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 or 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);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed); or
  9. to seek reversal of an AfD consensus to redirect without deletion. Instead, seek consensus, on the talk page of the redirect target, to re-create the spinout.

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 December 21}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2014 December 21|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]

21 December 2014[edit]

20 December 2014[edit]

Zach Collier[edit]

Zach Collier (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

My comment from the AfD:

From the closing admin's talk page:

After I restored the article, Spanneraol (talk · contribs) misused rollback to revert my restoration.

The best argument against the subject passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline is that the coverage is WP:ROUTINE. This argument was advanced by Secret (talk · contribs) only, who wrote:

I don't see much coverage outside of him surviving open-heart surgery and being drafted in the first round, which makes it human interest/WP:ROUTINE and still fails WP:GNG. Being a first rounder, you get some coverage automatically, and surviving open heart surgery is very common.

However, the fourth source I linked to in my keep comment (the source was also mentioned by Yankees10 (talk · contribs)),, doesn't mention open heart surgery. More importantly, it was published six years after he was drafted in the first round. The article provides detailed analysis of the subject's baseball career up until August 2014.

Overturn to no consensus.

Cunard (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

19 December 2014[edit]

Syriac people[edit]

Syriac people (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There has been a long-standing edit request at Talk:Syriac people#Protected edit request on 11 November 2014 by several new editors to recreate the redirect Syriac people as a standalone article. After the request being declined several times, we are now at the stage where some of the editors involved have made a draft of their proposed article at Draft:Syriac people. I think the draft probably counts as "significant new information" since the previous deletion discussion, and so is worth discussing here to see if the 2008 deletion decision might be overturned. The old article can be seen in the page history. I've already asked Future Perfect at Sunrise about this (they were the closing admin), and you can see their response here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose recreation / keep as redirect (as closer of original AFD). If you compare the leads of the present Assyrian people and the Draft:Syriac people, it is clear that both speak of the exact same group: speakers of neo-Aramaic who live in Syria, Turkey and northern Iraq, who call themselves either Suraye ("Syrians"), Aturaye ("Assyrians") or Oromoye ("Aramaeans") in their native language, and who belong to a variety of eastern Christian churches. Two articles about the same group would, by definition, be POV forks of each other. The division between "Syriac" and "Assyrian" is not a division between two ethnic groups, but between two ideological perspectives on a single one: a division between several ideological factions among the group's diaspora communities in the west, which all prefer different names and have different ideas about their cultural "identity", but which all still claim to be speaking for this one, single, native minority population in the Middle East.
The struggle over renaming/rewriting/splitting/merging these articles has been the focus of one of the most ridiculously entrenched ethnic POV wars I've encountered during my time on Wikipedia, and in my view this whole bunch of POV warriors should have been told long ago they've exhausted the community's patience and all be banned years ago (the lot of them, on all sides). That said, the current target article Assyrian people appears to be currently far from acceptable too and seems to have been mangled by the rival, pro-"Assyrian" POV faction (giving far undue weight, from what I can see at a quick glance, to the idea of an actual ethnic continuity with the ancient Assyrians as opposed to other historical populations in the area), so I can well understand that its current contents may seem unacceptable as a redirect target to the pro-"Syriac" faction, but the solution to that is to fix the article, not to POV-fork it. Fut.Perf. 08:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose recreation / keep as redirect. Fut.Perf. has said it all. The current article Assyrian people (and those associated to it) have to include the pro-"Syriac-Oromoye" views on our cultural and historical identity.'AynHaylo (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose recreation / keep as redirect. I also believe that the above user succinctly summarized the problem with the current page and the need to keep the redirect. The current page should not be removed, as the group is one ethnicity. Penguins53 (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Penguins53

18 December 2014[edit]

184 Carex articles[edit]

Just under two weeks ago, I created 184 stub articles about species of monocotyledonous graminoid flowering plants (sedges). As identified species, the notability of each is not in question. In the past I have created several thousand stub articles about identified species, and on numerous occasions these stubs have subsequently been expanded significantly by other editors.

An administrator, User:Stemonitis, came to my talk page expressing concerns about these particular stub articles, apparently because he monitors a category to which I added them. Although he did mention that he felt it would be better not to create stub articles about such species at all, he also mentioned a list of ways in which he felt the stub articles created were problematic.

I then in good faith proceeded to address all of the concerns Stemonitis raised. I was able to fix all but one of the issues he raised, and in doing so I also added additional sourced information to every one of the stub articles (specifically, the date each species was described). This took me many hours.

Stemonitis then went quiet, but on 6 December he then proceeded first to turn all of the stub articles into redirects to a page listing sedges, and then to delete all of these redirects himself as being redirects under item 10 of WP:R#DELETE.

