Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 183.87.201.141 (talk) at 12:02, 22 May 2018 (→‎Recent 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 June 23}}</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 June 23}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 June 23|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.
  • Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

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.

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 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".

Recent discussions

14 May 2018

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Andy Cook (footballer, born 1990) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since the deletion decision in June 2017, Cook has continued to be reported in reliable sources. He has been the leading scorer in the National League (the feeder league to the Football League) in the 2017/18 season - here - and scored in the final that saw his side promoted to EFL League Two for the 2018/19 season - here and here. Independent sources include here and here. There is also an anomaly in that no fewer than 23 other players in the Tranmere Rovers F.C. squad have articles, but not the player who is not only the team's leading scorer, but the entire league's leading scorer - included in the league's team of the season here. The reason given, per the guidance at WP:NFOOTY, is that unlike the other players he has so far not played at Football League level. In my view that guideline should not be imposed inflexibly in exceptional cases, and discretion should be used to recreate the article in this case (and any similar cases in future). Further, it is clear that (per criterion 3) "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". To put it bluntly, we are here to provide information on notable individuals, not hide it. This has been discussed with the original closing administrator and others at User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Andy Cook (footballer, born 1990), with no consensus and the suggestion that it be raised here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No need to overturn at this time: Still fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Also, there is no evidence to pass WP:GNG Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Sources provided are merely local news reporting or routine match reporting which does not deal with the subject in significant detail. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify if his team has been promoted to a fully professional league with effect from next season then he will almost certainly play in a match in that league shortly after the season starts, which will make him notable. Hut 8.5 17:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Deletion was correct at the time, but new information has come to light. Whereas Tranmere has been promoted to League Two it is effectively inevitable that Andy Cook will play in a professional league in August, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we don't create articles in anticipation of notability. Fenix down (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I want to argue for a restore, but I can't. Typically with footballers we treat WP:NFOOTY as a sacred bright-line test. I think Cook is close to notability. There are several articles written about him, and he was one of the best players on what I believe is a fully professional team in a technically semi-pro league. Even though I think it's fine, these articles could also be attacked as WP:MILL as they're about his form or his new contract. That being said, we are probably within a two or three month span of knowing if he passes WP:NFOOTY which would put this debate to bed. Maybe slightly too soon to restore, but not by much. SportingFlyer talk 21:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the underlying reasons for the deletion still apply. Cook still does not meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of labouring the point - that is a guideline..."...it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 May 2018

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

This page was speedily deleted under section G11. The page was created as a stub by myself in 2006 as one of several hundred articles on national trade union organizations around the world in an effort to increase international labour presence on W. In speaking with the editor who tagged the page for deletion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Largoplazo#Re:_Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Convergencia_Sindical) – the page had apparently devolved into a promotional page. This does not seem to be a reason for G11, but rather a need for editing or rollback of inappropriate edits. The Admin who executed the deletion entered the conversation but seemed to opine that if G11 was not appropriate then A7 would suffice. I’ve been away from W for a good number of years (although I still have the watchlist… :), but I am confident that national labour organizations qualify as notable.

