Wikipedia:Deletion review

Find this page confusing? Just put a note on your talk page with {{Help me}} (including the curly brackets) above it and someone will assist you.

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

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

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

Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

Deletion review (DRV) considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here (administrators may replace with {{TempUndelete}} where appropriate).

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the list of perennial requests.

What is this page for?

Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.

Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions

Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion.

1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look.
2. Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions.
3. Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.
4. In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid corrective action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. Equally, this process should not be used to point out other pages that have not been deleted where your page has — each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early).

Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed.

The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in the main part of the page—please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.

Temporary review

Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:

1. The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
2. The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
3. The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.

The latter two may be requested here. Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.

History-only undeletion

Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page.

Contesting 'proposed deletions'

For these uncontroversially deleted articles, you can make a quick request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

How do I do all this?

All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.

Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.

Instructions

Before listing a review request:

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

Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.
2.	Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |reason= }} ~~~~ Copy this template skeleton for files: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |article= |reason= }} ~~~~
3.	Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
4.	Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
5.	Nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept should also attach a {{Delrev}} tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
6.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use the following template: <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2012 February 17}}</noinclude>

Click to create a log page for tomorrow (18 February 2012)

Active discussions

16 February 2012

Pat Broeker

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

Deleted in 2007 as Scientology cruft. However, last summer the book Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion by journalist Janet Reitman was published. I'm currently reading this book and can attest that the book establishes that Pat Broeker was in fact a major figure in the history of Scientology. It makes it clear that he is equally or more important than a number of other figures such as Mary Sue Hubbard and David Gaiman who have Wikipedia articles. Obviously, since the history of Scientology is shrouded in mystery, as more information becomes available, we will have to reevaluate the importance of what were once thought minor figures and reevaluate decisions such as the one to delete this article accordingly. Note: Closing admin is retired. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Tyler Brown

Tyler Brown (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

This article was Speedy Deleted under A7, which states “The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.” The article I wrote does make a credible claim of significance or importance, and so it did not meet the standard to be a speedy delete under A7. The given reason for speedy deletion is not true, because the article that I wrote DOES indicate the importance or significance of the subject. After questioning the deleting editor Peridon on his talk page, he now says he deleted the article because it did not meet the standards set in WP:NBASKETBALL - but he should not be the sole judge on that matter. And even if Tyler Brown falls short of WP:NBASKETBALL, he DOES meet the standards set in the general notability guideline. Tourd (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary drug resistance

Primary drug resistance (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

• NIAID director Anthony Fauci has some rather strident views about HIV/AIDS which are not accepted by most scientists. This deleted page summarized the scientific consensus on HIV drug resistance. It basically trashes Fauci’s theories.
• Both MastCell and Fauci share the same POV on HIV/AIDS.
• My criticisms of Fauci bother MastCell.
• Both MastCell and Fauci are interested in immunology and allergies.
• Please note these comments.
• Fauci controls an annual $4.8 billion propaganda budget and has a number of rather unpleasant followers. My requests to have the article restored have been declined and mainstream criticism of Fauci is essentially banned from Wikipedia.
• The NIH loves Wikipedia and WMF funding is increasing even though editors and readers are leaving.
• I seriously don’t believe that any of the author’s cited in the deleted page would be anything other than pleased that I acknowledged their hard work. However, I would be more than pleased to copy/edit any portion of the restored page upon request. --Alternative account no2012 (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy close As casting aspersions and making accusations of bias aainst an other editor. Remove your aspersions against Mastcell and I will explain why his deletion is correct according to our copyright rules and what you need to do if you want to recreate the article. Yoenit (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    • You are in error. Stating that Anthony Fauci has killed 24 million people is not “casting aspirations”. It is merely stating a fact. Even if stating facts were to be considered to be “casting aspirations”, it would only be casting aspirations on MastCell if MastCell was Anthony Fauci. In such a case, the page deletion would have been a clear COI. Moreover, you could only know if MastCell and Fauci are the same person if you are one of his co-workers. In which case you would share the COI. I am, of course, making an accusation of bias “aainst” both of you, as per the duck test. --Alternative account no2012 (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
      • So now I am his co-worker? I presume you will continue accusing everybody who disagrees with you of bias, so any discussion here is pointless. Yoenit (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
        • If the NIH does not view Wikipedia as its own propaganda site, how do you explain this? --Alternative account no2012 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

15 February 2012

CMiC

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

Would like article to be "userified" to allow me to rewrite it according to accepted Wikipedia standards 4850Keele (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: why not simply ask the administrator who deleted it (or any administrator, for that matter)? Deletion review seems unnecessary here. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I presume the user is confused, he also notified the nominator rather than the deleting admin. Yoenit (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Jocker City