Quite aside from the obvious gaming of the system to obtain a rather narrow-minded preferred outcome, these deletions were inappropriate as the pages deleted quite clearly do not fall under any speedy deletion criterion. These pages should be restored, and Stemonitis can then recommend their deletion at WP:MfD if he is able to present a convincing rationale. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That is quite a biased view of the exchange, and is rather misleading. Every one of the pages was, as I have repeatedly explained, worthless. They added no new information to the encyclopaedia (it all being effectively copied piecemeal from the existing list of Carex species), but actually made existing information harder for readers to find. (In some cases, falsehoods were added.) The encyclopaedia did not improve at all, but did deteriorate noticeably, as a result. It was perfectly reasonable to merge the pages in question back into the list (WP:MERGE: "a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time"; such substubs are almost never expanded), and perfectly reasonable to later delete the redirects thus created (WP:R#DELETE, as indicated above). I even left a seemly pause of 24 hr between the two activities, in case – as seemed possible – TAP wished to kick up a fuss about it. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Stemonitis' reply here speaks to the difficulty of communicating with him. As I already indicated above, the stub articles most definitely did not simply repeat the information already present in the list article; they also added the date of description of each species. None of this information was merged back into the list article when Stemonitis performed his 184 WP:IAR deletions, and thus this cannot be claimed to be a merger of any sort.
"Such substubs are almost never expanded" is also misleading. Megachile rubi is an example of a stub species article (about a bee) I created that was later substantially expanded by another editor. The world contains a great many species of sedge and bee; so the vast majority of the stub articles about those species have not yet been expanded. But that does not mean that they cannot be expanded, nor that they are not being expanded within a reasonable amount of time. After all, some of these sedges and bees have been around a very long time already. Wikipedia only arrived quite recently.
"The encyclopaedia did not improve at all, but did deteriorate noticeably, as a result" seems to give away Stemonitis' problem here - this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT thing, and an administrator should most definitely not be speedily deleting articles on that basis. Especially when the articles do not meet any speedy deletion criterion. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn, and WP:TROUT Stemonitis. The deletions were clearly not within process. The speedy deletion criteria are limited to those at WP:SPEEDY, and merely meeting a criteria at WP:R#DELETE does not permit something to be speedy deleted. The criteria at WP:R#DELETE are arguments that can be made at WP:RFD (where those same criteria are listed). Deletion using those criteria require a discussion and a consensus. Admins simply aren't allowed to delete something merely because they feel it is bad content, without it meeting a speedy deletion criteria or having been subject of a prod or XFD discussion. Furthermore, the idea that articles should be redirected because the subjects are better covered in the list, but redirects to the list should be deleted because articles could be written on the subjects, seems absurd to me. Calathan (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
[ec] Megachile is an interesting example. Of the more than 1500 Megachile substubs created, only 3 (Megachile melanophaea, Megachile rubi and Megachile texana) have since been expanded. Would those articles have been written anyway? Quite probably. Or, if not those articles, would the editors responsible have written other, equally valid articles? Almost certainly. Biologically minded editors are not short of potential articles to work on, so this really isn't a field in which the lack of a pre-existing page is any impediment to a potential article creator. There is, therefore, a small probability that TAP's efforts helped in some small way to produce 3 articles. What is definite, however, is that 1500 other articles were (and remain) improperly sourced to a self-published/crowd-sourced website; they required immediate cleanup, and had talk pages that needed tagging for the relevant WikiProject, and that already adds up to 3000 edits of someone else's time. There is again no direct benefit to the reader, probably also no indirect benefit to the reader, and a lot of cleanup work for other people, even before we get on to the possibility that there might be errors, which is very likely indeed. The argument that such pages help article creation is very flimsy; the argument that they detract from the encyclopaedia seems to me to be rather strong – if anything, I would say from experience that a pre-existing substub is more likely to put someone off writing a new article, rather than encouraging them to expand it. If Megachile is the best analogy, then I see no reason why I should have any qualms about deleting 184 Carex pages; at least 3 decent Carex articles have since been created from red links, demonstrating that red links help Wikipedia. But all this is beside the point; WP:R lays out good reasons for deleting redirects, and those reasons were satisfied; this, too, has already been explained to TAP. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@Calathan, this is clearly a situation in which WP:IAR can be applied. The pages created have literally no value, and are indeed harmful (errors were quickly found). Requiring these pages to be recreated solely so that their deletion can be requested is surely a waste of time. What is the benefit of such an action, other than that it follows process more rigidly? --Stemonitis (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Stemonitis, this is clearly not a situation where WP:IAR should be applied. You were free to redirect the articles if you didn't think they should exist, and then start an RFD to have them deleted, or free to leave the articles in place and start an AFD. If the articles had errors, you could correct them. There were clear ways to fix any concerns you had within the policy, so there was no need to turn to IAR. Furthermore, this was basically a content dispute, and using your admin tools to end a content dispute with another user is not acceptable. I also personally think that if you took either the articles to AFD, or the redirects to RFD, both locations would vote to keep them, so I don't think you are saving time by deleting them out of process. Calathan (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
As a policy, WP:IAR pretty much always applies. "If the articles had errors, you could correct them" is not a reasonable point of view to take. It takes time to properly research an article. In the case of TPA's Carex pages, I started alphabetically and the very first one I found, Carex acicularis, turned out to be – contrary to the cited source – generally treated as a synonym by the relevant authorities. Biology can be messy like that, and can require considerable expertise to make sense of (for instance, I had in the past considered writing an article on Carex × abitibiana, but found it such a nebulous concept that I couldn't make anything worthwhile out of it). Fixing that first article, now at Carex archeri, took me at least 40 mins, judging from my edit history. There is simply no way that any one person, or even a dedicated team of people, could do that for all the substubs TPA created in that one 45-minute bout, let alone any others that could have been created (it is a large and poorly-understood genus). Attempting to place the blame for inevitable errors onto other editors is simply unacceptable. I don't blame you for not fixing TPA's errors, and nor should you blame me. If everyone who wanted these substubs restored would promise to properly research their fair share, then it might be a different matter, but I'm fairly confident that that's not going to happen, leaving instead an mass of misinformation and non-information for someone else to sort out at a later date (which will probably never happen in most cases). Restoring such articles is a procedure guaranteed to reduce the quality of Wikipedia, and I for one condemn that. I am repeatedly amazed at how little emphasis is often placed on content in Wikipedia discussions. The content and the readers are what matters; we have to consider things from their point of view, and neither is well served by restoring TPA's Carex pages. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you to Stemonitis for pointing out that several Megachile stubs, not just one, have been expanded by other editors. Anyway, this is pretty clear cut; the deleting administrator is clearly unable to accept well-meant advice from other editors, as has been seen here. What the deleting administrator has accepted, though, is that they carried out these 184 deletions under WP:IAR. There is therefore no obstacle to the deleted articles being reinstated so that Stemonitis can put forward his rationale at a proper AfD. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a problem somewhere and Dec the 18th was removed from the main DRV page by a bot. I've fixed for now and notified folks on the bot's talk page. Hobit (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Overturn speedy utterly wrongheaded and a clear misunderstanding of WP:INVOLVED and WP:CSD. I'd ask the admin undo the deletions (and ideally the redirects) immediately. Doing something like this is boneheaded and a fine way to get de-admined. Seriously, you don't get to speedy delete things under IAR unless you are darn sure it's clearly and unquestionably the right thing to do. It isn't close. And you are clearly involved. Hobit (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy overturn - deleting admin admits it was an abuse of tools which served no encyclopaedic or policy reason, but was done only to enforce their preferred organisation of content. WilyD 10:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I admit no such thing. The deletions were entirely for encyclopaedic reasons, albeit outside a strict reading of some policies. The reader does not benefit from such pages. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This is entirely information you furnished in this very discussion. To pretend otherwise only further exemplifies how inappropriate your behaviour has been. WilyD 12:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn and trout deleting admin. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn and trout. No valid speedy criterion met, involved admin; carrying on like this has been known to get people desysopped. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support deletion It's interesting that those opposing Stemonitis' actions take refuge in wikilawyering and don't address the substantive issue, namely the value of a species article that says only
    • X y is a species of X. It was described by Z in DATE.
    when there is a already an entry for X y in a list of the species of X where it says:
    • X y Z, DATE
    Not only do such articles have no value, they are harmful. If users of Wikipedia search for "Megachile amoena" and the article Megachile amoena turns up, they are entitled to expect some useful information. But there isn't any. If there were an image it would be some use. But there isn't one. So how does this improve Wikipedia? The idea that editors will in the near future create the rest of the 1,500 articles on the species of Megachile or the rest of the articles on the 1,800 species of Carex is nonsense.
    Another reason creating such large numbers of sub-stubs is harmful is that when it is done so rapidly, the creator clearly cannot be checking multiple reliable sources, and so is quite likely to create articles using synonyms. Yes, all species are intrinsically notable, but we have to be as sure as possible that the article really is about a species, and not about one of the synonyms of another species. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    DRV is by nature a discussion on the process rather than the merits of deletion. The points you made above will be perfectly appropriate in a deletion debate, which is why these articles should have gone to AfD in the first place so that they can be discussed further. That is what most people here are saying. Out of process deletions are not a shortcut because they cause more drama and in the end take up more time. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    The "drama", as you call it, is caused by those who prioritize wikilawyering over content. Processes don't exist independently of substance. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    The trick is that there is a debate here about substance. The deleting admin short-circuited that debate. I don't know which solution is best, but I do believe we'd be best served by having a discussion among those that are well informed on the topic. The redirects and deletion took the decision out of the hands of the community and into one admin's hands. That's not how we are supposed to work. Hobit (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    It's not so simple. When an editor takes it upon themselves to create hundreds of articles or categories for which there is no consensus (and indeed where a consensus has been reached in the past not to act in this way) then they are taking the decision out of the hands of the community. Now if it were a case of edits, the BRD cycle would be followed. This doesn't leave the edits in place while there's a discussion as to whether they should be reverted. The same should apply here. An editor boldly created articles; an admin took the trouble to delete them; if the creator doesn't agree we can discuss whether to restore them. Why is creating new articles or categories different to creating new content in an article? Create–Delete–Discuss. It's not sensible to make it easier to create bad articles or categories than to add bad content to articles. IAR absolutely applies here; if the "rules" prevent sensible behaviour they should be ignored. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    Admins aren't special when it comes to content. As your proposed create-delete-discuss thing can only be done by an admin, that's not a viable way forward. And IAR should be used sparingly when it comes to the tools for exactly the same reason. Hobit (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn with no objection to listing them all at AfD. What's next, turning an article into incomprehensible nonsense and then deleting it for being incomprehensible nonsense? Huon (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn Species stubs will never or almost never be stubs that are " unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time"; their acceptability has been very well established. Many people may want to add information to WP without the overhead of creating an article structure--accustomed as we may be to it, it can intimidate beginners, including subject experts new to WP. Removing the redirects by speedy was also an error, as they do not fall within any of the speedy deletion categories. WP:R#DELETE (10) is an argument to use at RfD, not a reason for speedy. Someone might very well come with the full name, and look to find an article, but not think to look under the genus if they found nothing. I would not as an admin first change articles to redirects and then remove the redirects, without first obtaining consensus. If I thought this needed to be done, I would go to afd, where, I might add, I rather doubt it would obtain consensus. We can;t prevent bringing it there, but I'd advise against it. IAR for speedy deletion should only be used when one is absolutely certain it will be needed to improve the encyclopedia, as for IAR in general. I can see doing it for copyvio and vandalism that doesn't fall in the established categories of some kinds of BLP or child protection. But a redirect from a species name?? (we have had cases of grossly miswritten automated addition of species names from obsolete sources without due care, where we have deleted without a redirect because we cannot tell if even the species names are still valid, but even these have gone to afd, at least for the first such, and that sort of error can be disruptive. I don;t see that it's the case here. I should add that I have personally never insisted on a speedy over a good faith objection from an established WPedian--no admin should be that sure of themselves. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn. WP:IAR does not apply unless the rule invoked prevents one from improving Wikipedia; delaying an action is not preventing it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