Convergencia Sindical is a trade union centre in Panama. Ave Peru Final, Casa Np. 3936, Apartdao 10536, Zone 4, Panama City. Phone 507.225.6642 (from Trade Unions of the Word, ICTUR, John Harper) Bookandcoffee (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. I've tempundeleted part of the history; right up to the point when somebody came along and turned it into Spanish, introduced the copyvio text, and turned it into a promotion. Up to that point, it was a stub, and possibly wouldn't have survived a pass through WP:AFD, but it certainly wasn't something that needed WP:CSD. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't take long to turn up a few decent sources:
Maybe not good enough to pass WP:NCORP, but maybe so. Certainly good enough to get past WP:A7 by a longshot. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original version of the article is "It's a...", pretty much the archetypal A7. However, it's my understanding that a discussion directly with the deleting admin is encouraged if not required before DRV. I would have no issue putting the non-spam versions of this in userspace or draft. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the spam/copyvio/Spanish issue could have been fixed by reverting to an earlier version, and I don't think that earlier version qualifies for speedy deletion. It doesn't say the subject is a trade union, it says it's a National trade union center, meaning a national-level federation of trade unions - something like the Trades Union Congress in the UK. That suggests it may well be one of the larger labour organisations in Panama, and I think it's enough to avoid A7. Hut 8.5 18:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Clearly far from being a case for either WP:G11 or WP:A7, or, for that matter, any other speedy deletion criterion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Muhammad Arif Butt – Endorse. Other than the nom (and creator of the article), unanimous consensus that the AfD close was correct.
I would encourage User:Ma'az to take a few steps back and think about the big picture of why we're all here. Folks who have been valuable contributors to the encyclopedia for many years tend to avoid arguments and confrontations. They spend the time to think about what they want to say, say it calmly, then give everybody else a chance to express their opinion. It's not about winning battles, it's about building a resource for our readers. Sometimes that means your point of view, no matter how firmly you believe it to be correct, is simply not going to win the day. Accept that and move on to doing something else that gets us closer to our goal of writing an encyclopedia. – -- RoySmith (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Muhammad Arif Butt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin has probably interpreted the consensus incorrectly by discarding keep votes completely while giving too much weightage to delete votes. The keep votes, which were based on relevant Wikipedia guidelines, were sidelined by delete votes that basically said fails WP:RS, WP:GNG were considered better arguments. The article is supported by these Dawn References, Brecorder Sources, TheNews, PakObserver,etc. In addition it is also supported by Urdu sources like this Jang_Source, Nawa_i_Waqt and Daily_Pakistan. I believe all these sources are reliable sources (in addition to many other sources mentioned in the deleted article) are sufficient to support WP:GNG. The result could have been no consensus or relist but it was not certainly a delete in haste. I also tried to take the matter to closing admin’s talkpage twice.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No new sources were added that were refuted by delete voters. Those who voted keep judged the same references.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I've looked through the first bunch you've listed here as the article is supported by, and they utterly trivial, none of them address the subject directly and in detail, they are mostly (if not entirely) mentioning in relation to his "job" or things he's said as part of his duties in his "job". i.e. the same coverage anyone in the same role would get, unless that role is inherently notable - it isn't - then these don't do anything to establish notability. This looks like you are just rehashing the failed arguments of the AFD something DRV is not for. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those mentions in Dawn,Brecorder,etc. are trivial by any means. Those sources are related almost entirely to subject, and his role/roles are notable. Dean, Director, VC, Professor_Emeritus.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not that we are here to reargue the afd as already noted, but I'm happy to be humored. Take the dawn reference you mention as supporting the article [1] or the one your specify here [2]. I'd be fascinated if you can point out any biographical at all in those which are about the subject, let alone covering him, directly and in detail - you know as the GNG requires. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These references [3], [4], Brecorder does address the subject, infact he is mentioned in the main topic. I don't get the super-skepticism over these sources and the strict interpretation of GNG.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I take it then in the two refrences I mention which you've previously stood by you can't point out any biographical information addressing the subject directly and in detail. Let's try the same with Brecorder you just mention. Can you show me 3 sentences in that which are in some way biographical about the subject of the article? There is no super-skepticism or strict interpretation, it's the standard interpretation as laid out, it's no one else fault the sources are all trivial and are not *about* the subject. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact let's not be super-strict, forget three sentences, how about two sentences in that source which are biographical, addressing the subject directly and in detail? ---81.108.53.238 (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states, adresses the subject, more than a trivial mention and infact doesn't need to be the main topic of the source material (which is also mentioned in main topic here). Now if you are to impose your super-strict interpretation on GNG, then we may play semantics all day long.  M A A Z   T A L K  22:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not be shy the GNG says ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail", I haven't asked you for these articles to be the main topic, I've aske you for two sentences which cover the subject - that's a huge leap to suggest any article which covers one subject in two sentences of it has then become the main topic. But ok, I'm a reasonable person, take that same article again Brecorder and give me even one sentence, which address the subject here with some level of detail (i.e. more than just staging the job title), you know something which tells me about the person themselves, not about something the person has said. No doubt you'll see that as some super strict interpretation, "what GNG wants the articles to actually talk about the subject of the article?". I'l note the example of a trivial mention given by WP:GNG and I don't think what you've shown here even reaches that level --81.108.53.238 (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But these references [5], [6], [7] do give significant coverage to the article and these sources are almost entirely related to him, infact the subject is mentioned in the main heading. Significant coverage means, more than a trivial mention. WP:Trivial mention;