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

New evidence, see http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=308949 Acecenco44 (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Forum posts are not considered reliable sources. What you need is newspaper articles or mentions in books, not some anonymous contributor on a random forum. Yoenit (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep deleted nothing new here. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 23:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Providing a link to a forum of absolutely no reliability won't get this restored. (Neither is following up this request with pointless spam, for that matter). --Kinu ^t/_c 00:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

14 February 2012

Mawashi Protective Clothing

Mawashi Protective Clothing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore) Shareitnow (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This article was speedily deleted for G11: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". However, Mawashi Protective Clothing is an organization that should be considered notable, because it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Here are some examples:

• http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=654729&crtr.tp1D=1
• https://buyandsell.gc.ca/initiatives-and-programs/canadian-innovation-commercialization-program-cicp/pre-qualified-innovations
• http://lapresseaffaires.cyberpresse.ca/finances-personnelles/consommation/201006/21/01-4291917-g8-g20-jai-mal.php
• http://www.designlaunches.com/gadgets/personal_cooling_system_that_keeps_you_cooled_on_the_go_by_jeanmarc_sheitoyan.php
• http://transportail.com/pi2011/index_en.asp?id_page=194

Thereby, if you consider these external source of information as reliable, could you consider undeleting this page? I will be waiting for your comments, and thank you for your consideration. Shareitnow (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• 'temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review ' DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The article was not deleted by lack of a claim to importance, though it could have been; it was deleted as being exclusively promotional, and incapable of improvement through normal editing. I delete a great many promotional articles, and usually a promotional G11 speedy deletion is an article making purely advertising-style or Press-release style vague claims supported only by flowery adjectives, rather than giving information; as is obvious from inspection, this one is different: it's a mere product list making no claims at all besides that the company makes the products listed, and their plainly stated suitability for certain uses. But Wikipedia is not a product catalog, and there is no encyclopedic information present. I'm not entirely sure this meets the usual understanding of the G11 Promotional criterion. But I am sure that in its present form it could not possibly stay in Wikipedia--the need for this sort of material is adequately served by the company's web site. Of the references given, the only one that could be used for showing notability is the 3rd, which is a full article in a reliable news site about one of the products; the others could be used, but do not show notability : the 4th is too unsubstantial; the first two merely show the product was considered by the Canadian government for development support; the 5th is a listing of a presentation at a trade show. I think the article could be rewritten and might have a chance at AfD--but not in its present form. It might be better to start over. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Understood. Could I have the opportunity to rewrite the article by giving substantial information more suitable for the Wikipedia encyclopedia? Shareitnow (talk) 8:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Userfy to Shareitnow to give him the chance he seeks. The article should be brought back to this page for re-assessment before it can be moved to the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 11:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I started a draft of the revised article on my sandbox, could you please give me feedback on it? The draft page is accessible here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shareitnow/sandbox Thank you! Shareitnow (talk) 9:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I am very tempted to nominate that draft for deletion right now. Unless you rewrite it completely to remove all the sales nonsense (for example, you do not "offer solutions") it will not be accepted. Yoenit (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul J. Alessi

Paul_J._Alessi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was speedily deleted for CSD G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.". The description of the criteria required for deletion via this rule are as follows: "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)."

I would like to appeal this deletion. The original cause of the deletion of this article was CSD G12: "Unambiguous copyright infringement.", as the prior author of the article had only copy/pasted information from other websites. I did a major revision so that the article had no such violation; all of the writing was original, no copy/pasting. Yet it was still deleted under CSD G4. I have both the original author's old and my new scripts saved to my computer, if anyone would like to confirm and review that they are indeed substantially different.

Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Trismosin (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The CSD G12 was in 2009. It was deleted at AFD in 2010 for not establishing notability.[1] Was the version recently deleted different from the 2010 version? I see you have informed the deleter, Fastily, of this DRV. I think you should have also tried to discuss the matter with him before DRV. Thincat (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, I have both the 2009 scripts and 2010 scripts on my computer. Mine was a substantial rewrite. It included a rewritten bio, reference links, a full filmography, etc... As for discussing it with Fastily first, I was following the instructions on his talk page. There's a section at the top that says "Are you here because I deleted your Article or File? If so, please click here.". For the reason for deletion provided, he gave the following instructions -- [2], which told me to talk about it here. --Trismosin (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • You are absolutely right. My apologies. Despite Fastily's seeming reluctance to have people raise such matters on his talk page (unless he made a "mistake" etc.), very many people raise issues there and he sometimes reverses his decisions. Anyway, in this case you were indeed referred here directly which I think is a shame. At present I am more persuaded by what you say than by Fastily's deletion rationale. Thincat (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Thank you for that. I had put a fair amount of effort in to fixing that article so that it would comply with Wikipedia regulations, and was rather disappointed when I saw that it had been taken down this morning. I hope the decision will be repealed. I'm willing to fix any issues in that article that may have warranted its deletion. It seems a shame to throw the entire thing away for small discrepancies. Again, thank you for your time and consideration. --Trismosin (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• temporarily restored the entire history for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As said above, the most recent AfD in 2010 was for lack of notability , not copyvio. The career is not in a field where I can judge, but there seems not to be significant additional accomplishments in the current version as compared to the one deleted in the 3rd AfD. The material has been moved around, and some of the excessive early bio shortened, though an non- encyclopedic section on personal life remains. But it does meet the requirements for G4--I cannot see that the notability concerns were addressed. Here's the comparison: [3] Possibly the career would be judged notable if the AfD were done over. Possibly there is something additional to say. It would help to say now clearly what it is. (Of course, Fastily should have explained this in the first place; usually his deletions are well-justified, and when he does give a full explanation, they are usually both convincing and helpful). DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, how would I go about improving the notability? I don't mean to seem impertinent, but there appears to me to be a fair amount more verifiable information on this page than some of the others here on Wikipedia. For example, this one. --Trismosin (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
    • it's not just verifiable information, it's verifiable information that shows notability according to WP:MUSIC]], which is the applicable part of the notability guidelines. Normally, what does it best reviews or articles about the person in references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. There are a good many articles in Wikipedia that do not meet the guideline adequately, and the appropriate thing to do is to try to improve them and delete if not improvable, rather than adding another to the list.71.125.252.218 (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, I'm willing to make whatever improvements are necessary. I just need to be pointed in the right direction. What sources are acceptable references? I had a few from IMDb up there, but an administrator removed them citing that "IMDb is not a reliable reference". --Trismosin (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

articles in newspapers and professional magazines are best. IMdB is not considered reliable. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Is there anything else I should work on fixing, or is that the article's only issue? --Trismosin (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Salvador Tercero

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

The AfD was closed early due to speedy deletion as G7 (author requests deletion). In this particular case, I believe the article was a useful article on a notable recording professional, and that the subject of the article pressured the author into requesting deletion (edit summary read "deleting bio due to unauthorized info"). It would set a disturbing precedent if we allow biographical articles to be deleted just because their subjects don't like them, without any discussion. (Note: I did not discuss this with the closing administrator because I want to establish a broader consensus around the issue of G7 cases similar to this one, although I did invite them to participate in the discussion.) Dcoetzee 03:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse with no prejudice against immediately recreating the article, just as G7 would, in almost all cases, bear with it no similar prejudice. G7 lets the author of an article request deletion of his/her article so long as no other editors have made meaningful contributions. The article's author retains that "right," as it were, until the article's deletion would involve deleting someone else's work. While I certainly agree that biographical articles shouldn't be deleted just because their subjects don't like them, in this case the biographical article is being deleted because the author's article requested deletion. That should be a cut and dry distinction with no room for subjective judgment or inference, just like G7. If someone else wants to write an article on Salvador Tercero, that's fine and dandy. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse the speedy because the terms of G7 were met (I am assuming what has been said about the history). The risk of deletion due to improper pressure is mitigated because anyone is able to recreate even using the material verbatim, with proper attribution. The licence to do this is still in effect. The article visible in the cache could reasonably have been speedied as "no indication of importance". Thincat (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree. G7 exists so authors can correct their mistakes before they become permanently embedded. I have declined G7s when I think the topic is worth writing about and can be written about; I have deleted them when it seems better that the article should never have been started or needs to be re-started. It should not be regarded as an entitlement. This is especially true when the reason is given as here. If the original author feels it unwise to continue, they can of course do not have to continue, but someone else can take over. Subjects requesting the deletion of their own article should never have been included in BLP policy as other than a very exceptional case. I've closed a few such as delete when there really is reason to make an exception because of hopelessly disproportionate coverage that would violate Do no harm. But most of the time, it's mere embarrassment--which,though real enough, is not something we can consider without it shading into the much worse situation of the subject disagreeing with the contents of the article. When there is reason for the subject to validly disagree, the proper procedure is OTRS, which I think handles all justifiable cases sympathetically--though the justifiable cases are a relatively small proportion of the complaints. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Is that what is meant by "in good faith," in the G7 description? Otherwise, I can't really see anything in G7 that backs up making the kind of judgment call you're describing, DGG. But my question is a sincere one: if that's what is meant by "in good faith," then perhaps you have a point. Also entirely possible there's some other factor I'm not considering. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I also certainly respect what DGG says. I doubt that any action here can be said to "do no harm" so we are left wondering what would do least harm. Like Ginsengbomb, I do not really know what might be behind this. Thincat (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• It's certainly possible that the scenario Dcoetzee suggests was right, i.e. that the subject had a way of putting pressure on the author. It's also possible that the information in that article wasn't in the public domain; maybe the author was a friend, relative or employee of the subject. In such circumstances, we definitely do want the author to be able to retract something they come to view as their mistake. The risk is that someone could suffer negative consequences as a result of their editing activities. We can't eliminate that completely, but I think that we need to protect our contributors to the maximum extent we can.