17 December 2014[edit]

Luxembourg Commercial Internet Exchange[edit]

Luxembourg Commercial Internet Exchange (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After the deletion of the "Luxembourg Commercial Internet Exchange" page, I have made modifications on the draft. Could you please tell me if it's ok for publication ?

Lola2012 (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Allow. Thank you for working on this. Although I can see that the AFD close was reasonable, it is entirely appropriate that WP should have articles on this sort of topic. For businesses that are not customer-facing and that have no need for generating press interest, our guideline notability criteria seem to me to be none too appropriate. However, in this case it looks as if you have jumped through the right hoops for people who value that sort of activity. Thincat (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you. What's the next step to get this page published ? Lola2012 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I was giving my personal opinion and not a decision! I suggest you wait for other people to have their say and then someone can close the discussion summarising what has been agreed. Thincat (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

8Allow sources look to meet WP:N. And Lola, assume this will take a week before it gets a formal okay. It could be faster, but don't count on it. Hobit (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

12 December 2014[edit]

George Gracie[edit]

Jorge Gracie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no consensus on the page. No Consensus. Not even a simple majority. I improved the page and would like to have it reconsidered for mainspace.

This is an updated article.

CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Endorse Well I count three people suggesting deletion (the nominator + two bolded votes) and two opining keep, so if you would feel happy on a simple majority there you have it. Regardless as you imply it's not a majority count thing, it's about the strength of arguments, in this case problems about sourcing were highlighted, and the keep side didn't really address that. One of the keepers conceding that good quality sources online or offline were unlikely to be found. You listed a range of things, a looked at a few and found blog posts and one were the subject wasn't even mentioned... -- (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • To their credit, the more deletion-minded editors working on the martial arts wikiproject confront a vast number of sub-par martial arts bio articles which necessitate a good deal of, well, deletion to be dispensed. I believe that this sometimes can lead to a more heavy-handed approach for some articles that do have actual promise but clearly don't yet have all the pieces in place. This article is now substantially more developed then it was when the AfD was originally nominated, and while a good deal of an article's overall worthiness for inclusion specifically into the MA project is won or lost contingent upon the rigorous standards of the project's own notability guidelines, I still believe that this particular bio has long ago met the more general guidelines for inclusion within the encyclopedia generally. Buddy23Lee (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse undeletion This article seems properly short, albeit very short. Subject matters seems fine with me. Libercht (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Libercht: Can I ask what article you looked at? George Gracie (the link in the header) is not actually the subject of this DRV, and the userspace version is in no way short. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 13:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think "delete" was within discretion, although I'd personally have preferred "no consensus" as a close. However, the AfD was defective and I'm afraid that although no blame attaches to Spartaz as closer, I do think we will need to disturb the outcome a bit.

    A key consideration here is that there are at least two important sources the AfD failed to unearth: a Martial Arts Encyclopaedia ISBN 1598842439 (page 32) and the April 1997 issue of Black Belt Magazine (page 63). We also need input from a Portuguese speaker to read other sources since many are not going to be in English. Searchers should note the existence of an ancestral George Gracie who left Scotland for Brazil in the nineteenth century: this is not the same bloke, he's actually the grandfather of the five Gracie men who founded BJJ.

    However, when you actually read the sources with an encyclopaedist's eye, they're not about Jorge/George Gracie. They're actually about the Gracie family in a more general sense, and we already have that article (Gracie family). I think the sources we've dug up here should be used to expand it.

    But you see, since we do have an article on Gracie family, Jorge Gracie needs to be a redirect to it. That's a possibility that the AfD should have considered and didn't.