A footnote indicates the meaning of trivial mention using an example: Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
Now comparing this with the sources mentioned related to the article, if somebody think those are trivial, then I think that's wrong. I think, there's no point quarreling over this further, lets agree to disagree and humbly respect each other's opinions. Lets allow others to participate as well.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have been through this, they are trivial, they do not address the subject directly and in detail - you have been asked across multiple of your sources to show even 1 sentence which covers the subject to some level of detail, not just mentioning there name and job title. That you apparently can't do that, should be telling you that these do not cover the subject directly and in detail. So yes you are right this is telling you exactly what's wrong, your ability to actually comprehend the article tell you absolutely nothing about this subject. Your are right there is no point in debating this further since you just stick your fingers in your ears and apparently refuse to listen. "lets agree to disagree and humbly respect each other's opinions" -Huh? isn't that why we are here in the first place, you couldn't respect the consensus of opinions at AFD who told you what you are being told here? --81.108.53.238 (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are entirely related to the subject, the sources even record 2 or 3 paragraphs addressed by the subject. I don't think these are trivial mentions. And about not respecting consensus; I brought this up at DRV because the arguments on both sides were more or less the same WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC and with 4:5 keep, delete ratio, you cannot by any means call it a clear consensus. Its not a three-fourth, two-third or even three-fifth consensus. In my opinion, common sense suggests that it would've been better to relist it or close it as no consensus.  M A A Z   T A L K  00:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"related to the subect" "addressed by the subject" - how about address the subject directly and in detail, which as we've discussed in the actual standard. And why not quote directly one of those sentences here showing that it addresses the in some level of detail, i.e. not just mentioning their name and job title? As you've been repeatedly asked to do. It's not a vote count and wikipedia works to a standard of rough consensus, arguments which are weak etc. get given lower or even no weight in the discussion. So if I say had !voted for "keep - well known jazz pianist", then I would expect it to be challenged and when I failed to produce any sources given no weight - or quite likely given little to no weight because it's not what the article says at all. Likewise if someone keeps on claiming the sources help him meet WP:GNG when challenged about them just keeps blustering and failing to produce anything to show that the sources cover him directly and in detail, then those arguments are likely to be given little or no weight. At this stage absent you actually producing some new sources which do cover the subject directly and in detail and you being able to quote a sentence which is about the subject not merely saying their job title and mentioning their name, there is little point in me continuing to engage in this debate, it should be totally apparent to you what I'm asking so anything else will be seen by whoever closes this for what it is. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do think that those sources discuss the subject directly, as he is even mentioned in the main heading of news. Talking about significant coverage, I think the issue is coverage here. I think coverage can mean any coverage related to the subject. There's no specificity attached in GNG. Also the entire line reads that Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. I don't think that the sources I shared in this thread are non-trivial as there are paragrapghs attributed or related to subject. So, in a nutshell, we basically have a difference of opinion on this, no big issue. That's healthy, as it may be good for better making of wikipedia rules in the future and better explaining of some terms. I was thinking about discussing this issue on some forum, but i think it was possible if this issue was brought up before the article was AFDed as now it would seem to disrupt this DRV.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They do not discuss the subject, since they say pretty much nothing about him, there is no discussion. (You might want to look that word up in the the dictionary, since you apparently don't understand it). Being mentioned in the title isn't discussion, being in the title isn't talking about someone or something in detail. The specificity in GNG for the nth time "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail" - where is the detail? If the GNG meant any old mention of the persons name, it would say that, if it meant any coverage even vaguely related to the subject, then it would say that. You know if doesn't say that, it says addressed the subject directly and in detail. So for the nth time, show me even one sentence in those which discuss the subject directly and in detail, not just mention his name and job title. You are still struggling to do that and still just responding with bluster. You interpret the GNG against the plain and simple meaning, you interpret the GNG against what everyone is telling you. Please continue to delude yourself on this until the DRV is closed giving your opinion on the matter no weight. Either that or actually accept what people are telling you here and have been telling you and find the sources which actually will help establish notability. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bring it to ANI or COIN - Ma'az has failed to link the discussion he had with Spartaz, and Ma'az has shown perfect example of WP:IDHT during the discussion. The creation of this article was itself very suspicious. Ma'az registered on 7 Novmeber and already created this article. On 8 November, David.moreno72 had declined AFC of Ma'az, Draft:Arif Butt,[8] but it was soon recreated by Ma'az and accepted by Samee.[9] Samee had re-activated his account after 6 months of inactivity and accepted a few non-notable articles of Ma'az through AFCs.