  However, there's a balance to be struck. Some editors, such as me, choose to use their real name for editing Wikipedia. Others, also such as me, put personally identifying information on their userpage and unequivocally indicate that they are adults. By doing so we are voluntarily accepting the consequences of their edits; we're effectively waiving the right to retract. But some editors are children, some are vulnerable people, so if we don't know who the editor is, our default position should be to assume that we need to protect them as much as we can.—S Marshall T/C 22:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Using G7 is not a safe way of satisfying do no harm, because it is too easy to re-create the article, deliberately or inadvertantly. If there is a true BLP problem, the article should be deleted under an appropriate reason, (either G3 vandalism or G10, abuse of the subject). The reason for this does not need to be made public on Wikipedia-- WP:OTRS exists for the purpose of dealing with these matters confidentially, and those of us who work there will always do what is necessary on a genuine case (although the majority requests there for deletion of material are not justified by WP policy, and the request is declined, with a full explanation). DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• DGG, did you fully understand me? My remark was basically about protecting the author, not protecting the subject.—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I was intrigued by Ginsengbomb's question above about whether G7 lent itself to the "judgment call" DGG described, so I dug up the history of CSD#G7 to see if I could come up with an answer. The collapsed text below is pretty long, but it informs my opinion in this DRV, so you may want to read it.

So, the original intent of G7 was to allow contributors to request the deletion of pages they created but now regard as mistakes, and even though that clause was removed from the criterion in 2007 (by a single administrator, without discussion or explanation), it’s still an important undercurrent running through our understanding of G7. If an editor adds an article to Wikipedia and comes to regard that as a mistake, administrators are encouraged – but not obligated – to kindly extend them the courtesy of deleting it. In this case, the editor who contributed the article came to view it as a mistake when Salvador Tercero expressed displeasure at being the subject of a Wikipedia article. The editor in question did not want to be associated with a living person’s unwanted biography, so viewing his creation of the article as a mistake is entirely reasonable. The whole idea of G7, I believe, is to allow our contributors relief in these kinds of situations. This discussion is particularly relevant here; there is support for deleting under G7 when a contributor does not want to be associated with a living person’s unwanted biography. It’s the ethical thing to do.

Dcoetzee is concerned that this deletion "would set a disturbing precedent [to] allow biographical articles to be deleted just because their subjects don't like them." No such precedent is being set. Any editor is welcome to create a new article on Tercero if they see fit to do so. The precedent that this discussion will set is whether or not G7 can be used as relief for users who do not wish to be associated any longer with their sole authorship of an unwanted BLP. At this point, I think it would be unethical to undelete this version of the unwanted biography and forcibly tie its creator to it. Before the article on Tercero was deleted, any editor could have invalidated the G7 request by substantially editing the article, but now that the deletion has been carried out, we should let sleeping dogs lie. I strongly endorse the speedy deletion, and I think that this deleted version of the article should stay that way. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A Stop at Willoughby is I think correct about the history of the guideline. But I think he is totally wrong, as diametrically wrong as possible, about the desired result. Even temporarily removing an article because the subject does not like it is a corruption of the concept of NPOV, and thus opposed to one of our foundational policies. In any case, no discussion at a single DRV sets precedent for anything. Wikipedia does not follow precedent in that fashion. The long continued series of consistent consensus can set precedent to a certain extent, at least temporarily. There are too many DRV results at variance with each other on almost everything conceivable for us to say that we set precedent here. In any case, endorsing a speedy is meaningless when anyone can re-create it, though anyone who does ought of course to independently check the material. Of course, if there is a true BLP issue, I count on people to tell me, but nobody has done so. If nobody does, I will assume there is not, and it is just personal preference. If we honor that, we descend to the who's who level. In the context of making an encyclopedia , it's unethical. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

