Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fuzzster87 (talk | contribs) at 08:24, 21 May 2014 (→Active discussions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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 16}}</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 16}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 October 16|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

21 May 2014

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mara Kayser (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I emailed the closing administrator on 18 May 2014. I have received neither reply nor confirmation of receipt of email. The main content of the email was:

I note relevant guidelines for the notability of a performing artists include:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Please consider:

The number of videos of her on YouTube where she is obviously on television sets.

The quality and number of CD's she has made.

She has had numerous Radio-Airplay hits. I happened to find reference to these two: http://www.radio-vhr.de/schlager/airplay-charts-15-woche-2013-jan-smit-verteidigt-platz-1.html http://www.countrygreatest.de/andreas-oscar.html

In the discussion Biruitorul states "Current sources include a wiki and a blog post, both unacceptable per WP:SPS". The wiki is the Saarland Lexikon which, according to the German section of Wikipedia, is a project controlled by the online editors of the Saarbrücker Zeitung ("Gesteuert wird das Projekt von der Online-Redaktion der Saarbrücker Zeitung"). The reference address: http://www.saarland-lexikon.de/index.php/Mara_Kayser

A discography is to be found on her German Wikipedia page and a search for "Mara Kayser" on amazon.de or even amazon.co.uk would confirm it.

Listing all her television appearances would be an extensive task. Rjtucker (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, but consider a new draft if Rjtucker or anyone is interested in writing one. The AFD was low-content and low-interest but procedure was clearly followed. The case for an article isn't strong, but I'm not sure it can be totally dismissed either. She does appear to be a recurring TV guest in Germany but that in and of itself isn't ironclad notability. It's also hard to guage notability based on her German WP article, the only reference given is this, a catalogue listing that shows she's released CDs but nothing else in particular. In situations like these the best way forward is usually to create a well-sourced draft and work from there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Quantium Solutions

Quantium Solutions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

After futile discussions with the admin that deleted my page, I have been directed to contest my deletion here. Please advice if this is the right method. I believe that my content has kept to the neutral tone expected of wikipedia, with no promotional intent or advertising. However, the reason given for my article's speedy deletion is "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject", which the admin failed to clarify with me on exactly what was the benchmark used to determine this factor. Firstly, Quantium Solutions is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Singapore Post, which has over 150 years of postal service history. Naturally, there is a wikipedia article for Singapore Post, but Quantium does not even though a huge bulk of Singapore Post's operations are heavily reliant on this back-end subsidiary. The company is large and has regional offices, it is not some start-up with a small operations office. Secondly, what calls for the article to be significant? This is so subjective, and depends on who is the reader and where he is from. Quantium Solutions is operating a large Asian business, please see this from a business owner's perspective as well rather than a layman wikipedia reader. If the article needs to be improved in any way, then it should not be speedily deleted in such a way, without proper explanation and justification on why. Please see my article's content and make your judgements with that in mind. Thanks. Fuzzster87 (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20 May 2014

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Equestrian statue of George III on Snow Hill, Windsor Great Park.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • Hi. This image was deleted because I didn't state that I took the picture. I don't log in much anymore so I didn't see the deletion message. I took this photo and grant free use for anyone and everyone for any reason (I don't remember which license that is called)

Image: File:Equestrian statue of George III on Snow Hill, Windsor Great Park.JPG

Deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 18#File:Equestrian statue of George III on Snow Hill, Windsor Great Park.JPG

It was erected in 1831[1] and the sculptor, Richard Westmacott, died in 1856. Anyway, in the UK, there is freedom of panorama for statues.[2] It was the copyright of the photographer that was relevant. Thincat (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Given what the closing admin had to work with, the close was reasonable. However, with this additional information provided here it should be clear there are no copyright restrictions and the image ought to be restored. Just remember to record this on the image description page itself Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Justin Knapp – No Consensus. Opinion here is split quite evenly down the middle. I think the most insightful comment was from Sandstein (talk · contribs), the admin who closed the original Afd, who points out that if some of the arguments made during this DRV had been made during the original AfD, the close would have gone differently. The ultimate goal here is not to convict or acquit the closing admin, but to do the best thing for the encyclopedia. I believe in this case, that means having a fresh discussion about the merits of the article, unfettered by questions of whether somebody made the right decision over a year ago. Therefore, I'm going to undelete this and bring it back to Afd for a clean start. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC) – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Justin Knapp (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Come on guys! What are we doing here? He passes WP:GNG by a landslide and has been covered by multiple RS NPR, Daily Dot, Engadget, The Telegraph, BBC!, and tons more. He has made over 344,613 edits since receiving international coverage. We must be the most self hating group of all time, he is notable everywhere, but his home. Seriously! Who cares about all endless hours of unpaid volunteer (redundant) work he has done, beside the media and international reliable sources?

On a serious note though, Overturn without relist, may he be an inspiration to us all and remind us that it only takes a million edits to find your way out of backspace and into the mainspace. Thank you for providing the world with NPOV information, and thank you for continuing to do so, if any Wikipedian deserves an article it is you. Regardless of the outcome, congratulations, for being the most prolific editor on the most viewed encyclopedia, and the sixth most viewed website in the world. I come here with the hope that the outcome of Adrianne Wadewitz's AfD can be applied here. What do you think @Jimbo Wales:?