Ma'az has no idea how AfD works and it has been seen before as well.[10] I am seeing this to be either an issue of WP:CIR or deep WP:COI that Ma'az is frequently attempting to prove this non-notable subject a notable with his forumshopping. This matter needs to be better solved out at ANI or COIN. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite bizarre to say the least. I see no point of such a comment on this forum. If you want to go to other noticeboards, then you would've gone there. I think, the point of such comments is probably to sway the conversation on another tangent, so that the purpose of this review is lost. Also, it could be a way of intimidating me, i.e an indirect way of saying that "if you don't follow wikipedia the way I want you to follow, I'll try to impose sanctions upon you,etc." This is absolutely terrible, and the way of sugar-coating it with Wikipedia terms like IDHT, providing diffs as if trying to show that we are v.clever and we are only following wikipedia rules,etc. Here, we are talking about WP:GNG, and just an article. This is an absolute abnormal reaction. No normal wikipedian thinks or behaves like this. When a normal wikipedian sees an article in which he finds mistakes, he just corrects it, or on an AFD/DRV, he just gives his opinion relating to the article and moves on. No wikipedian thinks like this. This is all stemming from the fact that I were invloved with some AFDs and content dispute in some Pakistan-Indian related articles [11] [12] [13]. And that's the exact reason, I was trying to tell the admin on his talkpage, that the content dispute may have a factor on this AfD. Anyways, I actually didn't want to get involve in this too much but, the same people with which you had content dispute, their votes coming in at the 11th hour of the AfD one after another, I think, even if somebody is least skeptic would think that there could be something going on like sabotage, WP:Votestacking,etc. So I also had some reasons of bringing these things to noticeboard but I believe in assuming good faith and ignored these things. Not to mention, that the same user took me to SPI before on more or less of the same reason [14]. Why can't he say in simple words that he want me to be blocked. Coming to his evidences related to my article. Yes, i created the draft of the article; is creating a draft a crime on wikipedia? Is defending an article, DRV,etc. a crime on Wikipedia? If you think, its a crime, than you can take me to ANI as many times as you like. If you think my article is not notable,etc. you can easily AfD,CSD it,etc. Wikipedian is a free encyclopedia and the policies are user friendly. You should try to target edits instead of targetting users. Exaggerated reactions against users is seen as harassment, which is infact a crime on wikipedia.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have again failed to address why you are being obsessed with a non-notable subject. DRV is not for repeating AFD's argument and trying your luck for rescuing a totally redundant article. "normal wikipedian" do get over the clear outcome and drops the stick. But that's not you. You have been disruptive in AFDs for a long time now which is becoming concerning. That was the point. You think that we edit same articles yet you are sbocked when we edit same AFD. Makes no sense. Same can be said for you that you canvassed "keep" voters but they were contrary to policy and looked disruptive, while "delete" votes were opposite. AGF is not a suicide pact, using "AGF" as a scapegoat for your disruptive attitude is not even a good idea. Your above bludgeoning shows you are fighting tooth and nail over a non-notable article. Such battleground mentality is not going to help you. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, same can be said about you; why are you being so obsessed by this article? And I'm not obsessed by this article, I just think that its notable. These are just all the Dawn References (atleast 12) [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] there are also brecorder,thenews,pakobserver sources,etc. And i brough it to DRV because the arguments on both sides were more or less the same WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC and with 4:5 keep, delete ratio, you cannot by any means call it a clear consensus. Its not a three-fourth, two-third or even three-fifth consensus. In my opinion, common sense suggests that it would've been better to relist it or close it as no consensus. And your allegations are feeling quite personal now. First it was SPI, then you intimidated of ANI, COI,etc. now making absolute baseless allegations about disruptive AfDs and canvassing, also using emotionally loaded wikipedia terms like battleground mentality, all this is equivalent of saying Don't involve yourself in content dispute with Indian-related articles otherwise I will disparage you, intimidate and threaten you by imposing sanctions upon you, and will try to make wikipedia extremely unpleasant for you. This is all so wrong, and I hope sanity prevails in the end. I'm all for things like truth, justice,objectivity ASSUMING GOOD FAITH,etc. and against injustice,assuming bad faith and deception.  M A A Z   T A L K  00:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse based on the reading of the AfD, the closer's decision was proper and reasoned. Several of the Keep votes did not argue properly, and Delete arguments had the ability to look through the provided sourcing to influence their vote. SportingFlyer talk 21:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments on both sides were more or less the same WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC and with 4:5 keep, delete ratio, you cannot by any means call it a clear consensus. Its not a three-fourth, two-third or even three-fifth consensus. In my opinion, common sense suggests that it would've been better to relist it or close it as no consensus. Honestly, don't you think relist or No consensus is a better option.  