DGG, sorry for being a little misleading. I didn’t mean to use the word “precedent” to imply something binding; as you said, no single DRV sets that kind of precedent. I only meant that when situations like this arise in the future, users can look back and see how a similar situation had been handled previously. As for the merits, I guess we should agree to disagree on how this G7 tag should have been handled, given our diametrically opposed positions. We do have some common ground, however. Like you, I think that Wikipedia shouldn’t allow biographical subjects to “opt out” without unusual reasons. (I want to be clear that my vote was not based on an inclination to let Salvador Tercero opt out. My vote, again, is to grant an editor his request to no longer be associated with his sole authorship of an unwanted BLP.) I think we also agree that this would best be resolved by simply waiting for an interested editor to recreate the article. Please correct me if I’m wrong. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just recreate the bloody thing already This whole discussion is silly. What happened already happened and whether the G7 deletion was valid or not doesn't matter, anybody is allowed to recreate the article. Just do that and we can get back to the discussion at hand: whether this guy is notable. It seems like a good A7 candidate to me. Yoenit (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yoenit, respectfully, some things on Wikipedia are clearly bureaucratic, and deletion reviews interpreting our overly legalistic criteria for speedy deletion are at the top of that list. But I agree that this should be resolved by simply allowing any interested editor to recreate the article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Jaume Cañellas Galindo

Jaume Cañellas Galindo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this AFD as delete per no significant coverage in sources. Two users, User:Samen54 and User:Winterfree2000 (not blocked at the time) requested that I restore it. I suggested they create drafts of the page in their userspace. I had an es.wiki sysop who is familar with en.wiki notability and reliable sources guidelines review the sources and the article and confirmed that it met en.wiki guidelines and I restored the article. Later, User:EEng, User:Kinu, and User:Xtv have all approached me with concerns about restoring the article ranging from article does not assert notability, users must be socks, and sources are not reliable. This has become a bit of a mess now so I'd appreciate it if I could get a wider review. v/r - TP 01:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

wouldn't the simplest thing be to just nominate it for AfD again and discuss it there. ? DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• TParis is specifically requesting review of his undeletion. I for one don't see anything wrong with it. The new sources weren't discussed at DRV before TParis restored the article, but TParis had a Spanish-language editor confirm the adequacy of the sources. I think that's a perfectly fine substitute, so I endorse the undeletion. I offer no opinion on the notability of the subject. Any editor who thinks thinks that this article doesn't meet our notability guidelines may nominate this article for deletion at WP:AfD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Bittergrey/CAMH_Promotion

User:Bittergrey/CAMH_Promotion (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

This user-space list of diffs seems to have been speedy-deleted without discussion. DGG, the nominator, had elsewhere stated that he was not neutral and "too involved"[4]. The list was less than a week old. I was gathering the diffs to have a more objective answer to a question asked to me at WP:COI/N.

I understand that a non-neutral admin might not like what the diffs conveyed, especially when viewed collectively. I also understand that since they are diffs, not RS's, what they convey should not be edited into mainspace articles. However, I believe this user-space list about a Wikipedia-related matter does not require deletion, much less speedy-delete without discussion. BitterGrey (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just take a look at it. (If you're not an admin, I can email you the contents). Accumulation of material for attack on another editor. Does anyone thinks I should send it to MfD to call attention to it,which I suppose is what BG is trying to accomplish? Does anyone want to take the responsibility for blocking the person who's been accumulating this? As BG says, I'm too involved to do that myself, and certainly too involved to act as a mediator. But I'm not too involved to delete an attack p. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

DGG, would you care to detail why those diffs are really so dangerous? Diffs keep us anchored in what really happened. Regarding "accumulation of material for attack on another editor," this is an assumption of bad faith, a violation of WP:AGF. An admin should know better.

Also, please provide diffs for your comments on my talk page, DGG. I'm pretty sure you've made at least two errors[5], but can't be sure since you didn't provide any diffs.

As for attack pages, DGG, I notice you haven't deleted these two[6][7].BitterGrey (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Since diffs are often, and reasonably, demanded for dispute resolution, it can be appropriate to create relevant lists. However, precedent seems to be that some such lists should not be kept on-wiki and I can go along with this. In this case a second admin performed the deletion. If BitterGrey has now lost his work, DGG should be (and I think is) willing to email it to BG for maintenance offline. Thincat (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Three seconds. Fastily made 42 deletions in that two-minute period and is currently being discussed at ANI. Regarding this diff list, there was no discussion, and no indication that he gave more than 3-seconds of thought to the deletion. He probably went just by DGG's conclusion, not realizing that DGG wasn't neutral. Unlike DGG, I won't assume a hostile intent: Fastily's deletion was probably in good faith, but not given enough thought.