User:Koavf/Justin Anthony Knapp Valoem talk contrib 23:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope no one minds the more causal tone I chose. Did so to highlight how self hating this delete was :) Valoem talk contrib 01:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn (I'm sure that's shocking to everyone). He meets the GNG without any doubt. And I really don't buy that doing something for X years (where X is a large number) and getting recognized for it is in any way "one event". If the delete !votes were more numerous, maybe. But they aren't. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, solid BLP1E, no new notability upon which to overturn. Just having lots of edits alone isn't enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - WP:BLP1E was the argument that carried the day, never actually rebutted by any of the calls to keep, which were mostly a bunch of "let's ignore all rules to recognize a fellow Wikipedian!" stuff. IAR is to circumvent bureaucracy for the ultimate goal of an improvement to the project; arguing that this is necessary to circumvent an important notability guide solely because the subject is afellow editor is wiki-nepotistic navel-gazing at its worst. In the final analysis, there was no error cited in the admin's close, just routine "I didn't like it" by the DRV nom. Tarc (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tarc I am glad to see you are still bitter about my comment. BLP1E is designed to prevent people who received significant coverage for one event from being able to use that event to promo himself using Wikipedia. This is clearly not happening here. He has continued to edit Wikipedia since and has had a lasting effect. If BLP1E was used as you described then we would not have articles on Anders Behring Breivik, Richard Reid, Nidal Malik Hasan, Jamie Gold, Jerry Yang (poker player), Shridhar Chillal. You get the point, Gizmodo covers his life thus passing WP:BLP1E. There are other sources that have done so. He has receive coverage on himself and is likely to continue editing. We look for lasting impact Valoem talk contrib 02:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're not important enough to me to get bitter over, first off. Second, This person is only being talked about in sources because of one event; the number of edits to a web site. If you remove the event, the person is a nobody, just like the rest of us. Third, WP:OTHERSTUFF is rarely an impressive argument. If you have concerns about any of those articles, then feel free to express those concerns on their respective talk pages. Tarc (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone certainly hinted so. I do not have any issues with those articles, when I cite other stuff exists, I am not doing it in a way a novice might. The first line says:
  • The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do, or do not, exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article.
The article I cited are those which will clearly survive AfD. OTHERCRAPEXISTS is used to make a point that those article may be removed as well so citing there existence is irrelevant. Once again this is obviously not the case. We look at whether or not the subject has received coverage himself which he has. Valoem talk contrib 03:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here is another event [3] not to mention he has retained the title of most edits by a landslide since his article deletion. Valoem talk contrib 03:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a separate event, that is just coverage of the same topic; being a prolific editor. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. If the sources are there, who can argue with that? Wikipedia has this tendency to be inclusionist about tech stuff, especially stuff related to itself, and deletionist about pretty much everything else. And while that tendency is obnoxious, it doesn't mean an article about a notable subject should be deleted. Everyking (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus or Relist. I think that the closer erred in reading a consensus to delete out the AfD discussion. The claim that the large number of sources makes the article subject one that we should cover regardless of whether or not he meets BLP1E is cogent and should not be summarily dismissed as an inapposite invocation of IAR. Arguably the extent of the coverage could be considered under the second prong of BLP1E, though it does not appear that any of the commenters in the AfD did so. For the forgoing reasons I think that No Consensus to delete was reached in the AfD and that the close to the contrary was mistaken. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, So here we are, 13 years later, we have an article on the first Wikipedian, may we never have one on the last. For the prior years and counting, this man has invested more time working here than all of us. I respect his lack of discouragement when faced against unbelievable odds, to never stop. I know I've stopped and may again. Through all the good and the bad he has come here for encouragement. And with 1.3 millions edits it is no secret.
Here we have a man who has dedicated a good part of his life to improving what we read everyday. He has done so to the point that mainstream media and international reliable sources have taken notice. Per this made up policy Wikipedia:WeArePeopleToo we can and should allow a small mainspace article honoring his work and character. Though I may disagree with some of his edits I can think of no better reason to offer this token of appreciation, after all ... we are people too. Valoem talk contrib 05:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The paramount question is whether or not there is a purpose for filing a Wikipedia:Deletion review in the first place. Otherwise it's best to just recreate a title for reasons of good faith. Because DRV stipulates a dispute with the closing admin's "decisions", a year is simply too long for an AfD to have been closed, to then "raise a dispute". I'd encourage the nominator to instead: withdraw this DRV, and properly recreate the title. While it is certain to be closely scrutinized, even likely; AfD'd anew: I'd be more comfortable commenting there.—John Cline (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, there was no consensus to delete the article. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What an amazingly difficult close. Kudos to Sandstein for stepping up to make it. I think with most discussions, "delete" would have been accessible to the closer on the basis that this is a biography of a living person and it's acceptable to give extra weight to concerns about sourcing in such cases. But I think this particular discussion presented unique features. I think that someone reading about Justin Knapp in the Daily Telegraph, who wanted to learn more, would naturally turn to Wikipedia; and I think they'd find it bizarre that Wikipedia doesn't cover a Wikipedian. I also agree to an extent with the argument well-expressed by Eluchil404, and with Hobit's point that if making a million edits is "one event" then that's one really long event...—S Marshall T/C 08:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A person who wins a marathon isn't notable for 26 things, he/she is notable for one thing; winning the race itself, the totality of it. The "event" here is the cause célèbre of being a person with a 1,000,000 edits under his belt. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being a person with 1,000,000 edits under his belt isn't an event, it's a state . But I obviously do see your argument: that the 843,279th edit was one event, and the 999,999th edit was one event, and the 1,000,000th edit was one event. I also see what BLP1E says: BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals. I can't see how Koavf meets this definition, having voluntarily been interviewed about his 1,000,000th edit. And even if that wasn't true it would still be totally stupid to apply BLP1E in this case, because the tradeoff is that once we've deleted the article about the person, we've got no grounds to stop editors from writing an article about the event. Would seeing a bluelink at Justin Knapp's 1,000,000th edit really be such a brilliant idea?