    Technically, we could "endorse" the close and then create the redirect as a separate editorial action, or else we could overturn the AfD and relist it with a recommendation that they consider redirecting. I don't care which.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Is there a reason why I have not been notified of this discussion? I know you both know where my talk page is. I don't agree that the AFD discussion was defective. The discussion was about the content and the consensus for that was delete based on the fact that the fairly low level requirements of the GNG have not been met. A redirect is not precluded by that discussion and requires no adminsitrative tools. Merges and redirects go to AFD when there is a doubt about the consensus for that action and are a later addition to articles for deletion An AFD is not defective if no-one suggests a redirect and a closing admin is certainly not at fault if they do not consider such in their close. Indeed, I fear nasty terms like supervote and admin abuse might get bandied around if admins were to act in such a way. If someone had wants to create the redirect with the history beneath they do not require a DRV to enforce it. I'm disappointed that the nominator has not discussed this further with me before starting this DRV, but, unfortunately, such behavior is no longer the exception here. I'm not making any formal vote as I frankly don't give a stuff either way. Spartaz Humbug! 15:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not my field,but the possibility of a redirect was obvious from the discussion even if not proposed specifically,and should have been considered. Good practice is to mention the possibility if only to reject it. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Spartaz, I didn't mean to upset you or try to make you look bad. I simply thought this is where you go IF you want an article back after changes have been made to an article to make it better. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Did you read the instructions? Point 1 under instructions and then step 4 of the steps for listing. -- (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I counted two keep votes and 2 deletes and 1 weak delete. I feel this article could be improved even more. As a founder of BJJ, he is far more significant than his Kyra Gracie CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:WAX arguments are usually pretty weak. Maybe he is far more significant, but merely asserting that is not helpful, where are the sources about him? -- (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
There are sources about him are in the article, but for your ease. These are a few of the sources.

Pedreira, Roberto (April 10, 2014). Choque: The Untold Story of Jiu-Jitsu in Brazil 1856-1949 (Volume 1). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1491226360. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I meant sources which the AFD didn't consider and meet the standards required. Of the ones you've listed here, the first has a relation to the subject so isn't independent. The second credits bjjheroes with the informtion, the third isn't about him, lists pretty much nothing biographical about him and the final was in the considered during the AFD - "As for BJJHeroes, I am not sure that is either reliable or independent as a source." and is apparently the source of the second. Concentrate on the quality of the sources not the quantity. -- (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
So we can safely assume you're a vote for oppose then? Honestly, I think this article is pretty well sourced now given what we've had to work with. I'd agree that we always should aim for quality over quantity, but I think that viewing the sources in aggregate is not an entirely meaningless consideration either. Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No need to assume, I endorsed the deletion further up, and I'm not seeing anything being bought up here which would seem to invalidate the AFD. If the sources are questionable (some are blogs for example where the author states it's his personal opinion) then they shouldn't be there, the volume simply doesn't count for anything in that sort of situation. When the sources don't really support a standalone article, the answer is as others above have stated, include the information (or the significant parts of it) in as more general article and I would agree there does appear to be enough to support for that. Note as ever these decisions aren't a "never ever", they just reflect what we have now -- (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse - it's not the closer's job to consider sources added to the article or to form a personal opinion about the notability of the subject. The discussion was re-listed twice and those involved had plenty of opportunities to make their arguments. DRV is not the place to make those arguments again. The closer did what he could with what was available; a simple majority in favour of deletion and arguments that clearly hadn't persuaded anyone to reconsider their position. Those arguing for retention here are the same as those who argued for retention at AFD and those arguments (despite the fact that they shouldn't be made here anyway) don't seem to be convincing anyone. Stlwart111 03:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
If the sources were added during the discussion and mentioned at the afd, then my personal opinion is that it is definitely the closers job to consider them. If the discussion had not taken into account the improved state of the article, the usual course is to relist. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree its the closer's job to consider whether or not there has been time to consider those sources. That said, there were two re-lists, plenty of contributions and almost a month of discussion before those sources were raised at the last minute. There were plenty of opportunities. And to be clear, the argument here still centres on strength of arguments and vote-counting, not a question of last-minute sources. Stlwart111 00:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment the previous article wasn't sourced properly and the votes were not much in the way of a consensus. It was the the 2 deletes and a weak delete vs 2 keeps. That is about 60% for delete and 40% for keep. I would say put the article back to main space and if someone wants to delete the article they can vote to put it up for deletion. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I've struck your bolded vote, as nominator you've alredy !voted. How many bites at the cherry do you want? -- (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I guess you'll do what you did for Ron Duncan anyway and ignore the result of the DRV and just recreate it at a different title, which is also likely a copyvio problem as it doesn't retain any edit history for the others who contributed to that article -- (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
86, I believe that was a suggestion. To recreate it and take it to AFD. [1] CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
No one suggested you create a copyvio. No one suggested recreating it with a different title, and not suggestions about not taking it back to AFD (a part of the "suggestion" you've not bothered with). Regardless the consensus the closing admin found, was to endorse the deletion, a consensus you ignored. You do understand the point of these discussions is not for you to just pick the comments you like and ignore the rest right?-- (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

11 December 2014[edit]

10 December 2014[edit]

9 December 2014[edit]

Coat of arms of the Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

Coat of arms of the Donetsk People's Republic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I declined this for an A10 speedy deletion. It was nominated again for A3 and declined again by another editor. It was then nominated again for a third time, all in quick succession and deleted by user:RHaworth. I informed the user that it had already been declined but he refused to restore. It fails A10 because although very short, almost sub-stub, it succeeds in that short space in presenting at least two facts that are not in the article it is alleged to be a duplicate of. I very much fail to see in any case how an article about a coat of arms can be a duplicate of an article about a republic. Further, its deletion is a breach of the deletion policy which says of renominations of speedy deletion "If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below, rather than being deleted." Since it was declined by two different editors I think we can say there is certainly a dispute. SpinningSpark 18:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  • While I note that the article was deleted out of process it appears that it was created by a block evading sock and was substantially just 3 images and a couple of words that to my mind added no content. As such I think it would be WP:BURO to restore this although I see no reason why any good faith editor cannot be allowed to write a up a new article based on proper sources. There is a risk of this being a FORK but that needs a discussion to evaluate so lets just leave that here. I'm not formally voting as the deletion was clearly out of process. Spartaz Humbug! 18:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I believe I declined a speedy on this article as well, for the same reasons as Spinningspark; and also because there's a clearly established practice of maintaining independent articles on such national coats of arms, as demonstrated by the roughly 200 articles in Category:National coats of arms. A10 states that an article should not be speedied if its title is a plausible redirect to the purportedly duplicated article, and that heavily populated category leaves little doubt of the plausibility here. The speedy is therefore incorrect both substantively and procedurally under A10, as well as posing a demonstrably controversial issue. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not a valid A10 as the topic is clearly different. Might be speedable as a valid G5 (I can't judge). Out of curiosity, is there a rule that one can't speedy something under a criteria once it has been contested? I thought there was, but I can't find it at WP:CSD. Hobit (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse my deletion. In the time that the Spinningspark has been fussing over this, he could have copied the only two facts in the article into Donetsk People's Republic. I have now done it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, now that you have done that then the article has to be restored as a redirect to preserve the history and comply with our licencing requirements. SpinningSpark 23:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
      • The two edits User:RHaworth made to that article do not seem to meet the threshold of originality. Therefore, the licensing requirements do not require restoring the article as a redirect. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
      • As per Stefan2 our licensing requirements are about copyright, the sentence here is unlikely to warrant any copyright protection so wouldn't require any attribution to the original author. I don't know how close it is to the original, but if there is a real concern it could easily be rephrased to remove any doubt. -- (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn - obviously bad A10 deletion, even if there's 100% duplication, it's plausibly appropriate for a redirect. That it contains information that's not duplicated in the Donetsk People's Republic article just makes it doubly bad. WilyD 10:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • And checking, the A10 was declined? And re-added? And then the bogus A10 was honoured? Straight up abuse. RHaworth needs to be seriously reprimanded, and RGloucester should be warned that re-adding declined, bogus speedy deletion tags is unacceptable disruption. WilyD 10:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The mention in Donetsk People's Republic was removed within ten minutes, in case anyone missed it. —Cryptic 23:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted without endorsing any actions. Right outcome, poor process. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy and list at AfD. Speedy deletion is for articles where there's no doubt it should be deleted. Debates at AfD is how we sort these things out, not by wheel warring. I agree with Stifle that outcome trumps process, but by the time three different editors have contested attempts to delete the article, it's time to admit the situations isn't as clear-cut as you thought it was. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy and list at AfD. As SpinningSpark explained in the nomination statement, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic does not apply:

