Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer 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 closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. 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.

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here 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 page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 October 19}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 19}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 19|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

• 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.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

• *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
• *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
• *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
• *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

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. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

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

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 everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. 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 closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
• If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

• Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
• Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
• Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
• Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

Active discussions

9 August 2012

O. J. Murdock – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
O. J. Murdock (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) <Redirects are cheap> I think that O. J. Murdock should have been redirected to History_of_the_Tennessee_Titans#2012 (or Tennessee_Titans#Current_roster) with the page history in tact. Suppose that someone created a redirect to Tennessee_Titans#Current_roster while Murdock's name was listed there. The redirect would likely not have been deleted per WP:CHEAP. Murdock's name is mentioned at History_of_the_Tennessee_Titans#2012.--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I have no objection to the redirect, which is a sensible idea, but I'm not sure I understand why it's necessary to restore the history beneath it. Could you elaborate on that please?—S Marshall T/C 01:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Easier to restore the history that exists than to recreate it. A similar thing was done with Lisa Chan.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC) It's not necessary to restore or recreate it.—S Marshall T/C 11:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Strong endorse of the adminstrator's AfD decision. And it should not be redirected because it does not meet any of the criteria of Purposes of redirects. Sorry, I initially was hoping to find a legitimate reason to support keeping the article or at least redirecting it, but it became clear that there wasn't one. The article was already discussed in huge depth and with the input of many editors at Afd. And then it was carefully reviewed by an administrator. So there's no point in rehashing all the issues. You can read the AfD discussion. The meticulous comments and reasoning of User:Dirtlawyer1 throughout the AfD discussion make it abundantly clear why Murdock does not meet the notability standards and why it should not be redirected. And there are many others who supported his position. The article clearly should not be redirected to the History of the Tennessee Titans or Tennessee Titans current roster because (1) he never played a game (or even a down) for the Titans and (2) he is not on the team's roster. By the way, the only reason Murdock was mentioned in History of the Tennessee Titans is because User:Jax_0677, the editor who created this discussion, put it there. And he did so four days after the AfD discussion started (Afd started July 30, Jax first commented in Afd August 2, then Jax add Murdock content to Titan History article August 3). I've been told that no one should add contentious content like that while there is an intense AfD discussion going on. Then another editor reverted Jax for WP:RECENTISM, which was followed by Jax0677 reverting the revert, with the edit comment "this is the topic of an ongoing discussion at WP:AfD for O.J. Murdock". So editors let Jax have his way temporarily and waited for the AfD decision (even though the Murdock content never should have been in the Titans History article anywyay). Well, the Afd discussion is over and the Murdock article was deleted. And the content that Jax added to the team's history article was also then removed (by me). Sadly, Murdock had zero effect on the team's history, so he shouldn't be mentioned in it. Look at the content of that article and you'll see how inappropriate and out of place it would be. The article is solely about the team's perfomance. It contains absolutely no content regarding the personal life of any player, let alone a player who never took the field. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 08:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC) I need to emphasize this one issue... This article cannot be redirected because it does not meet any of the criteria of Purposes of redirects. It needs to be understood that User:Jax_0677 inappropriately added content about Murdock's suicide to History of the Tennessee Titans four days into the Afd discussion. This was one day after he started participating in the AfD discussion, so he was fully aware of the AfD. So by adding the Murdock content, he was then able to cite one criteria on Purposes of redirects, which would of course qualify the article for a redirect (if it was content worthy of inclusion). The criteria he cited was "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article." So we have four big problems: (1) Jax0677 inappropriately added the contentious content about Murdock while an intense AfD was taking place, (2) when he commented in the AfD that he had discovered Murdock was mentioned in another article and so it therefore could be redirected, he didn't reveal that he had just added the content, (3) he reverted the revert of an editor who told him the content was not appropriate for the article, and (4) the contentious content was clearly not worthy of inclusion anyway (and still isn't) because that article is solely about the team's performance, and includes nothing about the private lives of any players, let alone one that never played. I wish I had known about this while the AfD was going on, but I discovered it aftewards when I looked at the revison history of the Titans article. Jax0677's actions actually caused at least one editor to change his recommendation from Delete to Keep because he was unaware of what happened. I must note, though, that I assume good faith from Jax0677 and that perhaps he simply didn't realize that what he was doing was improper. I'm sorry, I feel we just shouldn't even be having this discussion. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse Consensus is perfectly clear and the idea of a redirect was raised in the AFD and failed to gain traction. Spartaz Humbug! 08:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse Dirtlawyer1's arguments were strong enough deletion was reasonable and not redirecting was a reasonable outcome given the discussion. In general if someone isn't quite notable before "an event" we tend not to consider them notable after the event. I will note that if non-trivial coverage of the suicide exists after (say) mid-Sept. it might be worth bringing it back to DRV as sustained coverage (say folks use it as a basis for a wider discussion of suicide or sports or something) could overcome the BPL1E issues. Hobit (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Comment I don't think the AFD was closed improperly, although I was on the side of Keep. However, I can see some merit in retaining the article history in some way--perhaps through Userfy or holding the redirect. The good it could do is that if the subject comes back to be notable (as it seems some think is possible) then the history is intact and can be built from. The downside is we suck up a few extra bytes of memory on the server. I don't see a problem with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse. I am the editor who nominated the article. My overall opinion hasn't changed, Murdock failed notability guidelines and the closing administrator made the right decision....William 13:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse AfD close - There's not much news coverage of him: AAU national gold medalist in the 200-meter dash (Tampa Tribune August 31, 2001), Tampa Trailblazers track results in 2003,[1] a purported career ending arrest in Oct 2006, 2011 sidelining injury and a Feb 2011 effort to get in front of scouts,[2] and died of an apparent suicide in front of his old high school in July 2012.[3] Most of the significant news converge in response to his death, so a Wikipedia article on the topic might be Death of O. J. Murdock, which isn't a basis to redirect to Tennessee Titans anything. I think if the original article were more respectful of his entire life as covered by sources rather than focusing on how he died (particularly with the Wikipedia article being within a few days of his death), consensus might have swung towards keeping the article. As for the AfD close, I don't think separating the coverage outside of the tragic events from coverage of the tragic events is how notabilty per GNG should be judge because, by that parsing approach, any topic could be deemed not to meet notabilty per GNG. But looking at the totality of all coverage on O. J. Murdock reviewed at the AfD, I think the AfD close was correct in the consensus to delete with policy-based arguments. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Reverse the deletion Like, 76.189.114.163, I contribute regularly to articles and discussions (such as this AfD), but unlike 76, I don't overwhelm those who disagree with me with multiple long passionate replies. I hope new editors take a look at this case objectively, including the various published reliable and independent of secondary sources mentioned by multiple editors. My short version of the case: unlike 76, I don't think its a problem that he never played an NFL game. While I can understand why editors would establish WP:NGRIDIRON as a guideline, I think that the judicious invocation of WP:IGNORE is warranted in this case. To quote myself: It is the combination of his somewhat troubled personal life, his professional-quality athletic career (including the track accomplishments mentioned by Paul McDonald), and his high profile suicide (it made news front-page on cnn.com as opposed to just sportsillustrated.cnn.com) make the subject notable. One admittedly sad way of looking at it is that the suicide [ which has larger implications due to other recent NFL-related suicides ] clinches notability in the same way that playing in one NFL game would have. 72.244.206.167 (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC) @72... First, editors can read the AfD discussion for themselves and see why this article was deleted. They don't have to take my word for it. The explanations in the AfD by User:Dirtlawyer1 alone will clearly lay out all the flaws in your reasoning and why the decision to delete was correct. Second, other editors have a right to know the full background of the Murdock discussion. Third, contrary to your claim that you "contribute regularly to articles and discussions," your contribution history shows you edited for a total of four days over the past two and a half years, and the last time (before today) was one year ago. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Comment supporting deletion reversion Forgot to mention that in addition to the factors supporting notability that I mention above as 72.244.206.167, Murdock reached the highest level of professional status in his chosen sport as an unrestricted free agent, a notable exception to how most high-achieving recent college athletes enter the NFL. Just another example justifying WP:GNG, one that is comparable to the arbitrary bright-line rule of meeting WP:NGRIDIRON's single-game threshold. — 72.244.206.50 22:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC), editing previously from the 72.244 IP subnetwork — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.206.50 (talk) Thousands of undrafted players have played in at least one NFL game, and thousands more have been training camp bodies like Murdock who never played in a game. Almost none of the training camp bodies are notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Reminder we're not talking about restoring the article here, we're talking about restoring the history of the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 August 2012