—S Marshall T/C 16:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but allow recreation Many of the arguments were policy-based (including those "keeps" who did not consider this to be one event) but although I don't necessarily agree with the the closer that the BLP1E arguments were convincing, I do think they made up a rough consensus. If people !voting delete had said they really felt there ought be an article but policy did not permit it, then they might have missed the word "generally" in BLP1E. But no, the arguments for deletion seemed none too reluctant. If the article can be improved substantially there is no reason why it should not be recreated without further reference to DRV. Obviously there should at least be a redirect (presumably to History of Wikipedia, 2012) but regrettably these niceties all to often get lost. Thincat (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Correctly closed in policy-compliant fashion by Sandstein taking into account arguments advanced. — Scott • talk 23:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn BLP1E is often a bad argument: in practice a great many things can be interpreted as either 1E or a continuing series of things making for notability , and the decision tends to be based on other considerations ==in this case, I suspect that we are so eager not to appear self-important that we have a prejudice against articles about people involved with WP. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, sadly--I do not like disagreeing with DGG. I'm really neutral on the issue and haven't looked at the article for this meta discussion, but I think that Sandstein made the right call given the absence of good, solid keep arguments. Mercurywoodrose was beginning to make a decent argument but invoking IAR is not a good move; oddly enough, I find myself in strong agreement with Scottywong, but that's perhaps also because too many of the keepers don't seem to have taken the AfD seriously. What should have been argued, for instance, is something about broadness and depth of coverage; well, some broadness is hinted at but the long list of links doesn't contain that many reliable sources, and Scotty, on the delete tip, is really the only one to discuss depth--or lack thereof. So I don't see how Sandstein could have decided otherwise, and deciding on "keep via IAR" is a kind of a cop-out, and while the 1E argument is not rock solid, Sandstein is correct in saying that they were not convincingly rebutted in the AfD. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the closing administrator, I maintain my assessment that the "keep" arguments in the AfD discussion did not convincingly address the BLP1E concerns raised with regard to this biography. However, in this review, the argument has been made that the Wikipedia editing career of Justin Knapp can't reasonably be considered one "event", but is more akin to the collective accomplishments of, e.g., writers or artists, the coverage of which makes them notable. This is a persuasive, if perhaps not compelling argument. Had this argument been advanced in the deletion discussion, I'd likely have concluded that there was no consensus to delete the article. As to what to do with the article now, I leave this to the others participating in this review, as I don't really have an opinion one way or the other. However, I'd like to add that, in my view, our core policy of neutrality requires us to conduct these inclusion discussions without regard to whether the article subject is a Wikipedian or not.  Sandstein  06:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I feel deletion was the correct assessment of the consensus that emerged in the archived discussion. Undeletion would only be desirable to me if the prior editing history would otherwise be lost. Because the article is userfied with its history intact, nothing is lost by improving it in userspace, until ready, and then moving it whole, into article space. This endorsement of the AFD's close is without prejudice against recreating the article, and the quasi support of its previous deletion does not imply that I oppose keeping the title. I actually support its appropriateness for article inclusion.—John Cline (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to merge, or perhaps keep - the !votes that appeal to BLP1E must be entirely disregarded as incoherent gibberish. BLP1E is very clear, and anyone who's read it will see it cannot be used to support a delete position in a coherent way. One might as well write "Delete per WP:MOSNUM". By policy, merging to History of Wikipedia or one of it's daughters is probably the best course, but overturning to keep is perhaps not unacceptable. I suspect in the long term, it'll end up as the former, and I'm less concerned about the short term. Deletion, however, was wholly indefensible. WilyD 09:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, well articulated close by Sandstein who balanced consensus and policy and found the correct outcome based on the input into the debate. Daniel (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, himself suggested a relist at worst, as new debate arguments specifically regarding this being a life long achievement, as opposed to BLP1E be taken into consideration, I cannot see any other interpretation. Valoem talk contrib 14:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation The close was in 2013. Consensus can change and even back then there were numerous keep arguments made. Sandstein closed the discussion per his reading of consensus and acknowledges that more recent arguments for inclusion are policy based and reasonable. I can't think of any reason why recreation and a new deletion hearing (if one is desired) wouldn't be appropriate. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus to delete. Andrew (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn WP:BLP1E was incorrectly applied for several reasons. One of which this person was not famous for "one event" but an entire series of actions that spread several years. Also WP:BLP1E clearly states it is meant for the privacy of "low profile" individuals. Someone who willingly participates in multiple high profile interviews like on Gizmodo [4] is not "low profile" nor a "private" individual. There just wasn't the consensus to delete this topic and there were a couple delete !votes simply stated "per WP:BLP1E" with no justification of why this topic had to be deleted because of that policy. --Oakshade (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close but allow recreation. Those wishing to see this close overturned seem to be suggesting that the discussion itself was deficient. That may well be so (is so, in my view) but that's not the fault of the closer. DRV is not AFD Take 2 - we shouldn't be re-arguing those things either insufficiently argued or missing entirely from the debate. Whether or not BLP1E was being applied appropriately by the participants is irrelevant - that was their argument and that became the consensus because nobody properly refuted the claim. A closer can only work with what he is given; in this case consensus that BLP1E should apply. Besides which, we're talking about a close from more than 12 months ago. Consensus can change, especially consensus based on (arguably) a misapplication of a particular policy. I can't see any reason why an editor in good standing shouldn't be given the opportunity to recreate an article. Stalwart111 08:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 May 2014