    it succeeds in that short space in presenting at least two facts that are not in the article it is alleged to be a duplicate of. I very much fail to see in any case how an article about a coat of arms can be a duplicate of an article about a republic.

    Although Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5. Creations by banned or blocked users might apply (I cannot see who the creator is), the article should be restored since a good faith editor (in this case, SpinningSpark) finds its material useful.

    Once a speedy tag has been declined by an established editor, it should not be restored because deletion would be controversial. (The rare exceptions would be if the article violated the policies Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or Wikipedia:Copyright violations.)

    In this case, deletion is clearly controversial since as RoySmith noted multiple editors have removed the speedy. The article should be listed at AfD for a full discussion about its merits.

    Cunard (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Samantha Hess (closed)[edit]

7 December 2014[edit]

User:Gabepage (closed)[edit]

Involuntary celibacy[edit]

Involuntary celibacy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Allow recreation of this version of the article. While I understand the closing admin's rationale behind the merge, if feel the larger scope has been missed. Coffee's reasoning for merge comes down to what I understand as mainstream acceptance, and the veracity of the condition. Multiple scholarly sources including Duke University, Oxford University, and WebMD have studied this condition. Mainstream acceptance as a criteria for keep has never been a principal we abide by. Wikipedia documents the world as we see it not what is accepted. Obviously, this is a rare condition rarely mention in mainstream sources. However, Wikipedia does not require mainstream sources let alone mainstream acceptance as a reason for keeping. Our goals are to document verifiable conditions. What I am see is multiple reliable and academic sources documenting Incel, and thus passes notability requirements established. I cannot emphasize enough the issues with this deletion.

To pull the final nail out of the coffin, in the months after this AfD and the DRV, the condition has garnered mainstream attention. Elliot Rodger the perpetrator in the 2014 Isla Vista killings directly attributes Incel as the cause of the shooting with multiple "mainstream" reliable sources stating so. Business Insider, Jezebel, Salon, and many more. I believe an allow recreation is more than warranted. Valoem talk contrib 03:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Disallow recreation Contrary to your argument we do not cover everything that is verifiable. We require notability as well. There were many arguments that this was a fringe term and covered by a wider topic and I don't see anything that has changed since then. The closure seems correct then and it seems correct now. Chillum 04:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I have cited multiple primary reliable sources which clearly pass notability. Please clarify how the new citations fail notability. Valoem talk contrib 04:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Allow recreation. The Elliot Rodger case and coverage alone seems like they easily cause this to pass WP:NOTE, and there are plentiful other sources as well. Personman (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • At the previous DRV, I endorsed the close but felt that Tokyogirl79's version of the article should be permitted. I still think so, and this is the version we're considering, so allow recreation.—S Marshall T/C 11:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - WP:MEDRS requires secondary sources in reliable literature. Researching periods of celibacy and sexual frustration does not equal a condition. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see MEDRS as applying here. It's a social state of being. We don't need to pass MEDRS for things like DINKY or even celibacy. I don't see why this needs to. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - I am tired of this aggressive pushing for this article. A blog called Government Gets Girlfriends — written by and for "Incel" (involuntarily celibate) men who suffer from social anxiety — suggests a rather Orwellian solution to the problem of these dudes not getting laid: use hard-earned American tax dollars to pay women to go out with them. So... insurance-covered hookers. - Hafspajen (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: I alerted editors of the Celibacy article to this discussion because the involuntary celibacy topic has been extensively discussed there. And recreating the article based on Tokyogirl79's version of the possible article has also been discussed there. This topic can have an article as a social matter instead of as a medical matter, but I'll leave that up to others. Flyer22 (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse original decision and keep deleted. Once again, just fringe POV-pushing by the "incel/love shyness", the sources do not elevate it into any sort of noteworthy or notable topic that warrants a standalone article. Not having sex simply isn't a thing; he fact that I never had the athletic ability to fulfill my dream of manning left field for the Boston Red Sox doesn't give me involuntary clumsiness. Tarc (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment I guess you'd have us delete the article on homelessness too, then. 2602:306:839B:1150:1126:8ADD:3EA2:ABD3 (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment Incel is a blog site. Hafspajen (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, I find multiple issues with disallowing recreation. I asked DGG to restore old revisions of the article to compare vs. Tokyogirl's revision. They differ significantly. This was the old revision nominated for deletion compared to this version which contains 14 additional citations from reliable secondary sources:
^ Gilmartin, Brian G. (Jul., 1985). "Some Family Antecedents of Severe Shyness". Family Relations 34 (3): 429–438. Retrieved 19 May 2014. Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Abbott, Elizabeth (2001). A History of Celibacy. Da Capo Press. pp. 20, 294, 303, 309–312. ISBN 9780306810411. Retrieved 4 December 2014.
^ SEX AND SOCIETY (Abstinence- Gender Identity, Volume 1). Marshall Cavendish. 2010. p. 309. ISBN 9780761479062.
^ Brooks Frothingham, Octavius (1874). Theodore Parker: A Biography. G.P. Putnam's Sons/J. R. Osgood and Company. pp. 362, 369.
^ Olson, Carl (2007). Celibacy and Religious Traditions. Oxford University Press. p. 127. ISBN 9780198041818.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Donnelly, Denise; Burgess, Elisabeth ; Anderson, Sally ; Davis, Regina ; Dillard, Joy (2001). "Involuntary Celibacy: A Life Course Analysis". The Journal of Sex Research 38 (2): 159–169. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
a b Hawes, Joseph M. (2002). The Family in America: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2. ABC-CLIO. pp. 131–132. ISBN 9781576072325.
^ O'Brien (editor), Jodi (2008). Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 1. SAGE. p. 120. ISBN 1412909163.
^ Lehmiller, Justin J. (2014). The Psychology of Human Sexuality. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 232. ISBN 1118351215.
^ Dirk van Zyl Smit, Sonja Snacken (2009). Principles of European Prison Law and Policy: Penology and Human Rights. Oxford University Press. p. xliii. ISBN 9780191018824.
^ Vines, Matthew (2014). God and the Gay Christian. Convergent Books. ISBN 9781601425171.
^ Jump up to: a b Hinsch, Bret (2013). Masculinities in Chinese History. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 126. ISBN 1442222336.
^ Kahan, Benjamin (2013). Celibacies: American Modernism and Sexual Life. Duke University Press Books. p. 34. ISBN 9780822355687.
^ Ozment, Steven (1983). When Fathers Ruled: Family Life in Reformation Europe. Harvard University Press. p. 49. ISBN 0674951204.
^ Blum, Carol (2002). Strength in Numbers: Population, Reproduction, and Power in Eighteenth-Century France. JHU Press. p. 157. ISBN 9780801868108.
^ Bouchez, Colette. "Sexless in The City". Web MD. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
^ Laura M. Carpenter, John D. DeLamater (2012). Sex for Life: From Virginity to Viagra, How Sexuality Changes Throughout Our Lives. NYU Press. pp. 13, 16. ISBN 9780814723821.
Jump up ^ Burgess, Elizabeth; Donnelly, Denise ; Dillard, Joy ; Davis, Regina (2001). "SURFING FOR SEX: STUDYING INVOLUNTARY CELIBACY USING THE INTERNET.". Sexuality and Culture 5 (3): 5–30. Retrieved 19 May 2014.

