Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:VFU)
Jump to: navigation, search
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.

Administrator instructions

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

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



Deletion Review may be used:

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

Deletion Review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  3. to point out other pages that have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).

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



Before listing a review request, please:

  1. discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #Purpose.
  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[edit]

In the deletion review discussion, please:

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

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. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion[edit]

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

Closing reviews[edit]

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 review/Administrator instructions. 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[edit]


Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.


Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

}} ~~~~

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 (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
}} ~~~~

Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.


Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2014 July 30}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2014 July 30|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is different than the deletion review's section header:


Active discussions[edit]

30 July 2014[edit]


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

Nitin Gupta is the founder of Relcy[1] which recently got funding worth $9m from Sequoia Cap and Khosla Ventures. He previously had many publications in academia; and has opened and sold a company in India. This was highlighted in the top newspapers and articles are available online. With his latest stint at Relcy, I believe that we should have an article on him. There seems to be no other notable Nitin Gupta at this time. Rahul6301 (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

29 July 2014[edit]

Columbia Mall (Missouri)[edit]

Columbia Mall (Missouri) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I attempted to discuss this with the closing admin on July 25, he never answered and has since made edits including answering other people on his talk page. He closed the discussion as no consensus and I think there was a clear consensus to delete. Two out of the three keeps were impeached at the discussion as they simply cited WP:OUTCOMES which is not a reason for keeping. That leaves one keep that thought there was enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG to three deletes that did not think there was enough to meet WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Overturn and have it re-closed by an admin who does not comment at the DRV. If I still had the tools, I'd definitely have closed this as delete. But that's not the main reason why I'm !voting to overturn. The admin's contribution log says that they closed this AfD less than a minute after their previous one. They left no explanation for a 4-3 close. And then no explanation to the complainant here. That's not smoking gun evidence of course and I'm not trying to trout the admin; there can be all kinds of perfectly innocent explanations for each of those three occurrences. But it does lead me to doubt that a full reasoning process was applied to the closure, especially when I suspect a great many admins, if forced to write out reasons for the close, would have found a consensus to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)When I review that discussion, "impeached" certainly isn't a word that springs to mind. There was a lot of discussion about the WP:OUTCOMES-based !votes in that AfD, and a number of editors expressed the view that such !votes were invalid. LFaraone presumably differs, as he's entitled to do; like so many notability debates, that whole discussion boils down to how you define "significant coverage". It was said, a number of times, that WP:OUTCOMES is just an essay. That's true, but I don't see a chain of reasoning connecting that statement to a "delete" outcome. I would think that "no consensus" was within the closer's discretion given the debate we're considering.

    However, personally I would very much have preferred "delete" as a close in that case. Epeefleche doesn't say "delete" in the discussion but his commentary really does lead in that direction. Unscintillating's "keep" !vote is supported by a number of remarks that reflect Unscintillating's unique conception of our normal conventions (e.g. "notability is not conferred", "Significant material is that which is not trivial, where trivial is things like a listing in a phone book"); I see these as non sequiturs that the closer should probably have discounted. The nomination was well-put and supported by good reasoning. I think that discussion strongly tended towards delete.

    Therefore, although I think the no consensus close was within discretion, perhaps the closer of this DRV would use their own discretion to relist the debate at once, so that after another week's discussion we can delete the article in an orderly fashion.—S Marshall T/C 11:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Endorse Consensus can change: I have over the past five or so years argued for great selectivity in our coverage of local subjects (malls included), and a year ago I would have said that to a very considerable extent the general felling agreed on that. However, over the last year, it has been increasingly evident that the previous degree of agreement is no longer the case: the current trend is for greater inclusiveness here. I cannot ignore that many of the people whose views on notability I most respect no longer agree with me here--whether I have been carrying this too far might be one explanation, but that the prevailing sentiment does seem to have changed. I am unwilling to argue that the rule I want is the rule that everyone does in fact agree with. Quite the opposite--if the general mood here is in a particular direction, I will eventually accept the change, not try endlessly to fight against it--its the only way to do effective work here.
There's no point in trying to appeal to principles on such matters: the guidelines are whatever we collectively want them to be, and we will collectively interpret policy to accommodate what we want to accomplish. For a project organized as we are, there's no alternative--anything else requires a formal body to oversee and enforce fixed rules, and as far as content goes, we do not have that.
The closer read the consensus correctly--there just isn't any. I can only suggest that in trying to remove excessive articles on malls or other local subjects, we concentrate on the smallest and least important, not the borderline. They;re the only ones where we're likely to achieve consensus. I don't think relisting will help--it would be better to concentrate on the less defensible articles of this nature. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

27 July 2014[edit]

Match World Cup[edit]