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Andrew Stone (soccer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I deleted this following an AFD as it failed GNG and NFOOTY. I am not asked to restore this as the subject now mets NFOOTY but they still do not meet the GNG. As this is a BLP I have declined to restore it pending a DRV> Simple question for DRV to answer - do we now require BLPs to pass the GNG or can an SNG permit creation of an unsourced BLP? Spartaz Humbug! 20:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I speak for everyone when I say a SNG can't permit creation of an unsourced BLP! At DRV, since about 2010 we have almost always required BLPs to pass the GNG. In this case the sources cited in the article were 1, which looks sufficiently in-depth and could be reliable but I'm not sure if it's independent, 2 which looks sufficiently in-depth but I don't think is independent, and 3 which doesn't mention Mr Stone. I think that if we're going to apply the GNG strictly, then we need one more independent source that discusses Mr Stone in reasonable depth.—S Marshall T/C 21:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, you're quite right. It does say his name and there's a little numbered dot to show where he plays. I also see there's a mention of him in the fourth source you list as well.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, It was argued during the AFD were that he didn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL, however he does now meet WP:NFOOTBALL with a start Saturday as documented at 4 and 3. I don't know what the unsourced BLP comments are about, as the article always had sources in it, and this was not a factor in the AFD discussion; User:Spartaz was also provided an additional source along with the request to undelete the article. This seems very straight forward, and bringing it to DRV is in contradiction to hundreds of other examples where the article is simply restored, or restored and procedually sent to AFD. It's also in contradicion of another similar article for a similar player (playing for a 3rd tier US team, as opposed a 2nd tier US team in this case) that was recently brought to DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014_April_5#Quillan Roberts, where consensus was that the article should be restored, and that this type of stuff needn't come to DRV. Also I question whether it is appropriate for User:Spartaz to blank the page after another moderator restored it following a possibly inappropriate request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Andrew Stone (footballer) without notifying User:Amatulic who restored the article. Nfitz (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, I apologize to the original deleting administrator Spartaz for not informing him that I restored the article. It seemed to me like an uncontroversial no-brainer, especially since it was the original deletion nominator requesting restoration, and also after verifying that the source given at WP:REFUND shows that the subject does indeed now meet WP:NFOOTBALL, rendering the AFD irrelevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I remain baffled ... how isn't this not an uncontroversial no-brainer? Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It was Spartaz's call as AfD closer. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  This is a bit confusing since the deletion log is at a different title, [5].  This deletion log shows that the article has been restored as per a WP:REFUND at 2014-05-19T19:29:02.  So the DRV petition is to overturn the restoration.  The Template:Tempundelete tag on the article added at 2014-05-19T20:52:12‎, is incorrect, and should be replaced with {{Delrev}}.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Nominators are advised, "Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly."  Unscintillating (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the nominator IS the closing admin! Nfitz (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close, WP:NPASR  The argument that GNG is maybe, just maybe, a content policy doesn't make sense, as GNG is a subsection in a notability guideline.  The argument that the article is unsourced is refuted by inspection.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD deletion and subsequent undeletion. Before the season has fully got underway it's natural to want to have harmless fun and I'm sure the article's creation, AFD and REFUND were meant in this spirit. At soccer AFDs it is well known that to argue "delete, fails NFOOTY" is ineffective so experienced participants add that GNG is failed as well. Although there is always a slew of press coverage, it is almost entirely trivial so there is no real need to assess the sources – they can nearly always be argued either way. Do BLPs need to meet GNG? No, GNG is just a guideline – BLPs need to survive any deletion challenge. Unsourced BLPs may be handled by WP:BLPPROD regardless of any SNG. However, in this case the article was and is sourced. Are these sources adequate to warrant an article? I suspect S Marshall has been the first person to investigate this aspect (and I agree with his assessment). The AFD was closed properly. The undeletion was (easily) wihin admin discretion. The article should be restored. A second AFD would not be disruptive. Thincat (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I don't agree the close was proper; however that isn't the basis of this DRV, so to delve into those details would be an unnecessary tangent. I have long argued that the deletion of articles for players, who have been signed to the first team, just before the start of the season, and who are almost certain to be playing soon, is a waste of time, and the deletion, and ultimate recreation of such articles (often from scratch), and later restoration of the edit history (if that actually happens) is just wasting a lot of resources. WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NORUSH would suggest that simply retaining the article for few weeks, to see if the player is going to appear is not disruptive, and does no harm - with other recent AFD discussions having different outcomes such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelechi Iheanacho (footballer born 1996) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Hyland ironically including for a teammate of Andrew Stone that was nominated concurrently! But as I said, that isn't the crux of this current DRV - and while I considered bringing the Andrew Stone article to DRV on this basis, I didn't pursue it, as the recreation was inevitable given at the time of deletion, he'd already spend every minute of every game named as a substitute with an actual appearance soon being all but inevitable. Nfitz (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the article - the original AFD 'deletion' was fine, but this individual's circumstances has changed and he is not notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. Traditionally with football/soccer articles we have always allowed a period of grace for articles which meet NFOOTBALL to be brought up to GNG. This should apply here as well. GiantSnowman 12:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Spartaz and I have been disagreeing on this point for many years: I consider that, since we make our own rules, the relationship between the SNGs and the GNG is not fixed, but is whatever we decide it is, either on a guideline by guideline or an article by article basis. In the field of main interest to me personally, WP:PROF is explicitly an alternative to the GNG, and all relevant decisions in the last 5 years have accepted that, and we generally think so also for geographic objects. (It's a lot simpler than trying to stretch the various limitations of the sources required by the GNG to cover the sources available for the, though it can be done when someone insists--they rarely do any more for this sort of article) For athletes, the relationship between the two has gone back and forth over the years, and, altho this is not my field, I understand most discussions have gone that the SNG is a limitation of the GNG and they must both be satisfied, but individual decisions seem to vary all over the place. If I were closing such a AfD , I would not impose my own view of this ,but accept whatever the consensus might be at that particular AfD. But it's irrelevant to the decision here, since it seems to be agreed above that he meets both guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Now that he has played in a game, there is no question that he meets NFOOTBALL. I could write several paragraphs about unnecessary bureaucracy with this deletion. Putting that aside and looking at WP:BLPDELETE, this article never had negative material and it was written neutrally. BLP wasn't a factor in the deletion, so BLP issues shouldn't apply in the article's restoration. Royalbroil 02:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that Spartaz's request for a test-case DRV was reasonable, but it was written after Mikemor92 had received a REFUND. This AfD does not fall under WP:Requests for undeletion's scope, it is explicitly covered by WP:Deletion review/Purpose #3, and Mikemor92 had engaged Spartaz before filing the REFUND. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Sumter Mall – No consensus to overturn "delete" closure. After a spirited (re-)discussion of sources and notability, we do not have a consensus that the "delete" closure was incorrect. A majority of participants instead endorse that closure. –  Sandstein  09:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sumter Mall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have discussed this with the closing admin per here:[6] I do not think the consensus was delete because none of the delete !votes were policy based. They cite lack of national coverage, which is not a wikipedia policy for notability. I brought up 10 sources at the AFD that chronicle the plans for the mall when it was originally called Jessamine Mall, to the opening of the mall and the mall later being sold and renamed Sumter Mall. I think this satisfies the notability guidelines and delete !votes and closing admin simply dismissed the sources for no reason. Me5000 (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. In this case, the closing administrator actually seemed to weight the arguments properly. Local interest is not some sort of notability standard, and does not make the sourcing nontrivial enough for these purposes. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, The arguments put forth by Me5000 and Unscintillating are highly suggestive that this mall has received at least regional coverage which passes WP:GNG. The sources are reliable and non-trivial though many local. This is a borderline which is ripe for a no consensus close. Per WP:OUTCOME for malls pushes me toward a keep as well. Valoem talk contrib 17:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor DangerousPanda! Three AfD closes brought to DRV in quick succession. I don't imagine any of them will be overturned, though. I'll endorse this one because when the !votes are given their correct weight, it's a pretty clear "delete".—S Marshall T/C 17:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, go, show even one delete !vote that carries any weight.  The first two !votes were impeached at the AfD as not having spent enough time looking for sources to know that there was an alternate name used for the mall for 20 years.  The last delete !vote is based on the objection that the keep !votes didn't find his preference in sourcing.  The AfD nom shows below that, even now, he is not aware of the size of the mall.  Should I go on?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To respond here, I had not commented on the fourth and remaining delete !vote.  As per my comment at the AfD, the !vote brought no verifiable evidence to the table, and provided none when asked.  This is a recurring theme, that delete !votes are allowed to simply state the WP:ATA argument that a topic is "non-notable".  Unscintillating (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's yet another reason why I have such contempt for WP:ATA. The statement that a topic is "non-notable" may be an argument to avoid, but if it wasn't given any weight at AfD, then very little content would ever get deleted! In fact, it's normal practice at AfD to say that material isn't notable. This creates a rebuttable presumption that the material should be deleted. The presumption can be rebutted by actually providing sources, and if that happens then the person who said it wasn't notable typically gets some well-deserved egg on their face, but providing sources should be the only effective answer.—S Marshall T/C 11:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it's not surprising you find AfD so unreasonable, Unscintillating. The statement that "This is not notable" is normal practice at AfD, and it's refutable by evidence. What passes for "reason" on Wikipedia is not an acceptable substitute for evidence. In almost all fields of human endeavour, from law to science, some things are resolvable only by evidence, and notability on Wikipedia is one of them.—S Marshall T/C 07:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Long explanation of how S Marshall thinks the !votes should be weighted
I actually see the sources argument as a bit of a red herring. The sources discussion is inconclusive in this case. I mean, when someone says "There are no decent sources", then that has three possible weights. If (1) someone says that and no sources are subsequently provided, then it's got all the force of WP:V on the scales with it, and core policies weigh tons and tons and tons. If (2) someone says it and plenty of excellent sources are provided, then it's got no weight at all because it's been refuted. But the cases we typically see at DRV, like this one, are typically in group (3) where someone says it and a few sources are provided, and the sources are mostly not really about the subject but do mention it a bit. In this case what we have is an argument about WP:N which is easily the most-discussed guideline in deletion debates. Typically, the people who want to delete the article try to pretend it's a (1) and the people who want to keep the article try to pretend it's a (2), but looking at it objectively, I think we can all see more of a (3) here. Generally if the article topic is an encyclopaedic sort of thing, a (3) will tend to lead to a weak no-consensusy sort of vague outcome.