M A A Z   T A L K  00:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. I have stated my position - my reading of the AfD would have been the same as the closer's, and I have no interest in arguing about it any further. Wikipedia is not a democracy. SportingFlyer talk 05:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse fair reading of the discussion. The argument that the subject meets the GNG has been pretty thoroughly rebutted, and the sources linked above are clearly not examples of significant coverage of the subject. Some people tried to argue that "professor emeritus" constitutes a distinguished professor appointment, when in fact it just means he's retired. That leaves the argument that he meets WP:PROF as the vice-chancellor of a university, which is rather dubious as it appears to be an acting position. Given that I don't see how a close other than Delete is possible. Hut 8.5 18:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are atleast 12 DAWN references that i found [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] which i think are sufficient for passing GNG in addition to pakobserver,brecorder sources,etc. And about criteria 5 of Academic, the Emeritus thing, it reads an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. Emeritus is not common in Pakistan and that's the exact argument that @ElKevbo: made on the AfD. About criteria 6, it was discussed in detail in talkpage of article, which is deleted now, the general standards, newly appointed post on vacant seat, PU system, etc. all suggested that it should be simply referred to as VC and that was also the final long-standing version of the article. Anyways, I'm sticking to GNG for now to avoid taking the discussion on another tangent, as I think GNG is a strong argument for this article in itself.  M A A Z   T A L K  00:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG requires that at least one or two sources have to cover the subject directly and in detail. It must be more than a passing mention and it must devote a substantial amount of text to the subject himself - I'd say at least a few paragraphs. Take [39] which is in your list above. The only coverage of the subject there is "chemical engineering and technology Prof Arif Butt...briefed the governor on the development of their faculties". That's not significant coverage of the subject, his name is only mentioned in passing as part of a long list of other people. Or take [40]. This only reported that the subject attended funeral prayers, along with a long list of other people. That's not significant coverage of the subject either. Or take [41] where he's mentioned as part of a long list of people who attended a meeting. Or take [42] where he's namechecked as the person who authorised some offices to be sealed. I could go on but I don't think that any of those sources is enough to qualify, even if Dawn is a reliable source. To meet the GNG you need to find a source which covers the subject in more depth.
If you think that being a professor emeritus in Pakistan is equivalent to being a named professor in other countries then you'll need to provide evidence. Judging from [43] it appears to have a similar status to other places, and it's possible that just by being an acting vice-chancellor who was a professor before appointment he gets the title anyway. Hut 8.5 10:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt some of the sources i shared have trivial mentions. But there are also those that have non-trivial mentions like: [44] (the main news attirbuted to the subject), [45] (3 or 4 paragraphs related to subject), [46] (entire news related to subject), [47] (2-3 paragraphs), [48] (all news related to subject, also mentioned in main heading). I think these are significant and subject should pass GNG. And about the second point, yes, you shared the "HEC" source. I think HEC is the same body that nominates VCs and Emeritus, so its a reliable source. The subject is Professor Emeritus, and I think you and this discussion seems to imply that the subject passes criteria 5, therefore he passes subject specific guidelines and passes WP:N. So, would you not reconsider?  M A A Z   T A L K  20:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source has to actually be about the subject or devote substantial coverage to the subject, not just mentioning him prominently. [49] is about a decision to announce some new programmes at the university, it mentions in passing that the subject announced it. This is not significant coverage of the subject. [50] is again a report of something the subject announced. [51] just reports that the subject was at a meeting and was part of a delegation, which isn't significant coverage either. [52] is a very brief report of something else the subject said. This newspaper's willingness to report minor administrative announcements at the university makes me think they may well be recycled press releases in which case they'd be effectively worthless. [53] also looks like this. I don't see how the link I posted demonstrates that "professor emeritus" is equivalent to a named chair or distinguished professor appointment, and you haven't offered any further reasoning as to why. Hut 8.5 20:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources that mention them together and my reading of these sources do suggest an equivalent position. [54] [55] [56]. Anyways, I think we can forget about this issue now, as its obvious where this DRV is heading, and I might be blamed of Bludgeoning again. No further comments by me here.  M A A Z   T A L K  15:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologize if you see it that way. Actually, the DRV was becoming a little personal, so I sort of had to reply something. And as far as discussing guidelines are concerned, I think, it was a healthy discussion and adds to our knowledge and experience. Happy Editing :)  M A A Z   T A L K  15:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A correct reading of the debate, after a valid discounting of those parts of the keep !votes that were based on a misreading of guidelines. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo – Wrong Venue. This is a content issue, which DRV doesn't delve into. Try to build consensus with your fellow editors on the article talk page. – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my closing statement, this is actively being discussed on the article talk page. Anybody who is interested is encouraged to join that discussion and help form a consensus. Once a consensus has been arrived at, any editor is free to implement it without need for a heavyweight process like DRV. My speedy closing this DRV was not to quash discussion, just to get all the discussion centralized in one place. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was nominated for deletion and merged over one year ago. However, the subject has received an additional wave of press coverage because a second bust of Cristiano Ronaldo was created by the same artist. There are now two original works of art that have received significant secondary press coverage. I've tried expanding the article further, and asked one particular editor for help getting the community to reassess notability, but the article keeps getting redirected, and I don't know what other options I have. I'd be fine with someone renominating the article again for deletion, but Number 57 seems to prefer redirecting and advising me to "[do] something productive". See Talk:Bust_of_Cristiano_Ronaldo#Merge and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Public_Art#Bust_of_Cristiano_Ronaldo for related discussions. If this is not the correct use of this venue, I do apologize, but I don't know what else to do at this point. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 May 2018