e2v – Restore and rewrite – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
e2v (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) the page e2v has been deleted for advertising, but I have tried to explain to the person who deleted it that it was written as an explanation of what the company does, using the pages from BAE Systems as a style template. I am happy to address any specific issues with areas he considers unacceptable but a straight deletion seems very harsh. It has also left a dead link from the English Electric Valve Page which it has been recommeded was merged with the e2v page. I'm just frustrated and confused by the rules this person is applying. I am not going to rewrite it as he might just go back and delete it again, but it seems wrong that there is nothing about e2v on wiki (this week we were in the news for supplying the imaging devices for the Mars Curiosity lander with NASA and will be a part of this amazing search for life on Mars) but wiki does not want to know our history or allow peole to understand about e2v. We are not advertising to individulas, we are just providing an oveview of what we do and our important discoveries. Would appreciate your help in understanding where we go from here. 194.106.220.86 (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC) It's hard to write about your own company, because there's a conflict of interest there and because many people who write corporate profiles are accustomed to using marketing language. Wikipedia doesn't want that. We're very averse to corporate marketers who want to use our prominent position on the internet as a shortcut to free publicity. But that doesn't mean you can't have an article on e2v. What it means is that you can't have that article on e2v. I think the best way forward will be for you to work on the article in the article incubator, so I hope the outcome of this review is to incubate the deleted article. Please ensure that the article only contains information available from independent, reliable sources and not press releases or corporate publicity. It should use a dry, encyclopaedic, neutral tone. Articles about corporations should begin with something like: "(Name) is a (nationality) corporation based in (place). It was founded in (year), has a market value of (value) and (number of) employees. Independent reviewers say ..." In an article about a corporation, you should not produce quotes from the company's marketing department. There should be no eulogistic references to the founder or chief executive. The word "solutions" should not appear anywhere in the article, and neither should a detailed description of any particular products. (If they're notable they should have articles of their own and if not there need not be much information about them.) The article should not attempt to piggyback on something else of general interest (the olympics, the curiosity rover, the search for life on Mars) but confine itself to the exact topic in the title.—S Marshall T/C 12:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)Have you read up on our advice around editing with a conflict of interest. I can't see the deleted article but usually the problem in cases like this is that a user with a close connection to a subject finds it very difficult to write objectively about the subject and ends up with an article that reads like it is promotional. We do have a very hard line on this because Wikipedia is a project managed by volunteers who give up their own time to the project and we are wholly supported by charitable donations. Many of us feel very strongly that we are therefore very ill suited as a vehicle for commericial enterprises to make money by puffing their products here. I'm not suggesting for a minute here that you have done that, but I'm saying this to give you the context of why the article may have fallen fowl of the rules. If you want to set up an article and have it reviewed and fixed before it goes up then I suggest you offer a draft at articles for creation but please avoid reusing copywrited or prepublished text. Spartaz Humbug! 13:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Restore and I will personally rewrite it and merge with English Electric Valve Company, under the assumption that it will be easier for me to make a proper article out of it than for the original editor. (When a company changes name, it's our usual practice to have just one article, under the name of the current firm, unless the history is so complicated that this would be confusing) I am not sure I would have deleted it as G11--I would probably instead have done the merge to rescue it. What it mainly needed was condensing, removal of excessive internal links to their customers, product listings, buzzwords, and inappropriate bold type headings and other emphasis, Whether to regard this as the sort of thing fixable by ordinary editing depends on who judges it. I consider that this degree of rewriting is not all that much more than normal editing, but I know I am prepared to routinely do more extensive work of this nature than most people here. I think that everything that S Marshall & Spartaz say is correct, but this particular article does not seem to suffer from all of the common defects they pointed out. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Restore per DGG. 194.106.220.86, where you got into trouble is that you apparently wrote the article base on what you know about the company and based on information published by e2v. You might think these the best sources for information, but Wikipedia works the opposite way and considers sources connected to the company, uh, not the best. What you should do is 1. use source material written by people independent of e2v (e.g., books, newspaper articles, magazine articles not connected with e2v) and 2. format the e2v article based on Category:FA-Class WikiProject Business articles. As for the advertising assertion, your lead sentence, "e2v is a leading global provider of technology solutions for high performance systems; delivering solutions, sub-systems and components to advanced systems companies, for specialist applications within medical & science, aerospace & defence and commercial & industrial markets," seems like advertising. Please post on my talk page if you want more details on that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 August 2012

Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show – Unprotect redirect and list at AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Hi. A few months ago I wrote an article for this Ed, Edd n Eddy movie. I wrote a bit about the production, and copy-pasted a Wikia Plot, just so it'll be a replacement for the plot which I was writing in my sandbox. However, a user named User:Barek deleted the page, and after I posted it again, the same thing happened. However, I believe that this has enough sources and an un-copy-pasted plot, as well as slightly more info on production to get the article unblocked: Here it is. Not the best ever, but I've seen much, much worse. :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 12:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC) unprotect and list From what I can tell the article hasn't been recently deleted, but it has been redirected and been fully protected. It has also undergone two AfDs. The first result was to delete, the second to redirect and protect. The draft has three possibly acceptable sources where none existed in the article that was the subject of the last AfD (Toonzone, tv by the numbers, and Animation Magazine) though each are short and blog-like. Everything else seems to be plainly non-independent or not indicative of notability. But worth a spin at AfD I'd say. Hobit (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC) As a note to Khan, the copying and pasting of Wikia might be able to be kept if you provide attribution (most are licensed like us) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse 2nd AfD close - No significant new information has come to light since a deletion. See WP:DRVPURPOSE #3. For a movie, you would think there would be more source coverage of the topic. The only thing I'm finding is November 16, 2009 ranking, the last movie first grader Shelby Davis of Mossy Creek Elementary saw was Ed, Edd and Eddy's Big Picture Show (his favorite lunch is Peanut butter and jelly sandwich),November 25, 2009, and the favorite movie of Alex Porter, 14, is Ed, Edd and Eddy's Big Picture Show.June 26, 2011. AfD2 closed 3 January 2011 and the sources in the draft are before that date, were covered between AfD1 and AfD2, and don't amount to anything more than trivial information. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Hi Uzma. I'm not seeing the sources that are in the draft in the article ([4], nor did I see them in the AfDs. What did I miss? I went back and looked again and I'm still not seeing them in either AfD. Help? Hobit (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 August 2012