But I see all this as a distraction from another very strong argument because it has another core content policy behind it which is WP:NOT. As a core content policy, WP:NOT weighs tons more than a guideline like WP:N. Basically, a shopping mall very rarely merits an encyclopaedia article; the specific part of WP:NOT that it violates is WP:IINFO.

It would be a tenable position for the "Overturn to keep" side if they allege that this argument isn't actually to be found in the debate that DangerousPanda assessed, and I agree that it's not very clearly articulated, but I think that thought actually underlies what DGG and RoySmith had to say. They phrased their argument in terms of WP:N, which is normally an effective tactic at AfD, but I think it should be understood in terms of WP:NOT as well. And that's why I give the "delete" side the weight of policy behind it.—S Marshall T/C 20:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • A good response and I want to thank you for explaining your endorsement. I don't agree 100% with some of what you said, but this isn't the place for that as this isn't afd part 2. I want to start off by saying I never stated it should be overturned to keep, I think it should be overturned to no consensus.
I don't see how you can say they didn't say WP:IINFO is being violated, but that is what they meant. The fact is nothing they said is in WP:IINFO and we have to go by what they actually said, not what we think they meant. DGG didn't make any points in the AFD and only used to arguments that should be avoided per WP:ASSERTN and WP:ITSNOTABLE. RoySmith started off with WP:ITSCRUFT, which I'll ignore because he did add more than that. What he did say that I think you're interpreting as WP:IINFO is "it's just like any other of a zillion malls around the world", however WP:IINFO links to WP:DISCRIMINATE which states "an indiscriminate collection of information would be a collection of information gathered "without care or making distinctions" or in a "thoughtless" manner" it goes on to give examples where indiscriminate is totally random and discriminate the information relates to one another. This clearly falls under "discriminate". Roy then proceeds to state afterward "Mostly what I object to is that there is no non-local coverage". Which brings this back to what I've been saying, but instead of repeating myself I want to point to something else: even the closing admin admits this isn't a requirement per my discussion with him[7]. He actually states it was "a mere suggestion in the AFD" which I find odd, but I'm not going to go into that. This is why I think the delete !votes do not carry any weight and it should have been closed as no consensus. Me5000 (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There is no fixed rule about malls, but the usual practice is for there to be a cutoff at around 1 million square feet--less in some regions where there are still rare. This is compatible with the definition of super-regional in most lists. In the US have sometimes kept with less, but rarely in recent years with less than 500,000. (this has 345,000) Sometimes there is some special distinction: the only thing apparent here from its web site is largest enclosed mall in the county--a county of only 107,000. (Largest in south Carolina would have been another matter.) The applicability of the GNG to malls is useless--the events reported are usually trivial or in local sources which report anything regardless of significance. (When there is something of significance that's another matter.) There are always a few bad decisions to be found in the AfD archives, because this is a matter of people's views at the time, which varies. Where there is consensus at a particular AfD, that's enough consensus for the AfD. If there were enough consensus in general we'd have a guideline--but proposals for one have never succeeded). In most areas AfD decisions are not very consistent: if we insisted on keeping everything as non-consensus thing where we have ever had a contrary decision, notability would be a very low guideline indeed. Non-consensus means non-consensus at the particular AfD -- but there was consensus there. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The size of the mall for the purposes of this discussion is 43 acres and 455,000 sq. ft. as per [8].  This size was used in the AfD and not refuted there.  As discussed at the AfD and not refuted there ("Do you object to the...allbusiness.com definition[]?  Do you have another metric to define "larger"?") the applicable benchmark for this discussion for a larger shopping center was [9], or 300,000 to 900,000 sq. ft.  This particular mall met an even higher benchmark, that at [10].  Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list of applicable AfDs was part of the evidence in this AfD:
  • Missoula 587,000 gla
  • The mall at westlake <400,000
  • Columbia 740,000
  • Middlesboro 317,000
Unscintillating (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per [11] there are neither "zillion"s nor "jillion"s of malls this size in the US, there are about 1500.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument was, "I checked out the sources cited by various people above." and "I would be much more impressed if you could provide me with a couple of articles in national newspapers or similar sources."  In my argument I have shown that this mall is presumed to be wp:notable using verifiable evidence.  Which is the stronger argument?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started out thinking this DRV was all about "I like it" vs. "I don't like it", but I'm starting to think it's much more interesting than that. Clearly, there are multiple sources: the dozen or so articles in The Item. So, now we come down to whether The Item meets WP:INDY. I think that's the key question here. If The Item does meet WP:INDY, then clearly this article meets WP:N (and vice-versa). My argument for why it doesn't is essentially Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Indiscriminate_sources, where it says, A newspaper in a small town might write about the opening and closing of every single business in the town. That's what's going on here. The Item gives extensive coverage to this mall because, in their microcosm of the world, it is a significant real-estate venture. But, only in their microcosm. Once you get out of the county, nobody seems to care, as evidenced by the fact that we can't seem to find any coverage in other newspapers. At the other end of the spectrum, consider Mall of America. I find a lot of local press coverage for it, but I also find coverage in national media (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN). This sort of coverage is lacking here, and I claim this is proof of its lack of notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:DELREVD,"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". This isn't AFD round 2, so the validity of the argument you just posted is not relevant to this discussion. We can only go by the argument you presented in the AFD and whether or not it was strong enough for the consensus of delete. Me5000 (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's talk about your argument that Sumter is a "small town", and the repetition of DGGs thought that this is a "county" mall.  Sumter is a town of 40,000.  Here is a quote from our article on Sumter, South Carolina, with emphasis added, "Today, the city retains its status as a major hub, both for industry and infrastructure. In modern times, the city has taken on additional dimension as a center for business culture and finance, as its...institutions come together to form a destination for the east central portion of South Carolina."  The AfD did not identify this as a county mall, but (1) a "regional shopping center" and (2) a "regional mall".  The key word here is "regional", not "county".  Unscintillating (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the gist of your argument that the topic is only of importance to local people, why are you !voting to delete rather than merge?  Wikipedia has an article, Big Four Bridge, which only allows pedestrian traffic and bicycles.  Should that be deleted because it is primarily a topic of interest to people within biking distance?  The counterargument is that prominent topics of a locale are also of interest to the world at large in considering the business culture and lifestyle of a community.  Another factor that comes into play here is WP:Systemic bias.  If we are keeping most of the malls in South Carolina, and deleting Sumter's mall, is that because "Availability of sources is not uniform."?  Unscintillating (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the comment, "...we can't seem to find any coverage in other newspapers", I'm not aware that anyone has looked for sources in other newspapers.  Me, I found enough sources to post an AfD !vote, but there has been no need to look for more.  I asked for editors not finding sources to show their work, or show where they were having trouble in finding sources.  Until someone opens Google and reports what they find, this is the absence of evidence fallacy, in which absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is coverage in that local newspaper going to be enough to satisfy the deletionists?
Searches in national media:
  1. New York Times zero results
  2. Wall Street Journal zero results
  3. CNN zero results
  4. Reuters, zero results
  5. Associated Press zero results
Searches in newspapers of nearby large cities:
  1. Atlanta Journal-Constitution one result, inconsequential mention