My preference would be to keep the list on-wiki, if only to keep DGG and friends from calling it an 'off-wiki attack.' Of course, this history should be available: I think attempts to hide this history are indications that someone has something to hide. BitterGrey (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• • At this point, after the attack on my neutrality above, I agree that I should not take any further admin actions. Like many others involved in this subject, I started out neutral--not just neutral, but initially ignorant of the issues. Having learned the issues, I remain sympathetic to all parties involved. But having dealt with the people, and tried as hard as I could to keep a matter that involve not just on-wiki but RW charges affecting personal and academic integrity, I have remained I think on the whole neutral until now, though not from now on. Now experiencing the attitude of one of the people involved, it is clear that my efforts at urging restraint have clearly not succeeded. (I should explain that this is not a case of people resorting to off wiki action to support editing here, but the opposite--a RW debate (if debate is not too polite a word) that has carried over here). I therefore suggest to BG that I will restore the page if BG wishes to promptly proceed to try for a proper resolution of the matter, presumably via RfC, though I expect it will go further. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

DGG, please learn the difference between quoting what you wrote (with diff) and an "attack." This antagonistic negativity isn't helping anyone. If you are willing to restore the page, that would be great. However, given the breadth of the patterns that emerged, I'm not going to commit to any particular timeline to 'fix' everything. Rushing to do so would be, at best, disruptive. My goal is transparency: I used Wikipedia histories to build a bigger picture - something anyone can do if they put the time into it. No secrets, no accusations, just history. If Wikipedia collectively knows about that history and the consensus is not to care, that would be fine. Of course, that should be the collective decision, not yours or mine. BitterGrey (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Collecting diffs of this sort without using them has normally been held to be an attack. The general feeling has been it leads to increased disharmony. Viewing it that way isn't my private decision, it's part of the practices i'm supposed to be enforcing. either you want this resolved, or you want to continue to build up resentment. There are only two proper things do with disputes of this nature: to ask the help of the community to settle them, or to not let them interfere with the editing. In the one case, you want the diffs to use them in a regular process. In the other case, you don't need them on-wiki. Your choice. To insist on having them here without wanting to use them shows a desire to continue the sort of hostility that amounts to personal attacks. You brought this here. I always recommend acting as if everyone were friends to a certain extent for the sake of the encyclopedia, and not pursuing matters. That remains my advice. But if you can't do that, or even if you don't want to do that for whatever reasons, that's why we have the procedures for resolving the conflicts. I don't think it reasonable to have it both ways: to encourage dissension, but refuse to settle it. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: "You brought this here."[8] and "a RW debate (if debate is not too polite a word) that has carried over here"[9]. DGG, please substantiate or retract your diffless statements. Again, I think you need to get your facts straight. This is an on-wiki matter about Wikipedia content. BitterGrey (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Undelete- No discussion. Nominator has been "too involved"[10] for several months, mistakenly seems to think this is RW problem, and is not assuming good faith. Deleter did so in 3 seconds.BitterGrey (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: while patrolling CAT:CSD I saw that page (and two similar ones) tagged as attack pages, and thought about them for more than an hour. As more than seven hours elapsed from tagging to deletion, a number of other admins must have looked at them too. When Fastily deleted them, I was drafting a reply declining the speedy, saying that I did not consider they fell within the definition of WP:CSD#G10, that they could be taken to MfD under WP:UP#POLEMIC, but that even there I thought, as they were less than three days old, their author could mount a defence under the clause that says "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." DGG, is there more than meets the eye here? Why do you think that clause does not apply? JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have reverted my deletion, and have sent it to MfD for a community discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion. I have nominated it, but will not be discussing it further. (I think the clause does not apply because the user has said, above, they will not commit to using it promptly) DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

DGG, I still expect you to support or retract your negative comments, specifically "You brought this here."[11] and "a RW debate (if debate is not too polite a word) that has carried over here"[12]. This is an on-wiki matter about Wikipedia content, and admin powers do not include license to hit-and-run. BitterGrey (talk)

