation Templates though. That redirects to Wikipedia:Citation templates. I think people would be more upset with not finding this info than finding it via the wrong namespace. Please restore the redirects.--Larrybob (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Looks like Google has already updated? I wouldn't use Google as an argument for not deleting a redirect, as Google is constantly re-indexing. Now you may possibly have a valid argument with some prominent links from off-site that aren't constantly being robotically crawled and update — but not with search engines. --Cyde Weys 20:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Did you follow the first Google link returned there? It goes to the page saying it's deleted.--Larrybob (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn - I personally think that speedy deleting anything that doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria presents Wikipedia in a bad light, and is generally worse than allowing something that should be deleted to exist. Speedy deleting something that doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria makes it seem like Wikipedia administrators either don't know Wikipedia's policies or are free to ignore the policies and delete anything they want. If cross-namespace redirects like these are a problem in general, then a discussion can be started wherever it is appropriate to have one, but I think deleting these before such a discussion has taken place was a mistake. Calathan (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Bad policy to allow these. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Whether or not you agree with any underlying policy does not matter. What matters in DRV is whether deletion process was properly followed.  Sandstein  23:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What matters is the proper end result for the project regardless of the forum. not a bureaucracy, la di da and etc. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The proper end result will depend on whether the deletion process was properly followed. People will behave differently after a fait accompli, and you know that. Nikola (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn. Invalid speedy deletion, CSD R2 does not apply to these redirects.  Sandstein  23:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn totally out of process. Wikipedia does not have sufficiently firm precedents that we can justify a speedy by saying "other articles like this were deleted". We might or might not want to keep them, but it needs to be discussed. We admins do not have the right to simply delete everything we think ought not to be here--that's a misinterpretation of our role so drastic that anyone who ran for admin and said this would never be confirmed, or even come near it. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you might be slightly over-reacting here. Take a step back, look at WP:BOLD, and ask yourself if such strong rhetoric is really justified. All we're dealing with is a handful of deleted non-encyclopedic redirects. No wheel-warring, no nasty words thrown about, nothing. Calm down! --Cyde Weys 05:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
    • You surely picked a bad time to do it - DRV seems to have an influx of out-of-process deletions lately. Tim Song (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, my comment was based upon not this but the totality of such deletions. My comments are I think correct as an expression of the feeling of the community, at least as expressed here. What you could have done to avoid such comments is to have reverted these yourself. I apologize though for any over-personal implications. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn with optional list at RFD. Many (if not most) of these are inappropriate, but no speedy deletion criterion applied. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn. Misreading of the speedy deletion criterion, and as Tim Song noted, some of these were already discussed and closed as keep. Some of the redirects should be kept for historical reasons (i.e. the page they redirected to was formerly under that name), and very few of them could be confused with articles. I also disagree with SchmuckyTheCat that out-of-process speedy deletions without discussion are OK if you agree with the result, because there is a reasonable chance, as here, that someone else does disagree with the deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn as out-of-process, if Cyde wants the R2 criteria expanded then there is a venue for that. –xeno^talk 16:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn R2 has been specifically been worded to exclude such redirects exactly because there was never consensus to speedy delete such redirects. Regards SoWhy 16:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep deleted these redirects serve no purpose but to clog up the article space. There could be very well an encyclopedic article written on the topic of "Unusual Articles" or "Basic Topics" or whatever. Maybe there is a band named "Assumed bad faith". We already have WP: for shortcuts. If Wikipedia:Unusual Articles is too long, you can use WP:Unusual Articles or WP:UA. There is no conceivable reason for these redirects to exist.  Grue  17:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn Not sure if my previous comment counted as a vote, just want to make sure. Here's Google results of pages that link to the now-gone Citation templates: Google search results--Larrybob (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn Due to the nature of speedy deletions it is best that they are carried out closer to the letter of the policy than any implied spirit. That being said, perhaps the wording of R2 needs to be looked at if editors feel that it should be broadened. ThemFromSpace 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn per TimSong. I agree with Cyde's considered views on XNRs, but this is not the way to delete them. And having a discussion about their value at DRV will create confusion about what to do with a no consensus result. We should reverse the out of process deletions and then we can have a centralized discussion someplace.--chaser (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sleep to Live Institute (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Undeletion request per the recommendation of Xymmax, the administrator that deleted the page originally, as the process has been met with little consensus or discussion fleshing out the issues fully. For ease of reference, I'll provide a synopsis of the process to date:

• Created the article with a basic intro, company information and history pertinent to a Bedding & Sleep Research Facility.