  2. North Carolina News & Observer zero results
  3. The State, Columbia SC one result, no actual mention of the mall
Search engines:
  1. Google lots of results, but all just blogs, directories, self-published, and other unreliable and/or local sources
  2. Bing more of the same
  3. Duck Duck Go more of the same
  4. Yahoo! more of the same
-- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started doing some searches for sources from other than Sumter after your post.  Here is an article about malls from Columbia, SC:
  1. Crystal A. Baker, State Business Writer (February 8, 1988), "Malls didn't succeed for 2 downtowns", The State, Columbia, SC, But then Jessamine Mall, a regional shopping center, opened and an exodus began from Main Street to the suburban mall... {{citation}}: |author= has generic name (help)
Here are two cases where headline writers have listed "Sumter Mall" in the headline, both from Columbia, SC. 
  1. "Parents Flock to Sumter Mall For Free School Supplies", WLTX, Columbia, SC
  2. "Sumter Mall hosting Junie B. Jones luau", The State, Columbia, SC, June 22, 2006
What these sources show is that the Sumter Mall is a venue in addition to being a shopping location and a place on the map.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Charleston, SC:
  1. Caroline Fossi of The Post and Courier Staff (November 14, 2004), "Malls vs. teens: Stricter rules govern hangout spots", The Post and Courier, Charleston, SC, retrieved 2014-05-26, Sumter Mall's policy, 'Family First,' was started this year and requires people 16 and younger to be accompanied by an adult 21 or older after 6 p.m. Fridays and Saturdays.
Here is another of the over 1000 hits from "The Item":
  1. "Area's shopping cornerstone, Sumter Mall, approaches full capacity", The Item, Charleston, SC, February 26, 2006, With roughly 600 employees and thousands of shoppers each week — not to mention dozens of exercise-minded mall walkers each day — the mall is a busy place...
Unscintillating (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you get what a reliable source is. I looked up the Malls vs. Teens article (by the way, it would have been a lot easier if you had provided the URL. This isn't about Sumpter Mall. It's about Teens hanging out in public places. Sumpter isn't mentioned until the seventh paragraph, and then just a few sentences, before the article moves on to the next sound bite from the next mall. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote from our article, "The Post and Courier is the main daily newspaper in Charleston, South Carolina...it is the oldest daily newspaper in the South, and one of the oldest continuously operating newspapers in the United States. It is the flagship newspaper of the Evening Post Publishing Company. It is the largest newspaper in the Palmetto State..."  Unscintillating (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the URL that you found to the link.  I have no idea by what theory you claim that any of the elements required for a reliable source are not present here.  I doubt that you are claiming that this is a problem with (see WP:IRS and WP:Inaccuracy#Reliability in the context) reliability in the context, because the same information is available from The Item.  Perhaps you are thinking of the concept of "significant coverage" in WP:GNG, but WP:GNG says, "Significant coverage...need not be the main topic of the source material."  It is my understanding that WP:GNG can be established by a sufficient number of sources each with one relevant sentence.  And the purpose here is not to establish WP:GNG, this is a direct response to the non-policy WP:IAR objection that the sources are all local.  This sentence is evidence of a reliable source giving attention to the topic, and the reliable source is not "local".  The objection that all of the sources are local does not stand.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Within discretion. Two things puzzle me about the close. What did "policy-based" have to do with it? Notability is not judged according to policy and no one raised policy issues. Second, if "it may be possible to merge some info" implied WP:SMERGE was delete appropriate? But not to worry, the article was so vestigial it doesn't much matter. Thincat (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:CON, consensus is only consensus if it is based on a wikipedia policy or guideline, remember consensus is not a vote. The 3 deletes only cite lack of national coverage and nothing else which is not a policy or guideline anywhere on wikipedia, so how could consensus be delete? Of course I see my efforts are futile as it is almost unanimous endorsement and yet again no one is citing policy and this seems to simply be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Me5000 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC meets WP:GNG in spades. "National coverage" is not a requirement and the !vote for deletion wasn't strong enough to invoke WP:IAR. If someone wants to create a guideline about needing national coverage, go get consensus for it. Until then, deletion of something that so clearly meets the GNG needs a stronger consensus than that. Hobit (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, correct close either by count OR strength of arguments. The two Keeps mostly relied on "Malls are inherently notable", which was promptly pointed out not to be so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if the deletes merely said "no malls are notable", then they'd be discounted too. Instead, they (correctly, IMO) pointed out that the sourcing was inadequate. If you think our sourcing standards are too high, then you're totally entitled to hold that opinion--do NOT, however, expect things to change in that direction. Indeed our sourcing standards have tightened considerably as the Foundation, admins, and editors take verifiability much more seriously than in Wikipedia's earliest days. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serious question: what sourcing standards do you feel this isn't meeting? The GNG isn't in debate--the sources are there and no one in the AfD claimed the GNG isn't met. I don't know of a SNG that applies (but I could be missing the obvious). And venerability is trivial. So what is the guideline/policy that dictates we should be deleting this (other than IAR I suppose)? Hobit (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  There is no dispute as per WP:OUTCOMES that larger malls are generally kept.  What is a larger mall?  "Larger malls" does not mean Mall of America by itself.  Maybe there was a time in the past where the round number of 1,000,000 sq ft held traction at AfD, but we were given no evidence to that effect, and it is inconsistent with the evidence presented at the AfD.  Looking at some malls in my personal experience, the midwest of the US directs much attention to smaller malls.  These malls are objects of familiarity to local residents.  In common conversation, I can say that people reminisce about the shops that were at a mall forty years ago.  The only remaining choices for "larger malls" from this discussion are those larger then 300,000, and those larger than 400,000.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  I looked at the 23 malls listed at [12], and saw that the three closest cities with malls are Columbia, 43 miles away; Florence, 47 miles away; and Orangeburg, 58 miles away.  In terms of column "Trade Area Size" at [13], this puts the trade area size for Sumter Mall closer to "super-regional mall" (5-25 miles) than "regional mall" (5-15 miles).  Unscintillating (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect with Template:R with possibilities"  Overturn to keep, Overturn to merge, Overturn to NC, and reopening of the debate would also be reasonable, but we know exactly where we are here.  We have a two-sentence stub, a topic shown at the AfD to be of central importance to Sumter, South Carolina, and an article that could use this topic being included before expansion of the topic's article. 
The closing was a directed verdict that this was a "small" mall.  I quote, including the linking of the word "notable" to WP:GNG, "I mean seriously, that small of a mall is NOT going to be notable the panda ₯’ 23:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)".  Seriously, no, the whole point of arguing WP:OUTCOMES is just the opposite, that once you know that a mall is more than 400,000 sq ft, you have a statistically high probability that the topic passes WP:GNG, is a regional landmark, and has left an indelible impression on the lives of those throughout the region.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Here are the first two sentences of the essay WP:Independent sources, "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic, for example."  Unscintillating (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of shopping centers in Sumter
  1. Sumter Mall, 43 acres, 345,000 to 455,000 sq. ft., 1057 Broad St., opened Aug. 6, 1980
    also, Jessamine Mall, pronounced "jas-min"
    also, informally, Jasmine Mall
  2. Wesmark Plaza, 229,000 gla, Broad St. and Wesmark Blvd., opened Spring 1966, near Sumter Mall
    also, Wesmark Place
  3. Palmetto Plaza, 12 acres, Guignard Dr. and Miller Rd., opened July 8, 1963.
  4. Sumter Towne Mall, 20 acres, Broad St. downtown, from Nov. 13, 1975 to October 1982.
    also, Downtown Sumter Mall
    also, Sumter Downtowne Mall
    also, Sumter Mall
Unscintillating (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
OpEdNews (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