Easy projects – No consensus closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Easy projects (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) As required per WP:GNG, a subject of the article should enjoy the significant coverage, which is defined as "sources address the subject directly in detail". As acknowledged by closing admin (Amatulic), the coverage of subject was not trivial only in two sources. Though one of these sources (article on gigaom blog) indeed covers the subject in detail, another one (article on BNET news site) only provides a brief overview, which wouldn't allow a person familiar with topic to identify it if the software's name was omitted. As this case is borderline, the numerical !vote count (once author and users with no few or no edits outside the topic excluded) is clearly on delete side, and previous deletion discussion on the topic (then also featuring same references) was closed as delete with unanimous consensus, I request to overturn the discussion result to delete. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse no consensus It's a pretty big hurdle to overcome a "no consensus" close when the opinions of editors are balanced numerically, and the argument you're making just doesn't seem adequate to the task. Jclemens (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC) As Jclemens says its a very difficult thing to overcome a no consensus close but I have serious concerns about the close. Firstly, the closing admin states categorically that there are two good sources. I'm not finding a consensus for that argument in the discussion. The sources are adduced by obvious SPAs that are clearly editing under a COI and given the history of promotion of the article they should really not be given the same weight as the opinions of the sources put forward by established users who found them lacking. To me that looks like a stonking supervote suggesting that the closing admin would have been better adding their own opinion and leaving it to someone else to close. Secondly, if the closing admin believes that there are adequate sources to pass CORP then they should have closed this as keep not no consensus. Thirdly, in acknowledging and then disavowing an industry interest I think any reasonable closing admin who thinks that their close will be controversial should recuse and simply opine as a normal editor. Having said all that, I think the fundamental flaw with the discussion is that there isn't quite a clear enough weighting and validity of the sourcing to resolve this out of no consensus and on that basis I can't find an argument to overturn the close. That said, I think this would have been better relisted with clear directions on the need to discuss the sourcing. I'd be included to endorse but allow an early relist to discuss the specific issue of those two sources. Spartaz Humbug! 09:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC) This sounds closer to reopen, doesn't it? To clarify things: personally I didn't dive into discussing the sources in detail as I thought that the question was rather obvious, and no uninvolved editors (apart from alleged SPAs) actually questioned the statements about bad sourcing. That actually was the reason I brought the question here: in the deletion discussion I see no opposition (again, except for SPA !votes) to my view expressed in this DRV. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC) I think its too late to reopen this. Personally, I rarely gave SPAs as much weight as established users unless their arguments are extremely well founded in policy but the rules say an admin may give spa votes less weight, not that they have to and I think that's what skewed this outcome. Really though, more detailed analysis of the sourcing by the delete side would probably have swung it their way. Spartaz Humbug! 12:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC) The standard for WP:GNG is not "if an article includes reliable sources that show the topic has received significant coverage ..." Also, the standard for WP:GNG is not "if a deletion discussion brings forth reliable sources that show the topic has received significant coverage ..." The standard for WP:GNG is "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources ..." The argument you're making just doesn't seem adequate because you limit it to the sources reviewed, not whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. It's also not helpful to note "the numerical !vote count" which goes against the montra, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads." Since the close was no consensus, feel free to relist it at AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC) If you continue reading WP:GNG, you'll find a phrase "address the subject directly in detail". In case of software this is obviously reviews. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Ideally, it ought to be substantial reviews. However, I have also seen articles challenged on the basis that there are only reviews, and not academic discussions, or not news articles. And when there are reviews, the question is usually how substantial and independent they are. The wording of the GNG is deliberately vague, with the intention of being flexible, and the interpretation of it is up to the community in each individual case. As a rule , the community considers such factors as what is customary and expectable for that particular type of subject. We have normally been quite liberal with respect to computer software. Certainly it can be relisted, normally after a month or two, with the purpose of the delay being to give people a chance to rethink things and for possible additional sources to become available--or be found not to be available. and it would have made more sense to have done so rather than brought a non-consensus close here. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Note, most recent AfD was closed 4½ months ago with unanimous delete consensus. This AfD only differs in participation of article's author and editors with little to no edits outside the topic. I get it as the re-evaluation you talk about, though strained by votes of novice/SPA editors. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse - there's a balance of opinions, and a marginal meeting of WP:GNG - a perfectly sensible no consensus. WilyD 10:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Comment from closing admin: The nominator should not be faulted for bringing this here, because I invited him to do so. As to my close: In an AFD discussion, arguments should matter more than votes, and if someone makes a compelling argument, it's irrelevant who presents it, therefore I won't ever discount a reasoned argument just because it came from a single-purpose account. If anything, I tend to discount the "me too" voters who add nothing to the discussion, regardless of who they are. That is how AFDs should be judged. I saw compelling arguments on both sides, SPA or not. I looked at the sources being argued about, and found two independent ones devoting significant/exclusive coverage to the topic, giving the topic borderline WP:GNG compliance. There wasn't any obvious consensus about the value of those two sources, so given the arguments, I closed as "no consensus", knowing that this might be controversial due to the past decisions to delete the article on this same topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 August 2012