• Question DGG has started another deletion discussion while this one hasn't formally closed yet. Could I ask a _neutral_ admin what the likelihood of an "undelete" closure would have been? Given DGG's mishandling of things, his diffless insinuations, and that he is now outside even the letter of Wikipedia procedure[13], I'm getting a really bad feeling about the upper authority structure at Wikipedia. Specifically, I'm hesitant to let him dictate a less favorable "relist" outcome. BitterGrey (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Close. Undeleted and listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Note: I have closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion as a WP:POINTy nomination. This discussion needs to be completed first. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• List at MfD. The page is not a clear attack page. It may, however, violate WP:UP#POLEMIC or be otherwise undesirable. XfD is the place for discussion of the merits of the page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment:"The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." The list of diffs was only three days old when first deleted, and I'm not a full-time Wikipedian. My concern is that DGG and friends (who are full-time wikipedians) will try to keep me bogged down in multiple deletion discussions and equally pointless deflections to preclude me from doing any good in a timely manner. BitterGrey (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Either endorse outright or move speedily to MFD and delete it there. User is clearly less interested in dispute resolution than in keeping this publicly viewable for as long as possible (see his edits to the MFD, or the current header on this userpage). There's nothing here that couldn't be edited just as easily offline. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Actually, the intent there was to synchronize the concurrent speedy and non-speedy deletion nominations, to try to reduce the amount of debating. Given that the list has only existed for three days (excluding time deleted) and already has two deletion nominations, I had hoped to discourage new nominations for deletion, at least for the next couple days.BitterGrey (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: Would others approve of offline development? I'm willing to do so, but (as stated before) would prefer to develop this on-wiki, if only so that DGG and friends can't label it an 'off-wiki attack.'BitterGrey (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse. While there are some procedural oddities here. I regard the page as a clear example of an appropriate G10 deletion. If you want to start an RfC you may do so, but you may not gather and present accusations in userspace this way. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. I agree with DGG and Eluchil404. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: DGG acted to implement relist[14].

• Endorse. I commented above. G10 deletion looks appropriate to me and nothing in this DRV changes my view. Had the page been only an annotated series of diffs I would have thought MfD appropriate. Thincat (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: Might I ask what changed your mind? It is still an annotated list of diffs that an involved admin is trying to delete. Were DGG's "procedural oddities" that persuasive? I'm also curious about the sudden chorus. BitterGrey (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

BG, I did what I thought would satisfy you. it was my intent that this be closed since I relisted it elsewhere. I apologize for not making that clearer, but I didn't want to close this, since I've agreed to do no admin function respecting you. I'm glad someone closed the MfD, since it shouldnt be at two places . DGG ( talk ) 15:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

DGG, When is this 'now-I'm neutral-now-I'm-not' dance ever going to end?

You've been non-neutral in this issue since some time in 2008. When I got involved in 2011, you "banned" me without due procedure[15]. (You retracted that suddenly too[16].) Are you concerned that a real truthtelling will find out something you don't want known? Now I regret that, in the little time I had to spend developing this list, I didn't spend more time documenting your role in this tangled mess.