If we're looking solely at strict vote count on this AfD discussion, it seems clear that the votes are at keep. The problem is the context. This article was initially deleted in August 2013 due to a lack of sources (and previously kept via no consensus closure even with the same problems). The deletion review on behalf of the editor of the site occurred about a month ago, endorsed the closure, and presented nothing new in terms of sourcing that we didn't previously have, but the article was userfied. Unfortunately, the article was quickly moved out of userspace after three edits and no real improvements to the sourcing.

At the AfD, it was claimed that there were enough nontrivial sources to build an article, but no one who was in favor of claiming as such could present those nontrivial sources, instead continually referring to a local news piece and a one paragraph, directory-style mention that spoke more about swine flu satire than the site itself, as well as noting who the contributors are (which multiple editors pointed out has nothing to do with notability). We need good sources to build an article, and we need good sources to establish notability. This article has neither, and the closing administrator failed to take those points into account. This closure, based on strength of argument and reality of sources, must be overturned. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Thargor Orlando (talk)[reply]

  • Endorse - while it's true the sources are kind of weak, they're sufficient to plausibly argue the subject meets WP:N, such that a closing admin shouldn't substitute their own evaluation of the sources for the community's evaluation. Which they did, good on them. WilyD 15:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with the closure is the same problem with this argument: it's argued that they "plausibly" meet the GNG, but there is no explanation as to how or why. It is noted by multiple people in this discussion (as well as years of forming these guidelines and discussions that precede me) as well as prior that these do not meet the standard of what we'd expect from sources. What changed? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The AfD has extensive discussion of the sources. Repeating that here would just be pointless copy-pasting. The inclusion standards are higher than ever (and continue to slowly rise). There has most definitely never been a time when this quantity and quality of sources would've been a clear delete. In a more borderline-ish case like this, people's reaction is likely to depend on what sources are like in the topic area, whether they believe there's some spammy motivation in creating the article, etc. The inclusion guidelines aren't cut and dry, but fairly sugject as to what's significant coverage, sources with good reputations, etc. Which is why we have such discussions. And, of course, they're only guidelines, not worth getting worked up about marginal cases. WilyD 09:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This is one of the most uncontroversial closes I've see. DP assessed the arguments and made what I believe is a proper close and good judgment. Coverage received by OpEdNews is significant and has been referenced by multiple major publication. Valoem talk contrib 17:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No other conclusion was possible. That standard for whether sources are reliable enough to set an article is set by the participants at a particular AfD, and the consensus carries it. Sometimes an individual will think that consensus wrong, but there's no other way to determine how we apply the guidelines than to see how the majority of responsible people who are aware of the guideline want to do it in a particular case. If a person is determined to get an article removed, they normally try to attack the details of sourcing, because these are always subject to interpretation. They either convince others, or they do not. It's also the case that low-quality arguments at the AfD can affect the results: a person who tries to use the standards: very few people outside WP look at the page" (or the opposite) to find that argument ignored, and people may even get the reasonable impression that their judgment elsewhere may be at fault also. Very strong opposition to a page in spite of what most of us feel is the reasonable solution will correctly be perceived as idiosyncratic. Everyone active at deletion process on controverted pages will sometimes make arguments that are not accepted. The test of our suitability for community work is wether we accept the results, or keep trying to fight a last ditch argument DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that the arguments in favor of keep were exceptionally weak. Surely, in a discussion where weight of argument matters, those weak arguments should be discounted. As much as I'm trying to avoid a rerun of the AfD here, it's almost as if that's the inevitable result. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a weak keep is a weak keep, not a no-consensus. And I think most of participants in the AfD said keep, not "weak keep" We know you think their arguments are weak, you've said it many times. Problem is, people didn't agree with you. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if they didn't agree. The question is whether what was said was true, no? Your keep argument, for example, referenced who contributes to a site. Contributors have no impact on a site's notability or sourcing per our guidelines, why should that be considered a reasonable keep comment? What point am I missing here, exactly? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse because I was heavily involved since the last DRV. The only thing I want to say is procedural: All the people who !voted "keep" at the AfD are also people with hundreds, or in the case of me and DGG, thousands, of edits to DRV. I don't think it's right for a deletion review to be conducted by the AfD participants, because that's not a meaningful "review" so Thargor Orlando won't get any closure from that. However, if all the DRV regulars recuse then this may be a low-participation DRV and that doesn't do anyone any good either. Perhaps someone uninvolved could pop a neutrally-worded note on WP:AN asking for scrutiny from people who haven't weighed in before?—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. The closer applied policy and guideline using reasonable logic, and acted with extreme patience afterwards when approached by the nominator. There was no flaw in the closure. DRV is NOT AFD#4. "Deletion Review should not be used", if disagreeing with a closure and coming here to simply rehash the AFD arguments. Such falls outside the purposes of DRV. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Advise Thargor Orlando to follow the advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion, and to leave the article alone in the meantime. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential-COI Comment: Since views were requested from "irregulars", I note I would Endorse if I were not potentially conflicted. The flaw in the OP's logic is that the previous DRV (this same week!) did not present nothing new, according to the Community: since the new sources presented, however weak, were sufficient to warrant userfication, then that outcome was allowed by their consensus and performed by the closer. And since the article was returned to mainspace, however hasty, it has the opportunity for those and other sources to be added. There is a working draft at User:Robkall/OpEdNews full of sources for review that I would expect would be cleaned up in tandem and harmonized with the live version. Therefore it seems pointless to argue whether the lights should be off or on for this article in the first month of new source review, during which incorporating those sources is an ongoing consensus work; and instead the OP should wait to see what the article looks like after the smoke clears to determine whether to resubmit for AFD, however ill-advised. Frieda Beamy (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because the close reflected the consensus. I remember looking at the article a while back during a deletion discussion. I don't seem to ever have commented, presumably because I couldn't think of anything to say. Regarding the AFD, on notability issues what is notable is what the immediate consensus says it is. No amount of wise or foolish, logical or illogical argument makes it otherwise. "Improper" !votes are discounted, but that is all. Thincat (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a good close. Questions like "is this a reliable source" and "is this a substantial mention" are not binary propositions, they are inherently subjective questions. In this particular discussion, a lot of words were written (including a lot of frankly inappropriate badgering), but there is a clear consensus amongst the participants that in this case, the sources do meet our guidelines. The closer has picked this up and closed the discussion correctly. I do second the advice of User:SmokeyJoe above to the nominator here, that it might be best to just drop the stick and let this one go. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 May 2014

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
SEXINT (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I feel that there is at least a distinct lack of consensus on the deletion page for deletion. If you are to look at the articles for deletion page, there is a consensus among the editors that the content is notable. The only thing that is in dispute is that the article's name appears to be a neologism made up by a blog post to encourage page views. The total amount of !votes (I know they're not votes) were

  • Delete 2
  • Redirect 2
  • Keep 4

Note that I only counted !votes that were in bold, and only the first one indicated, not the other one. "X OR Y" I did not include Y. I also did not include discussion !votes which described them as 'wanting to keep'. I also did not include the 'rename' portion after the 'keep' due to clarity. However, the primary discussion and consensus on the articles for deletion page is the term is not notable, but the content, due to it being sourced to Arstechnica, Huffington Post, and Greenwald, was. The closing administrator's comment was specifically The result was delete. Ianmacm's policy-based argument is certainly the strongest. This is not sourced, it fails GNG, and even redirect is improbable the panda ₯’ 22:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC) I am going to contest all of the reasons given in the closing administrator's statement. The italics is an excerpt of the closing administrator's statement. The second italics in the 2nd reason is Ianmacm's argument, not the closing admin's.

  • The result was delete. -> I feel that the majority of the individuals !voting were voting to keep, based on the fact that greenwald, The Guardian, Huffington post, among other sources satisfied the general notability guideline. The consensus of that page was keep, but move.
  • Ianmacm's policy-based argument is certainly the strongest. -> Delete or Redirect to LOVEINT. Clear WP:GNG issues here. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, this is an obscure neologism that does not need its own article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC) is what Ianmacm's argument was. Yet, right below him, the user commented that we know it wasn't notable, that's why people were claiming that it was notable, but to rename the article to better reflect this. The main discussion on the talk page focuses on this.
  • This is not sourced, it fails GNG, and even redirect is improbable -> It was sourced to Arstechnica, Huffington post, Greenwald among other reliable sources.