• RT noted it was well written but had the air of advertising.

• Per RT's suggestions I removed trademarks (that I included previously expecting they were more appropriate for documentation).

• JohnnyB256 raised issue of non-notability.

• I requested specifics and quoted some notability requirements I felt were presented and did not receive any rebuttal. Still, I opted to add some innovations important to the industry along with articles supporting awards given those innovations and doubled secondary sources to alleviate notability concerns. Additionally, I added multiple international interviews on both radio and television that featured the head of the Sleep to Live Institute to further establish the notability of the Institute given international media presence.

• Due to lack of consensus the article was relisted.

• UltraMagnus mentioned that only 1 of the news articles was, in their opinion, reliable.

• I offered some explanation to why the sources were indeed reliable, many of them specific to the relevant industry and again received no further discussion.

• Xymmax deleted the article (and will be commenting on rationale so I'll not speak for them). At my request, Xymmax Userfied the article and suggested I present a few of the sources for review with the reliable sources editors, with the indication that if they found the industry publications and international media reliable, the article could be undeleted. I intentionally focused on the international media with a couple industry publications listed (as Xymmax suggested only listing a few); however, there were numerous industry publications with some discussion about the Sleep to Live Institute (the full reference list is on the article).

• Simonm223 found that the sources were reliable in establishing notability of the company but suggested changes to the article itself to improve the neutral point of view. DGG didn't feel the information industry publications had adequate focus to be significant; but, did not have input on the international media adding to that. When prompted to get an opinion on how the international media added to the notability, they also failed to enter any further discussion.

• At this point, there has still been minimal consensus reached and I have added one additional reference found in another industry publication. I approached Xymmax again and they have suggested this post here to get a "binding opinion".

Please excuse any errors in my posting :) and thank you for your time. Cronides2 (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Link fixed, userfied version at User:Cronides2/sandbox/Sleep to Live Institute. Tim Song (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's not a crime to be more familiar with promotional writing than with writing for an encyclopaedia, but I'm afraid I don't see that material as ready for the mainspace quite yet.

  The draft emphasizes the project's aspirations rather than its achievements. If I were you, I'd cut every single mention of what Kingsdown, Inc., hope to do in favour of a more detailed listing of the things they have actually accomplished. Each item listed should be accompanied by discussion of the achievement's impact and significance, supported by a reference to a reliable source.

  This piece mentions the company's CEO by name and describes his vision for the future. That's one of the red flags for an article sourced to corporate press releases; encyclopaedia readers don't care who the CEO is or what their vision is. They care about what the organisation has actually done.

  An encyclopaedic piece about this institute would start something like this: "The Sleep to Live Institute is an American commercial laboratory focusing on sleep research. It is based in Joplin, Missouri, and was founded in 2007.(Reference to reliable source). It has a research budget of (however much) and (however many) academic staff.(Reference to reliable source). Its main achievements include (this, that and the other)(source)..."—and so on.