Match World Cup (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

International club football tournament in UAE with many well-known teams. However, on the AfD page it was consensus to delete the season-articles only per WP:NSEASONS, but main article was deleted too. I will show the notability per WP:GNG. Some links: RSSSF, Official site, report in local media, in Russian top-media, in Ukrainian top-media etc. Please restore main article into mainspace: Match World Cup. Also please restore season articles (2011, 2012, 2013) into my namespace for further working/merging into main article (as was made with ru:Match World Cup). If no, please send main article to WP:AfD again for new discussion. NickSt (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy Close this listed this back in December with the exact same list of references. As nothing has apparently changed, we shouldn't entertain merely listing again and again hoping for a different result. -- (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That request was about season articles. Now about main article only. NickSt (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Just to remind you, this is the string of edits where you list that review. Where you list it under the name of the top level article, where you list out the top level article as well as the "season" articles. The logs for the top level article (as well as the DRV) show it was restored for the benefit of the DRV and then deleted again once the DRV was completed. The idea that this is somehow new and different does not pass even cursory scrutiny. -- (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • And what? I think this tournament deserves own article. Read Afd again. First vote against: "Season articles in contravention of WP:NSEASONS". Second vote against: "Keep the parent article, but Redirect or Delete the season-articles". Third: "Neutral leaning to delete on main article. Delete the season pages". Fourth: "Delete the season articles as a starting point". All votes against were about season articles. Clearly, it was no consensus about deletion of the main article. Also it was 5 votes for keep. Unfortunately the closer decided to delete main article also without consensus. My first DRV proposition was about all season articles. I see enough press coverage in different media for existing of page. Now I propose restore (and relist on AfD) main article only without seasons. NickSt (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I understand you think it deserves it's own article, but you listed it here before and the outcome was to endorse. You've come back and presented exactly the same sources which were rejected last time. You know repeating your view doesn't make it anymore persuasive. So that does appear you want to just relist until you get the result you want. -- (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Repeatedly, now my request about main article only (with merging of the season articles into main, as was proposed by majority on Afd). No analyzes of sources were given on AfD or DRV. It was no consensus for deletion of the main article. I will show notability for the tournament in the article when I will receive the sources of the main and season articles. Club champions of Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia took part in the competition, thats why we cannot say about "weak tournament". Definitely main article must exist. NickSt (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Trying to argue that there is something materially different to the last DRV because you are not asking about the season articles is frankly an insult to everyone's intelligence, the topic has been covered. The AFD resulted in a consensus to delete - the AFD closing admins comment "the people arguing keep had three weeks on bringing significant coverage in either this debate or the article that makes the parent article meet WP:GNG, but didn't bother." (emphasis mine), the parent article was specifically covered in the decision, so your attempt to paint it as something different, which you tried in the last DRV and had rejected then too, is transparently false. You don't need to receive those sources to demonstrate notability, since they've already been found lacking, so repeating them here will be pointless. I'll look at the sources you've listed below separately. -- (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

26 July 2014[edit]

The Bone Clocks[edit]

The Bone Clocks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was deleted last month but this month it has just been included in the 2014 Man Booker Prize list. The new rules make it an award given to any nationality. (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Not sure it adds much right now, since the book still isn't available, and it's only on the longlist as the moment (presumably submitted by the publisher for listing, which would not be a sign of independent interest), as it's due for release in September, I'm not sure the harm in waiting for more coverage which you'd expect to materialise pretty soon. -- (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


Fomato (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deleted under the speedy criteria of being an implausible typo for Tomato. Yet it appeared on a restaurant menu in China and the typo is a single letter. It's clearly plausible. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Since there's a good faith challenge, perhaps it should be discussed at RfD. Personally, I don't think we should add a redirect for all of the multitude of mis-spellings by those who have only very sketchy English. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn. F is next to T on the keyboard so not implausible at all. Per DGG, should be sent to RfD if there is any disagreement on this. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Relist at RFD. This was actually taken to RFD but that was procedurally closed. I agree that RFD is the best forum to appeal WP:CSD R3 deletions so a relisitng there is the way to go. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse: recently created (as I gather from stats) and implausible: more plausible Gomato and Romato don't exist, so why should this one? I strongly oppose sending this to RfD unless for some reason WP:CSD#R3 was not applicable here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 07:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment that some possibly similar redirects don't exist is no reason why this one should or shouldn't. Adjacency i=on the keyboard is not a useful argument--it would make 6 redirects for every word, 6**n if we considered every letter of a n-letter word. And even if we used the argument, it would normally apply only to left and right , not diagonal--left and right are much more likely--at least the way I tend to make my typos. But the place to discuss this is RfD, not here. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