My main issue is with the way that the closing administrator reviewed the consensus. I believe that it was interpreted incorrectly. According to him, there was no general notability of the content, but there was, just that the article's title was needing a name change. He only took one user's measure into closing, and in my own view, did not heed the deletion policy's consensus clause. The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate. I do not believe there was a consensus to delete the page, is my official objection to this deletion. I have engaged the admin on his talk page. as per the requirements of the deletion review. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DangerousPanda&oldid=609027082#Deletion_of_SEXINT Tutelary (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment vote count isn't everything. The strength of arguments is what carries the most weight. Since I can't view the deleted article, can you provide refs used before the AfD closed as delete? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the entirety of the sources that were listed. (credit of deletipedia) * http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/11/nsa-sexint-abuse-you%E2%80%99ve-all-been-waiting

________________________________________________________ Below the line are sources that I have found via a google search:

Tutelary (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think there are two strands to this. First, there's the question of whether we should have an article called SEXINT, and the answer based on the AfD is pretty clearly "no". That AfD concluded that SEXINT should be a redlink, and to that extent the AfD is definitely going to be endorsed here. But I don't think that's what the nominator is actually interested in. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

    Second, there's the question of whether Wikipedia should have any coverage of the NSA's alleged tracking of people's porn-surfing habbits. I think this is what the nominator's interested in. On this question, a number of potentially interesting sources were unearthed during the AfD. I think that none of these sources----certainly few of them----were cited in the article that got deleted, but it may well be that there's an article to be written based on them.

    Does this mean we should overturn to keep? Well, what we'd actually be keeping is different text based on different sources, which would have a different title (not SEXINT as we've already established). So I'm struggling to see any point or purpose in overturning.

    I think that what we should do is permit creation, in userspace, of a draft article about the NSA's internet porn-tracking activities. When the draft article's created, the nominator here is encouraged to come back to DRV for us to assess whether it can be moved back to mainspace. I don't think it's necessary for us to disturb DangerousPanda's close in any way.—S Marshall T/C 00:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem I had was that there was a consensus to keep the content, but to rename the article. In essence, what I am arguing is that rather than be deleted, since the content be notable, is that the consensus to delete was based on the subject of the name, SEXINT, rather than the content at hand. The article should have been kept, renamed, and not deleted. I believe that the closing administrator assessed the consensus wrongly. Tutelary (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm not really seeing a consensus to keep the content in that discussion. Sorry. I think there might be an article to be written based on the sources that AfD uncovered, but I think it probably should be a fresh article.—S Marshall T/C 01:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question The closing stated that it relied on an argument that read "Delete or Redirect to LOVEINT. Clear WP:GNG issues here. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, this is an obscure neologism that does not need its own article at the moment." So why was the article not redirected, since redirection is normally preferred to deletion? DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I am not even close to spotting any consensus for delete. Apart from the nominator, there was only one argument for deletion and there (the !vote commended in the close) redirect was given as an alternative. The comments of the two IPs and Thue were not for deletion. I could have endorsed no consensus, possibly redirect to LOVEINT, but why ever not keep? I do think the article should be about the topic and not the word but that is not our business here except that this may have confused the AFD discussion. Thincat (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn I'm not sure if this should be a keep or NC or rename, and I can understand the desire to delete given the issues. But at the least this should have been a redirect, and I'd say NC or keep both would have been a better close than deletion. There was no consensous this violated any policy. And in any case, the primary source for this passes WP:SPS given her position as a well respected expert in the field. Deletion isn't an irrational outcome, but deletion wasn't the consensus of that discussion. Hobit (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and I'm actually really confused as to why this was deleted- that option was discussed on the page. I know that we're not supposed to take these things personally but holy crap someone really really really has been trying super duper hard to get this article off of wikipedia since day one. Ogma the Scholar (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn The delete for being a neologism arguments were really incredibly poor - the content was clearly notable, so at least it should just be renamed. And in my reading, the "delete" position was skillfully argued down in the other comments. I am incredulous that anybody could think the delete arguments were strong enough to win. Thue (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 May 2014

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Image:McCoshFingaskDalek.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was claimed to be orphaned, but the original uploader apparnetly later took steps to ensure it wasn't (the image still being deleted). I am requesting a review of this (and other deleted uploads of this uploader) as I feel that perhaps policy has been applied a little to vigoursly leading to useful (and in some cases otherwise rarer) content being lost without it being properly assed for Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was claimed to be orphaned, but that was withdrawn and it was deleted as not having a valid license. The original upload comment seems to suggest it was a scan, and the comment on the deletion discussion, suggests it was deleted as the uploader presumably marked it as being GFDL. A common error "I created the image" by scanning it, doesn't grant the scanner any right to release it under such a license. I notice from the history permission was given for use in 2010, but then redeleted a minute later as being a derivative so again not able to be released under a free license. Is there some compelling evidence to suggest it isn't an image copyright of someone else? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
could I see the image so I can see what it was? Is there life after death as it were?

McCosh is a friend and would be keen for the image to be available to all via Wiki, he gave verbal permission. I know verbal is not enough but if given the permission e-mail address he would send in his permission.Rodolph (talk)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries it's the second page which includes email addresses and a boiler plate permission. Note the license granted will have to be broad, i.e. it can't be just Wikipedia can use it, it'll need to be anyone can use it. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 May 2014

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ed Alleyne-Johnson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The artist has had at least one charting album release in the UK and has a following across the world. He was a member of the band New Model Army for a period (Wikipedia New Model Army page [14]), he played with them and also had his own solo set. The band had a number of UK singles and album chart hits in the UK and elsewhere (Wikipedia band discography [15]). He has released at least 8 albums (released by record companies i.e. not personally produced). A video posted on YouTube showing a street performance of a track from his Purple Electric Violin Concerto album has received over 2 million views at today's date. Whilst YouTube views are not necessarily an indication of fame in this case the views and the comments made indicate that the artist has a wide following and is relatively well known. There is also a video of the artists performance on the Later With Jules Holland UK TV Show (Link to video: [16]). This is a major UK music show and has been broadcast for many years.

The deletion was based upon the artist not fitting the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, the original article was not the best (but certainly not the worst). I have contacted the administrator who oversaw the deletion. He or his representative responded, pointing to an album that charted in the UK, and suggesting that I commence a Deletion Review to restore the page. I will review the page and edit, if the article is reinstated, check for accuracy and edit where appropriate.

I very much hope that the page is reinstated to enable others to find information on Ed Alleyne-Johnson, as I did last night. I found the old Wiki page published elsewhere, with a comment regarding the deletion. Jamiller63 (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC) -->[reply]

  • restore appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO#2 per [17]. Further, that discussion wasn't exactly well attended and the meeting of our SNG would probably have been enough. No objection to a relist if someone really thinks there is an exception here, but I don't see it. Hobit (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please restore both article and talk page for discussion.
  • Overturn and Restore Sources provided establish notability. This person clearly passes both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. He has been covered by multiple RS. Tarc argument is ridiculous, according to him we should delete all of Wikipedia because all guidelines say may. If all guidelines say may so we can accept it as is for what it's worth. Valoem talk contrib 23:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's nothing to get ones' Fruit of the Looms all bunched up, so dial it down a notch there, sport. Sub-notability guidelines are not used as an end-around for general notability, and I highlighted the use of "may" to show that these are not hard & fast rules that must be obeyed if a single criteria is technically met. There still should be some press, some reliable source coverage out there, to justify an article. Tarc (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, given the low level of participation at the AFD, it seems reasonable to relist so we can discuss the claim to notability (which is not really a discussion to have here). Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Active&oldid=609494674"