  Hope this helps—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and Relist. No opinion on the individual notability of the article or the lack thereof. The simple fact is that, other than the nominator, only one editor voted to delete and only the creator argued keep. Both delete votes were horribly short and not well explained. I believe it is still the case that delete opinions must show directly why an article should be deleted, and not the other way around. Relist this and get more arguments and opinions, otherwise closing admin exercised too much self authority without community. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Relist if you like, but in its present form I doubt it will pass AfD. I consider every one of the references to be based on PR. I see no indication that the entire project is based on anything other than to sell their mattresses. The article says "Kingsdown’s CEO, Eric Hinshaw moved to change the corporate identity from strictly bed manufacturing to one of also promoting the relationship of sleep and overall health and wellness." but I see no evidence of that. Rather the most extensive souce [49] cited in the article says that the machines are used to design a custom mattress from that particular manufacturer. The cited "award" is from a chain of mattress stores that sells their mattresses.[50]. I see no evidence of any actual research articles. The non-US cites are longer, but no better, than the US ones. But the place to decide this is AfD. What I would try instead, though, is to write an article about Kingsdown where this could have a paragraph. They may be notable as a leading specialist manufacturer., if there are reliable product reviews. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The debate is sufficiently lengthy that I cannot call it an abuse of discretion to not relist it, bearing in mind that a second relist is normally disfavored per WP:RELIST. There are actually two delete !votes, not counting the nominator. Despite the claim that there are plenty of reliable sources, none has been presented in the AfD or indeed in this DRV. The problem with requiring delete !voters to prove non-notability is that one cannot prove a negative. Thus, once a good-faith search has been conducted, the burden is on the keep !voters to find sources to prove that the subject is notable. Close was in line with the consensus. Keep deleted per DGG and S Marshall. until and unless a better userspace draft is presented. Tim Song (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; only a single user supported keeping and there was no other possible way the discussion could have been reasonably closed. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Closing admin's comments I closed this as delete based on my reading of consensus in the discussion. The delete !votes were rather spare in their comments, but I thought they were adequate to identify the defect in the article. I did not view consensus that emerged as being sufficiently in question as to justify a second relisting - the article had been up for deletion for two weeks all ready. I offer this remarks by way of explanation, otherwise, as I committed to the nominator (whom I applaud for the manner in which he/she has conducted him/herself) I am neutral. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael Panckridge (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

This was deleted as A7 - temporary undeletion requested. I am wanting to see if I can resurrect the article. I don't know anything about the condition of the article; if the undeleting administrator thinks it is a hopeless case, do not bother. — This, that, and the other [talk] 06:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have restored per the request. It is a pretty bare stub that certainly would need to be sourced and expanded if kept. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• [51] seems to be the last good revision. Claims to have been published by HarperCollins and have written 20 books seem to be indications of significance. Tim Song (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. And they seem to be verifiable indications of significance. (Evidence.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn A7. AfD at editorial discretion. Per my previous comment and S Marshall. Tim Song (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• I should just start again, if I were you. There's not enough in the deleted version to worry about ressurecting it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn incorrect A7, in contradiction to the policy. Asserting authorship of 15 novels is an indication of notability. Whether he is actually notable will depend on their reception & the reviews, and must be tested at AfD if the article isn't revised to prove it to the extent that everyone is satisfied. We should always revert speedys like this, because otherwise admins who delete recklessly will never learn. This particular admin is inactive, but we should revert as an example so others come to understand. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn Improper application of A7. Notability was indicated. There are plenty of articles which are clear A7's and give no indication of why anyone might care about the subject. This was not one of them, and should be overturned. Such clear errors should be automatically restored.John Z (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn, seems potentially notable, AfD could challenge if This, that's resurrection attempt is not fruitful.--Milowent (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Alvin Fields (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please Consider "Alvin Fields" for Un-Deletion Thanks for the information Robert. Rhasheene (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Malformed DRV fixed. Draft article moved to userspace; available at User:Rhasheene/Alvin Fields. Tim Song (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Cirt (talk · contribs), Spartaz (talk · contribs) and RHaworth (talk · contribs) notified. Tim Song (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I see I only deleted this as housekeeping to allow a page move but there appears to have been a deletion discussion that could only have been closed as delete so I endorse this subject to proper sourcing being made available. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks - I wondered what the G6 is. Tim Song (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse the AfD close as a reasonable one, and keep deleted since the draft did nothing to address the concerns raised in AfD. Tim Song (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Yeah, this is still in need of better sourcing for the moment.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)