Ovin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deleted under the speedy criteria of being an implausible typo for Oven. Yet it appeared on a restaurant menu in China and the typo is a single letter. It is also an expected misspelling considdering the spelling and the schwa sound. So it's clearly plausible. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Overturn. A plausible misspelling, as the nominator explains. Should be sent to RfD if there is any disagreement on this. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Relist at RFD. This was actually taken to RFD but that was procedurally closed. I agree that RFD is the best forum to appeal R3 deletions so a relisitng there is the way to go. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn: as I gather from stats, this redirect was not very recent, thus WP:CSD#R3 does not apply. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 07:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

23 July 2014[edit]

William Tomicki[edit]

William Tomicki (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Keep votes, based on WP:CREATIVE, were discounted by the closer because "you can't use reviews of the magazine as proof HE is notable, via WP:INHERITED". INHERITED is an essay without consensus outside policy and guideline framework. The point of the Keep vote rationales was to show that the magazine (solely written by William Tomicki) is notable, which then confers notability on the creator of the work, per CREATIVE. This is done all the time, for example book reviews confer notability on the author. Notability of a creative profession is based on their works. Both Keeps and Deletes provided reasonable rationales in this case -- except for the Delete vote by MiracleMat should be given less weight since there is no rule that a person can't create an article about themselves (and notably William Tomicki ID'd himself and refrained from participating in the AfD). That leaves three good reasons to delete, and three good reasons to Keep. Both sides correctly invoked the guidelines. GreenC 14:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Notify participants: @DGG:@MiracleMat:@Dream Focus:@Clarityfiend:@Greglocock:@JTdale:@Trackinfo: -- GreenC 14:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • My opining about the close afterwards isn't the same as my official close, so you seem to be misrepresenting the close, which consisted of "The result was delete. Looking at the keep votes, I'm not moved my numbers of subscribers nor number of casual mentions nor comparisons to other similar articles. WP:GNG is about sourcing and significant coverage and there is no indication this criteria has been met. As for salting, I don't see sufficient cause at this time." Dennis Brown |  | WER 14:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • We get random outcomes in AFD depending on the personal opinions of the closer. Sometimes people saying something passes a subject specific guideline is enough to keep the article, and sometimes they ignore the subject specific guidelines entirely as though they didn't exist or matter, and only focus on the general notability guideline. WP:NOTABILITY clearly states A topic is presumed to merit an article if It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. You can pass either one, you don't have to pass both. Dream Focus 14:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • He does get coverage such as this [1] and this [2], among others, listed in the AFD. The article needs to be restored in its final version so people can see what it is we are arguing about. Dream Focus 05:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Presumed" means "presumed" -- it does not imply that we necessarily will have an article. The presumption can be rebutted by showing that the purported material does not meet other requirements, including that the article basically not be used for promotional purposes. Many autobiographies are indeed used for promotional purposes--I do not presume that every one of them is, but I take it as grounds for reasonable suspicion. If the involvement of the subject continues to the extent that we cannot have a NPOV article, then unless there is actually public significance, there should be no article. NOT WHO'S WHO. I and most of the other people there reached this conclusion. Basically, excluding promotion from the encyclopedia is more important than borderline questions of notability: unless we exclude promotionalism, we're not an encyclopedia but a vanity publication or a medium for advertisements. No one comes to an en enccylopedia to see what people have to say about themselves--they go to their web pages, which is where such material belongs. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • All of DGG (the NOM)'s complaints continue to take the giant hammer of deletion to solve the fly of editing portions of the content. As I said at the time the subject of the article was "giving up" in frustration during the debate, I said the article itself should stand on its merits whether or not the subject agrees to its content. Any article should consist of what we know about the subject, not what they wish to say about themselves. OK I tend to look at the slippery slope. What if Adolph Hitler didn't like the story we told about him and said to delete his article? Would we listen to him at all? Would we manipulate our content to fit his view of events? Of course not. And so far in current events we are trying to expel the Russian propaganda view of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17‎. This process is called editing. We are called editors. So use your editing skills to remove those things that you think are self-sourced and self-promotional and give other editors the chance to verify or work around what you have done. That is the collegial nature of wikipedia. And all of that gets completely wiped out by deletion. Now, no other editors will have the chance to come by and make the article better. My point is, this article might be borderline as it existed. It was in need of further editing. It certainly was not fraud, not purely self-promotional and shouldn't have been a candidate for deletion. Trackinfo (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Are you really so crass that you are going to break Godwin's law and throw it onto DGG? Are you really that ignorant? And you want to compare this fluffy biography to the death of almost 300 people in a horrific military blunder? Do you simply lack any sense of proportion or common decency? Dennis Brown |  | WER 21:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Without having seen the article, it sounds like it was bloated with unsuitably promotional content, overly influenced by non-independent sources. Anything financially connected to the person or his company, publications or promoters is non-independent. Such sourced may be used to source primary source content, but should not form the basis of an article. If there is independent coverage of this person or his company, then I suspect it is best that a fresh article be drafted, based on the independent sources. Leaning "Endorse, encourage userspace drafting of a better attempt using independent sourcing". Would appreciate temporary undeletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Since no one has done so yet I put a copy online here.