Liam McEwan – Listed at AfD, in the version proposed for creation. This is a request for unprotection and thus arguably made in the wrong forum: Because the deletion as such is uncontested, the unprotection request ought to have been made at WP:RPP. The discussion here has turned into a discussion about the notability of the article, and results in no consensus as to whether the article should be unsalted. If a DRV discussion results in no consensus, closers may relist the article at AfD at their discretion. I choose to do so because the article has not previously had a proper AfD discussion in which the subject's notability could be discussed. If the AfD results in a decision to delete, the page should be re-salted. –  Sandstein  13:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Liam McEwan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I am requesting desalting of this article name. The article, in various other guises, has been A7 speedy deleted numerous times over a number of years, and subsequently salted. However, there is a new version which seems to assert notability, and is backed up by reliable sources parked at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liam McEwan. I have not contacted the administrator who I presume salted this, PMDrive1061, as they are marked as retired and have not contributed to Wikipedia for over a year. Ritchie333 (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC) I am not convinced that a Shorty award proves notability , and I certainly would not consider that it does for one in a category where the subject was one of the 6 nominees and all six received first place, as here. The only other third party source in the article, the NZ Herald, is a RS, but the article is just about the station where he broadcasts and does not even mention him. I think that until there are better sources, the only reasonable conclusion is Not Yet Notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Like DGG, I would not consider that this particular award shows notability. The sources in the AfC article are not sufficient either - the NZ Herald one does not mention him, 4 others are all from his radio station - and all appear to be "routine" coverage for a radio station anyway - and the final one is the Shorty-connected one, which is not sufficient for our purposes. Leave salted PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Unsalt - Salting is a way to prevent the repeatedly recreation of an article without concern for its prior deletion history, process, or consensus. Listing the topic at Articles for creation demonstrates a desire to put the topic back into the Wikipedia machinery, seek consensus, and address its prior deletion history. Unsalt. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC) P.S. I don't think the topic Liam McEwan meets WP:GNG. I didn't find anything on Liam McEwan radio host. Also, the first of two sources listed at Articles for creation that is independent of the topic, Battle of the Auckland airwaves doesn't mention Liam. The Shorty Awards source could support the text, "Liam McEwan was nominated for a Shorty Award,[5] but that's not enough information for a stand alone Wikipedia article. He's in radio, so it is very odd that someone hasn't written information about him. Given his opportunity to come to the attention of others to write about him, he seems less GNG notable than others who are not in the public eye. If the topic is unsalted, it should be resalted immediately if any of the prior problems reemerge. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Leave Salted or Re-Salt if necessary. Subject is not notable. He and possibly his friends and/or fans have repeatedly attempted to create a Wikipedia article about him since 2007 (see User talk:Liam.mcewan) when he was 11 years old. At 16, hosting a short radio program on a local community radio station broadcasting at less than one watt power does not make him notable. Winning a Shorty award where there was no clear winner does not establish notability (and would still be questionable even if he were a clear winner). As noted above, the only reliable source listed in the AfC doesn't even mention him, only the radio station. The other sources are unreliable, primary or both. If the article somehow passes AfC, it would immediately be nominated for deletion, unnecessarily taking time and effort better devoted elsewhere in WP. DocTree (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Unsalt. This is a wiki, and a good faith user wishes to write an article in this space. That's sufficient.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Keep salted. If even DGG doesn't think there's an article to be written here, there probably isn't. To unsalt and move the AfC to mainspace when it will almost certainly be again deleted at AfD is a pointless waste of time and resources. T. Canens (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Keep salted - I just checked the new draft (and marked it as 'being reviewed' by the way) and still don't see enough WP:42 references to pass WP:GNG. mabdul 11:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC) List at AfD. http://twitpic.com/900rgg shows that he has had direct coverage in a newspaper. There is more than sufficient claim to beat WP:CSD#A7. This subject has never subjected to an AfD, and given the amount of interest, if someone wants a discussion, we should let them have it. I agree that the sources would be probably judged as not meeting the WP:GNG, but not meeting the GNG is not a speedy criterion. If found non-notable at AfD, I recommend a merge and redirect to The Flea 88.2, where the subject already has some coverage, but less than what is can be seen, sourced, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liam McEwan. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Allow recreation but list per SmokeyJoe. This is no longer a speedy, so let it try at AfD. Hobit (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC) Leave salted, the result is or at least should be clear here. A valid unsalting request would include a list of the independent and reliable sources covering the article subject in depth. It doesn't seem such exists here, and throwing it through AfD or otherwise is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. If the sources still don't exist, still disallow, meme or otherwise. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC) It sounds like you are accepting that this DRV discussion is serving as an AfD discussion? If not, then accept that there has been no deletion discussion. What you are therefore advocating is that administrators be allowed to speedy delete on their judgement of sources and WP:N. This denies the ordinary editor their role in running the project. You are headed the wrong way. “Leave salted” also seems to ignore and rule out my point that this title probably should be a redirect to The_Flea_88.2 (a decision that should be made editorily, or at AfD, but not at DRV). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Bianca Jade – Deletion endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bianca Jade (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) She is a notable person: a latina entrepreneur who has devoted her life to women's fitness and helping women to prolong their lives with the new concept of fitness fashion & trend. She has been written about in many newspapers, magazines, websites, blogs and appeared on tv furthering this modern-day fitness movement. She is becoming a household name in women's fitness and comments about her not being pulled up on Google searches or having a relevant references from respectable and credible news sources is wrong because there is plenty of evidence in favor of her notability. Her page does wikipedia lots of good because it does women lots of good because it does th ehealth & fitness community a lot of good. But most of all she is NOTABLE. ShanaScala (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC) I can't see this adds anything over the AfD, writing notable in capitals doesn't make an impressive argument. What's required is multiple non-trivial coverage in independant reliable sources. The commenters at the deletion discussion said the ones in the article didn't meet that standard and couldn't find others. To overcome that you need to find those sources and list some of them here (Read WP:GNG for a better description of what non-trivial etc means). Without those sources, this DRV should be closed as it's merely disagreement with the outcome, something the DRV specifically isn't about. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse closure. No other decision was possible with the AfD as it was. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse deletion - reliable sources could not be found. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC) I saw the original article and commented at the AfD. It was a puffed-up vanity piece of the most humorous sort. Endorse. ThemFromSpace 01:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse no other outcome was possible. However, at least one, if not more, Bianca Jade's are notable and would meet WP:GNG. Not sure if the above listed Bianca Jade is one of them. There's a Bianca Jade who was 16 on August 7, 1993 that was Australia's only entrant in the internationally acclaimed Ford Supermodel of the World competition.[6] If she kept up with it, she probably would meet WP:GNG. A search for Bianca Jade in The Age turned up some good info on Bianca Jades (you would have to go through each article to see who it is talking about).[7] Part of the problem is that Jade Jagger's mom is Bianca, so there are a lot of articles that mention her mother, Bianca and Jade. If Bianca Jade noted by the above original DRV poster has been written about in many newspapers and magazines, then ShanaScala need only create a Wikipedia article using those reliable sources. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse – Not only was the AfD result unquestionably correct, but the person who submitted this review seems to be continuing in gaming the system and continuing the ruse regarding the sources, which in my view is disruptive. I also strongly recommend that the AfC creation, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bianca Jade of MizzFIT, also be deleted as the point is clear that the sole purpose of the article in the first place has been for blatant PR/promotion. --MuZemike 00:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse closure - no other outcome has been possible and there are no reliable source to be found. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse I'm not seeing any evidence that the AfD was wrong or that anything has changed. Hobit (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.