It appears these sources were not taken into consideration. Additional sources have since arisen due to the 2014 Isla Vista killings:

Washington Post
The Guardian
Business Insider

Each of these sources are primary reliable sources which represent a real world example of a man who reacted violently to involuntary celibacy. What I am seeing here is a possible hive mind basing their opinions on prior AfD's and DRV without reading the significant differences between revisions. Tarc clumsiness is involuntary and we do have an article on clumsiness. Valoem talk contrib 07:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I also underwent an extended term of involuntary celibacy. Nobody would sleep with me. Chillum 10:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey, you and me both! Chillum, let's make a pact for next time this happens. Throw in our most eligible bachelor and we'll have a non-stop incelibacy party. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Ha, I'm not a bachelor and most definitely ineligible. Been married for 10 years. And, most definitely not celibate. You gents are on your own.--v/r - TP 23:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@Valoem - all of those pages are circumstantial and almost none are reliable when talking about such a phenomenon as this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I am surprised to here this coming from two administrators sources clearly disagree with your suggesting of non-notable. Cas Liber please explain how this is circumstantial we document what sources say, in light of the Isla shootings this has since become more prominent. Valoem talk contrib 11:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Anyone with a basic understanding would know that the profound lack of empathy that would lead to committing an act such as this was a sign of gross psychopathology that would be much much more important as a factor than a period of celibacy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Cas Liber I understand that, even though he obviously he had underlying illnesses that cause the crime it does not change the fact that he was an involuntary celibate and his celibacy is undeniably one of the factors. That is what the sources says and that is what we go by here. Valoem talk contrib 11:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
His "involuntary celibacy" was an end result of a much much larger problem and difficulty making and maintaining relationships of any kind. Focussing on it because of what he says is missing the point entirely. If he said he was an unrecognised genius would we be accepting of that too? No. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation (though allow creation would be more accurate). Maybe it's because we are on the wrong side of the Atlantic that S Marshall and I can't see what is the matter with User:Tokyogirl79/Sandbox 2. I'm particularly puzzled (intrigued really) where "hard-earned American tax dollars" are a relevant criterion. It seems to me most people will be without a sexual partner at some stage in their lives and this will sometimes not be through choice. It would be surprising if research had not been done into the matter and, indeed, the draft article shows that such research has been done. Thincat (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The issue is the article is misleadingly cobbling together disparate sources and synthesizing them as some reified condition. This is exceedingly unhelpful and potentially very damaging to uninformed readers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
This is clearly not the case. This source alone WebMD defines involuntary celibates. Valoem talk contrib 11:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
An off-the-cuff comment from someone in mental health cobbled together with some scenarios does not a syndrome make. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Cas Liber, Wikipedia has never operated this way, if multiple reliable scholarly sources from experts in the health industry publisher articles on this social condition then it yes it is notable. And your response above "what if he said he was unrecognized genius" is among the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard, based on your argument we should delete every article because "what if" can be applied to any situation. It matters on what sources say it is not "what if", but "what has", but this isn't anything new. Valoem talk contrib 14:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Disallow recreation Per arguments above by Cas Liber, Hafspajen, Tarc and others. This article has been deleted before on several occassions, all of it's merges failing as no article would take it. The mainstream recognotion of the term is virtually non-existent, coverage in a wider sense of the word bleak at best and mostly centered around the Isla Vista shootings of May 2014. The term is quite popular with certain online blogs and certain communities, but is rarely mentioned (let alone seriously studied) by anyone who has relevance. The only scholar of some note to have seriously studied the subject is Denise Donnelly. But some examination of this person shows that her article was created only as a way to legitimalize the existence of an article on Involuntary celibacy - upon deletion of its article, material was merged into the Donnelly page which is rather fishy. A merge with the celibacy article was unsuccessful because celibacy is, by definition, voluntary. Involuntary celibacy is an oxymoron when celibacy means "to choose a life without sexual intercourse". All things considered, and with the articles questionable past and relentless rallying for it's undeletion and re-creation, I am strongly in favor of keeping it a (protected?) red link. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sources are above the bar. We've got mainstream sources and a moderate bit of moderate academic work. allow move to mainspace. Hobit (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Which sources would they be? The ones above? Which ones talk about this as some sort of entity or syndrome and are secondary? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
There are about 16 sources including Oxford and Duke University listed above. Valoem talk contrib 23:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
[2] and [3] are fine academic sources. [4] is certainly on point. The other sources I can get access to aren't as solid, but there also appear to be a few papers purely on this topic (behind a wall of some sort). But just those three put us over the bar IMO. Hobit (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The first is written by a non-notable medical journalist in a blog of a GP, the second is investigation by the primary researcher (Gilmartin) who is the one trying to reify this condition, and the third is about the person who killed a load of people who reported he was sexually frustrated. Promoting this is ignoring the obvious sociopathic aspects of this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm unclear why a journalist needs to be notable for the work to be useful here. As far as I can tell, we've got a source with reasonable editorial oversight. Good enough to be a reliable source. For the second, I'm less sure, but I don't really see why a published source, with peer review, would count as primary for much of anything. The third is a mainstream media source that effectively cites the 2nd. Making it exactly the kind of thing we'd want as a secondary source. Sure, it may all be bunk. But we aren't claiming a medical condition here. We are claiming that we have a topic that meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I find about half the comments in this DRV really hard to understand. Involuntary celibacy would not normally be a medical condition. I mean, something like penis removal or FGM could cause involuntary celibacy, but that's not what this article is about. We're talking about people who're physically capable of intercourse and psychologically desirous of it, but not in a social position where copulation is a possibility. In other words, this is a social phenomenon. It's not a syndrome of any kind and MEDRS is the wrong guideline. "Involuntary celibacy" is probably the wrong phrase, firstly because it comes with all this baggage from a couple of recent cases that people understandably don't want an article about, and secondly because celibacy is by definition a choice so involuntary celibacy is a contradiction in terms. The topic we want an article about is sexually inactive people who'd like to become sexually active. (My heart goes out to them, actually. Imagine what kind of mental place you'd have to be in to join an online subculture/support group for people who're extremely unsuccessful at romance.)