[3] It may be slightly different from the last version deleted but mostly the same. Sources include The New York Times, Sun Sentinel, SF Gate, SBEntrepreneur, Santa Barbara Independent, Chicago Tribune, and others. -- GreenC 02:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Unless it was written entirely by Green Cardamom, this copy at User:Green Cardamom/William Tomicki violates WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. Restoring under a {{TempUndelete}} is strongly preferred. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
In an article of contested notability, the opening sentence or two should assert the reason for notability (it does), with references to independent secondary sources that cover the subject directly. The first two sentences have six references. Good, but:
  • References 1-3 are just name-drops. The referenced articles are not about this person.
  • Reference 4 is promotional, and for that reason is excluded as evidence of notability
  • Reference 5 is OK, but as it is about a single isolated event, is not much on its own.
  • Reference 6 is like 1-3.
Padding the reference list at the bottom, sourcing specific facts, doesn't help in establishing notability. Lead with the strongest, independent, secondary source references that cover the subject directly.
Are these references new since the AfD. If not, then you need more. If yes, while I am not so impressed as explained above, the article may be entitle to another pass through AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The reason he is notable is because of WP:CREATIVE #3 ("The person has created a work.. that has been the subject of .. multiple independent periodical reviews or articles") - for the newsletter not the person. This per the Keep !votes in the AfD. It is the crux of this DRV, the closing admin confuses the work with the person, as you said "The referenced articles are not about this person" - correct, they need to be about the work. That's how CREATIVE works. Also arguably refs #1-3 are forms of reviews or articles about the work, it doesn't have to be a devoted article or a lengthy article. -- GreenC 03:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
If you selectively read the page on which WP:CREATIVE is a section, then it may appear that meeting that criteria is an unquestionable indication of notability. If however you widen it and read the "Additional Criteria" into, of which that's a subsection and is says stuff like "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. ..." "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.", contrasted to the Basic Criteria defined on that page (which is essentially the GNG), where there is the stronger presumption of notability. DRV has long read the secondary criteria as subordinate to the GNG and an indication that sources may exist, when challenged sources about the subject are required. -- (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not "unquestionable" notability... WP:NOTE says: A topic is presumed to merit an article if It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. This was likely a No Consensus: 3 Deletes based on GNG, and 3 Keeps based on the Subject Specific Criteria (and 1 delete based on nothing). -- GreenC 13:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse as DRV is not a venue to continue arguing the merits of the original article, only to review the close. Here, the closer was correct in discounting the weak keep votes, that's all there is to it. Work on a copy in user-space, try resubmitting in the future. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Are Subject Specific Criteria arguments "weak"? WP:NOTABILITY clearly states: A topic is presumed to merit an article if It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. SSC are equally valid as GNG arguments. There were 3 GNG votes vs. 3 SSC votes. You don't think that is a No Consensus? -- GreenC 14:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Obviously I do not think that, if I endorsed the deletion finding. Learn to accept that editors can disagree with others' findings and still be acting in good faith. That's the fundamental flaw in your DRV filing; it rests solely on "I disagree". Also, peruse Wikipedia:BLUDGEON at some point, before you decide to respond to each and every endorse comment in this discussion going forward. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh man Tarc, I've been at this too long to "learn" that others sometimes disagree. My question was an honest one, the DRV is based on legitimate guidelines not just "I disagree". I was trying to understand your endorsement within the framework of the guidelines. You don't have to say, you don't even have to agree with the guidelines, your endorsement still carries. -- GreenC 04:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Reasonable close. Someone above rightly points out that the key words in WP:NOTABILITY are presumed to merit an article. Meeting the letter of a notability guideline establishes a presumption of notability, but not a guarantee. It was correct to ignore the subject specific guideline, even if its letter was met, once it became apparent that the only claim to notability on that front was the travel newsletter. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
We don't discriminate because someone is a travel newsletter writer. There are notable travel newsletter writers. -- GreenC
  • Hmmmmm. We have articles on people who're far less noteworthy than Mr Tomicki, who's had an eventful life that amounts to quite a lot more than just writing a travel newsletter. On reviewing the sources, I can't help thinking there's an article there to be written. The "delete" outcome here strikes me as a little harsh but it was probably within discretion, and I conclude that although there's very arguably a reasonable basis for an article, the community doesn't want this article. I would hope to see that become a bluelink in due course.—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

22 July 2014[edit]

Shaul Aaron (closed)[edit]

20 July 2014[edit]

19 July 2014[edit]

List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies (closed)[edit]

Westshore Town Centre (closed)[edit]

18 July 2014[edit]

17 July 2014[edit]

16 July 2014[edit]


January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
  1. ^ "Relcy". Sequoia. 2014-17-17.