Again, support or retract the growing list of undiffed negative comments you have made against me. BitterGrey (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In reply to BG "what changed your mind?": I can now see the page in question, previously I could not. My change has been from uncertainty to "endorse", not from "overturn" to "endorse". Thincat (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The sudden chorus of editors and IPs voting to endorse a position DGG no longer supports[17] seems to be due to my edit at the other discussion[18]. It has been described as a "boldfaced, all-caps rant"[19], perhaps rightly so. The truth is I've never had one of my user pages deleted, much less double-delete proposed by a "too involved" admin (his words, not mine[20]). The procedure I read said this shouldn't happen, and so didn't give me any guidance about what to do. (Attack pages against me have been let to fester for months, with one nearing its first birthday. Not sure if any of those ever got deleted.) I don't enjoy arguing and was hoping to head off multiple, active deletion debates. BitterGrey (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, Bittergrey, the diff you provided seems to suggest that DGG still thinks the page should be deleted. Also, for what it is worth, my endorsing deletion of it had nothing to do with the second diff you provide. It is best not to make assumptions about other editors' motives. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Okay, I'm confused. The DRV was opened because it was felt that DGG deleted something out of process. DGG admitted he may have been in error, reversed his speedy deletion, and put it up at MFD to obtain consensus on whether or not deletion was warranted. And that nomination was then closed as pointy? I don't get it. Once he reversed his decision and allowed it to go up for discussion, why was this DRV not closed and that MFD not allowed to continue? If the page was worthy of being kept, the consensus at MFD likely would have reflected this. Close this DRV and re-open the MFD, and allow it to proceed for the full time, is all I can really say here, based on what I can see. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It would have been less problematic if this discussion had been closed before the other discussion had started. All we know for sure is that procedures were not followed. This fiasco was, at best, poorly handled by an admin who is, in his own words, "too involved[21]". "Pointy" is putting it mildly: I would consider any use of DGG's administrative powers authority against me since he declared non-neutrality in 2011 as abuses of that power authority. BitterGrey (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Once the MFD was opened, this DRV should have been closed as moot. Period. There is no need to keep thwacking at this dead horse when the admin admitted he made a mistake and turned the deletion decision over to the community. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BitterGrey, to be fair, DGG did not use admin powers against you in this case: he did not delete these pages, he tagged them as G10, which any user could do, and left them in the CSD list for another admin to decide about. He used admin powers to undelete them in order to take them to MfD, but you can't say that was using admin powers against you. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarified. Technically the "ban" didn't involve admin powers either - it just would have been laughable if a non-admin did it. I seem to have missed the admission of wrongdoing, or the retraction of any of the wrong statements he's made in this discussion. As for the renomination, it seems to have brought a chorus for 'Endorse', while before the trend seemed to be 'relist' or maybe even 'undelete,' so it wasn't necessarily an act in my favor. BitterGrey (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Bittergrey, there are good reasons why you don't get to make a laundry list of diffs and accusations in your own userspace. You're publishing dirt about someone in a place they may not see, and/or may not feel they have the right to reply. Your laundry list of diffs and accusations belongs in some kind of text document on your own computer, or any other kind of unpublished state, until you actually lauch an RFC. Do you see?—S Marshall T/C 11:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree on multiple points. "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.". As for inviting others to contribute, the only invite I was able to get out before the deletion is here. Please note that there is no "except you" statement, and assuming one is yet another violation of good faith. That is also an example of my use of the list. I had hoped to use it conversationally on talk pages instead of building it up as some massive out-of-the-blue "attack". Less disruptive for Wikipedia, and less work for me. Given the multiple undiff'ed accusations that I had not planned to use the list above, I'll add a redundant and boldfaced link to that instance where the list was already used. I regret that others don't take the time to gather diffs like I have tried to. BitterGrey (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between collecting a handful of relevant diffs in userspace in preparation for a full RFC, and writing a massive tract about a particular user on its own separate userpage. Wikipedia's general policies about content that's defamatory towards a named person do apply in your userspace, and everywhere else on the whole site. (Famously, Gwen Gale once deleted an entire AfD on grounds of BLP violations.)—S Marshall T/C 19:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That was a quote from Wikipedia policy (although the link needed fixing). Disagreements with it should be discussed there, not here.BitterGrey (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Its interesting that nobody has yet commented on the validity of the assertions. If it is true that Cantor's name cited in large part due to self-citations, then he might be guilty of a pretty severe WP:NOT violation; using Wikipedia as a means of self-promotion. The proper thing to do with this evidence is to discuss its validity and whether or not he breached WP:NOT. Deleting the page without discussion of the evidence on it just serves to bury what might be legitimate criticism. FWIW I think the undeletion was a good move and the early closure of the MfD unjustified. ThemFromSpace 21:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the province of Del Rev? That all disputes come here to be settled?. (Given the ARS template and its relatives, it does sometimes seem that way.) But FWIW, it seems WMC's recent edits have been to propose his work as sources on article talk pages. As I understand it, that's just what he's supposed to do. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

DGG: Didn't you say something about not discussing this further[22]?

Themfromspace: The complication is that James Cantor couldn't have done it alone. There were others who noticed the pattern and could have kept Marionthelibrarion's edits in check if he did not have the assistance of others, including DGG. An example of the two "librarians" engaged in an edit war against a common foe is here[23][24][25][26][27]. That written, I don't know whether DGG's multiple nominations for deletion were to protect himself, Cantor, or the more involved editor who's recent edits triggered the list development. (Yes, all those who assumed the list was intended primarily as some attack against Cantor are wrong. Since Cantor's current behavior isn't bad and closely monitored, I'm not expecting any disciplinary action against him due to these past edits. A skeptical review of the fruits of what is now known to be self-promotion, perhaps, but not disciplinary action against Cantor.) BitterGrey (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

13 February 2012

Nick Pitera

Nick Pitera (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Based on coverage in mainline media outlets since 2008 (when three deletions of this page were done), this Living Person is clearly notable. I have added one source, from the Pop Music Critic at the San Francisco Chronicle, on the Nick Pitera Talk page. FULL DISCLOSURE: I have no connection whatsoever with this musical artist. I had just read about the guy in several places and was surprised Wikipedia had no article on the guy (with multiple albums and coverage in notable media), when Wikipedia has music-related articles on half the garage bands that ever released 50 copies of a self-burned CD. Would appreciate administrator review. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC) N2e (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Looks reasonable to me. Usually drv asks for a draft to remove creation protection, but there was never an afd and the a7s were long enough ago that I think this can be dispensed with. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• remove create protection Not sure why the nominator thought it necessary to engage in hyperbole, but I would advise to refrain from doing that in the future. I find it quite annoying. Looking past that, I see no problems with recreation as independent sources have been presented on the talkpage, adressing the initial reason for deletion and salting (a7 speedies). Yoenit (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Remove protection - reasonable request. --He to Hecuba (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Remove create protection. Valid sources presented by a non-COI editor are more than enough to justify removing protection when the last deletion was an A7 over three years ago. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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