—S Marshall T/C 01:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It is masquerading as a legitimate standalone psychological phenomenon rather than a phenomenon related to other (often tragic) psychological and social syndromes and situations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I think a lot of the sources make it really clear this isn't a standalone thing. If the article doesn't make that clear, it can be fixed. But the sources weigh strongly in that direction. Hobit (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It will probably continue to have people push for re-creation until either the people doing so give up, or we find a workable compromise. A workable compromise would be a name change that is accepted by a majority of editors. The phenomenon itself may have a few sources, but the name "involuntary celibacy" is an incorrect one as the meaning of the word celibacy is to not have sex by choice. If the content is to stay on Wikipedia, I suggest it is either moved to an article (other then celibacy) as a sub-section (sexual frustration has been mentioned in the past as a possibility), or a new article is started under a different, more fitting name. I am personally opposed to including the material for reasons that I mentioned before, and think the previous deletions and the reasoning behind them still stand unchanged, but would not oppose to these compromises if they would have sufficient support. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. Quite so. It is something SOMEBODY started calling celibacy but it is not celibacy. Like if somebody would call an apple variety Pear, and than go add it to the pear article all the time. Hafspajen (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • And by the way, I don't think high about the draft and Reformed theologian Karl Barth ideas about Apostle Paul who was incel. Apostle Paul was actually married. The members of the Sanhedrin were required to be married, and Eusebius of Caesaria who is usually seen as a historic reference outside the Bible, and who wrote Ecclesiastical History, noted that Apostle Paul was married. He also said that Paul was short, bald and bow-legged, and left his wife at home when out travelling, if anyone is interested in small details. Apostle Peter was married as well, by the way. Hafspajen (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In reply to Mythic Writerlord (and I !voted allow above), I think your suggestion is very helpful. The present article title is unsatisfactory from many points of view – it seems to carry an emotional baggage; it may wrongly "reify" something; in my now elderly 1971 OED "celibacy" was only defined in relation to marriage with no reference to sexual activity. Initially I was not too keen on the expression "sexual frustration" but I have since thought of no better description. Our present article on sexual frustration is in need of improvement. Since the topic is not a syndrome but a subject of discourse we do not need to seek reliable sources for what this "thing" is called but instead we need to have a satisfactory description in English. Thincat (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I workable compromise is always the best, however the issue with a name change in this case is that all source use the term involuntary celibacy as the common name. The second most used term is incel, I am unable to find a more common term. Valoem talk contrib 15:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sexual frustration is frustration caused by a discrepancy between one's desired and achieved sexual activity. Of all above explanations that is exactly what the incel is. I would be extremely happy if incel would find its way to this article, added as the term incel means this and that but it is not celibacy only called celibacy - in the word strict meaning, but ... this and that. I said all the time that it should be added there but nobody will listen, but instead try to reinforce its connections with real celibacy -and in this case it becomes a fringe theory. But it is perfectly acceptable to add it to sexual frustration . I strongly encourage that solution, as I actually always did. Hafspajen (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Involuntary celibacy is define by time and/or physical inability though natural desire exists. Sexual frustration is vastly too vague and inherently different. Readings in Family Theory defines the term with time frame, desire, and physical or mental limitations. Incels encompass eunuchs as well Celibacies: American Modernism and Sexual Life, to compare this to sexual frustration seems to be an understatement, a stricter definition is needed. The sources should suffice a stand alone article. Valoem talk contrib 18:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, as I said. Hafspajen (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There may be a misunderstanding. The two articles are unmergable. Sexual frustration is defined as an emotion which stems from lack of sex. It may be curable as it includes anorgasmia, premature ejaculation, or erectile dysfunction Web MD. Incel, on the other hand, is a forced lifestyle defined by time, anyone can be sexual frustrated, but not anyone can be incel. According to this article from The Frisky, there is a sub-culture which identifies with the term incel. Involuntary celibacy has more to do with celibacy than sexual frustration. However the word "involuntary" has its own connotations and according to the sources cited is distinct from celibacy suggesting this is a social phenomenon with its own distinctions, which has enough secondary sources to warrant a separate article. Valoem talk contrib 19:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Several different sections, maybe? Involuntary celibacy has NOTHING to do with celibacy - it is not religious. It is a kind of sexual frustration. Hafspajen (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This is all quite interesting, in all kinds of ways--not article-writing ways. I was struck by the following phrase: "Most individuals identifying as incel exhibit the same social behaviors as their peers who have sex lives". Don't most social conditions lead to differing social behaviors? I was making light of Chillum's earlier "couldn't get laid" comment, but that's really what this boils down to. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The term involuntary celibacy has been used with distinction and mentioned more often than sexual frustration with multiple sources citing only involuntary celibacy as an independent phenomenon. Merging the two articles is similar to merging ADD with ADHD, or schizoaffective disorder with schizophrenia . Valoem talk contrib 23:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • But these people has no religious issues. They don't even belong to same faith, probably. Hafspajen (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Except that this is a neologism and is not generally validated or recognised. Also one of the sources talks about celibacy as a lifestyle choice, which makes the use of "involuntary" an oxymoron. Valoem, you are aware of what "involuntary" means, aren't you? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm unclear why we are debating if this is a "social condition" or not. Or if it's about "not getting laid". Shouldn't the only relevant discussion be about sources, not what we think of the topic? Hobit (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • O-kay then, see above. some sources are unreliable and the ones that are reliable are only touching obliquely on the subject. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It has a bearing on the kind of sourcing deemed acceptable. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Drimies, I guess what I'm missing is how either of those two things are relevant to the kinds of sourcing. Could you explain what you're getting at? Hobit (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Articles that come into medical/psychological territory need secondary sources to establish reliability. Mainly as there is truckloads of experimental stuff and misinformation that could/would otherwise gain some legitimacy. This is a huge problem in this area. The thing that worries me is that some person with depression/anxiety/PTSD/personality issues reads some material (which happens) on involuntary celibacy (which is a symptom/outcome/problem' rather than a cause) and decides that is their issue rather than one of the former entities. The material is cobbled together and synthesised totally wrongly and in opposition to our policies in Original research and (medical) notability, and could be harmful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't buy that this is a medical article. Or even a psychological article, though that is clearly more debatable. As far as harm goes, if the article is well written, it should be plain that this isn't a root cause as none of the sources claim it is and many note that it isn't. But even then, I don't think "social condition" or "not getting laid" is a reason for deletion. At least not per any guidelines or polices I'm aware of. It it is just "not getting laid" then it pretty clearly isn't a medical issue and the only real guidepost should be WP:N. But people are using that as an argument for not having an article... Hobit (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • We're now straying pretty far away from deletion review's customary bailiwick, but I wonder whether what we actually need is an article called sexual inactivity.—S Marshall T/C 13:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
That I would be okay with. It would describe the same phenomenon and could use some of the same sources, but would have a more fitting name. It would not be linked to celibacy in any longer. I believe that could end the discussion. However, this Deletion Review is about whether or not to restore the article involuntary celibacy; I am still opposed to this, but if an editor (for example Valoem, who wishes to restore it) wants to create an article called "sexual inactivity" I would not oppose to this. This could be the workable compromise we've been looking for, and I think most parties would agree it is a reasonable compromise. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Call me crazy, but wouldn't that article be called celibacy? Tarc (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Celibacy specifically describes sexual inactivity that is purely by choice. Sexual inactivity as a whole would be more inclusive a term, and more broad. Involuntary celibacy is an oxymoron as celibacy is defined as being by choice, so it's literally "involuntary voluntary sexual abstinence", which makes no sense. An article on sexual inactivity in the broader sense of the word could also include a lack of sex that is not by choice. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Fully agree with Mythic Writerlord. I cite Webster's dictionary: ... celibacy is the state of being unmarried, especially that under a wow. Hafspajen (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I do agree that the term involuntary sexual abstinence is acceptable and we absolutely should have an article on sexual inactivity. However, I am afraid that an article under such name could be WP:NEO as sources use the term involuntary celibacy not abstinence. I am aware this is an oxymoron, although a well cited one at that, and unopposed to a better proper name. I am, however, against a merge into more general topics, such as sexual frustration or celibacy. The one point to note is that a small subculture has identified with the term incel which means the terminology has some cultural identity behind it. Valoem talk contrib 19:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Creating a Sexual inactivity or an Involuntary sexual abstinence article just to cover involuntary celibacy would be needless WP:Content forking. As was already pointed out at the Celibacy talk page, we have enough articles about sexual inactivity, voluntary or otherwise. These articles (including the Asexuality article) refer to one another, and to have another article doing the same is overkill. If the involuntary celibacy topic is not to have its own Wikipedia article, but is sourced well enough to be covered on Wikipedia, it should go in one of the existing articles about sexual inactivity. The Sexual abstinence article is about voluntary and involuntary sexual abstinence. So, yes, an Involuntary sexual abstinence article would be a violation of WP:Content fork. But it is a valid point that we should stick to the terminology that the sources use for the topic. If the sources don't refer to involuntary celibacy as a form of sexual abstinence, then placing it in an article called Sexual abstinence can be considered a violation of the WP:Synthesis policy. Flyer22 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse previous decision. No policy-based argument for changing that decision has been given and nothing has really changed in the intervening time. (In particular, the existence of a small but vocal group of people trying to push this into Wikipedia is one of the things that was not changed, and another is the notability of the subject.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree, it is recreated all the time, just suddenly changing that decision. I wonder how much theses previous decisions are respected - if they are respected at all. If - the outcome this time might be delete - it will probably be recreated in a week or so again. In a different version. Hafspajen (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
David Eppstein, please review the two articles. We are looking at two different versions of the article as well as additional citations regarding Isla Vista attack which will be added if "allow recreation" is accepted. Valoem talk contrib 00:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Constant recreation and extensive debate can mean only one thing, "no consensus". This topic has been extensively covered to suggest its lack of notability could not be further from the truth. Over 20 additional sources have been added with a completely different revision being debated. Perhaps the best outcome is allowing recreation followed by relisting. What I've noticed in my years editing Wikipedia is inherent bias regarding esoteric topics. Often it is the same editors from previous debates rehashing old viewpoints regardless of improvements to articles. I have not engaged in this topic before, but nothing could be better than new sets of eyes looking at this subject without bias. Per sources established, this unquestionably passes WP:N. Valoem talk contrib 21:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Or no respect for reached WP:Consensus, too. Hafspajen (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, I have expanded the article with an additional six citations including a documentary regarding this social phenomenon. The goal of any DRV or Undelete is to determine whether or not the article in question can pass AfD, keep mind consensus can change, since this article is substantially different from the prior version, the only way to find out is to try. Valoem talk contrib 22:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse per David Eppstein. No evidence anything's really changed, and this seems like a bad-faith attempt to foist a fringe topic onto Wikipedia through persistence, which doesn't actually work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Really: they were unhappy, had small children and didn't do much together. Infidelity, illness, concerns about appearance and getting older can all put people off sex, as can pregnancy. When celibacy intervenes, it is usually not by mutual consent. You need to work out if you or your husband is what one self-help website calls an Incel. This is short for an involuntary celibate ( You'd qualify if you wanted sex but couldn't have it, because 'the spark' had gone or your husband refused. ? That's the Guardian source. What one self-help website calls an Incel. Now they are married too. Married people live in celibacy? Come on. Hafspajen (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately this sounds like your own disbelief which constitutes to WP:OR. Sources in fact state that is a real phenomena, which is what we go by here. Valoem talk contrib 18:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • But Valoem, the above states clearly that basically it is a kind of sexual frustration not celibacy. Those people cited in the example were married, Valoem. It's impossible to live in celibacy AND be married. It is not an existing notion. And it looks like the Incel blogg calls it incel. Well - according to your sources. Hafspajen (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Allow recreationIt is foolish to consider this an attempt to push this problem as a illness. It is not so and is merely a strawman used by those who want the article removed for purely ideological reasons. Just like the word celibacy, which doesn't have one agreed meaning, this problem encompasses several deprivations that are not illnesses and is thus a needed article, in a way homelessness or poverty are. Along with research that's already been lined in the January discsussion there are several extremely visited sites that use the term. However, I doubt that the article will be restored, since its removal was done for the explicit purposes of Internet trolling, as was admitted to me in private and in public forums by the Wikipedia editor who instigated it in the first place, and was done out of purely ideological reasons - to punish "the losers", losers simply being men who can't get women and are thus perceived as bad, without a coherent reason why, as if mating is done by bastions of human qualities when that is demonstrably false. This page isn't a scientific encylopedia in more ways than one - it is a part of a leftist hate machine. Even if the article is restored it will be attacked by the same disastrous arguments and for same ideological reasons, just like any mention of it was attacked after it was merged with the Celibacy article. Editor Tarc is a known Internet troll who doesn't care about the integrity of this site and his comparison to not playing basketball for some team is scary - it's as if claiming that articles on homelessness or poverty need to be removed because there's no such term as "clumsy lazy pieces of shit". It is also an insane comparison because it equates a lack of the most important factors for human happiness to a trivial joke. So much about the integrity of this biased, hateful encylopedia. It would be fair and decent if the editors who oppose this term being included so vehemently would just admit so instead of giving atrocious arguments by pretending to have any grounds other their unlimited hate. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


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