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

I think this deletion was done in error since Rosa Honung is one of the more known indie labels, not just because their production[57] that includes artists such as Asta Kask, Mob 47, Strebers, Radioaktiva räker, Livin' Sacrifice, Incest Brothers and The Troggs among others. Rosa Honung is also notable for their controversial business practices such as registering a band name as a trademark and refusing the band to use it.[58][59] The admin deleting the article also claimed "all references are dead links" and that I believe is incorrect. Wikipedia defines an important indie label as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable" and Rosa Honung matches that. // Liftarn (talk)

  • The four sources in the article were [60], [61], [62], and youtube, and yes, the first three are all dead. The third was even still tagged {{Död länk}}. —Cryptic 14:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still available via Wayback Archive[63] and other sources are still alive like [64] and [65] and so on. They are used in the Swedish version of the article, sv:Rosa Honung. // Liftarn (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you decline to put them in the article? Deb (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some trigger happy admin deleted the article before I had time to do that. // Liftarn (talk)
  • I have a hard time believing this is one of the better-known indie labels. Book searches are turning up very little. I'm having problems seeing the sources provided (pay wall?) Hobit (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Swedish label so you would probably have to look at Swedish sources (but they did have an international subsidiary called Pink Honey Records that published both Swedish bands as well as some obscure US metal band called Kiss[66]). They pay wall can be bypassed by going via the Wayback Machine.[67][68][69] There is at least one book used as source.[70] // Liftarn (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think suggesting the link to Kiss is somewhat misleading. The other stuff published by Pink Honey seems pretty limited, i.e. they published one Kiss album, and according to discogs it was an unofficial release, according to the link you gave it's a bootleg... --81.108.53.238 (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn WP:A7. A7 says, If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. The article (which I've tempundeleted) says that the label has published records from a half-dozen bluelinked artists. I don't know if that's enough to get past AfD, but it should be enough to get past A7. This has been A7'd three times, but never gotten a real review at AfD, which it deserves. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd just point out that it also says The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. The creator wasn't been able to make any credible claim or supply any helpful references when I asked, and none of the bluelinked articles except The Troggs contained any evidence of meeting the notability criteria for musicians. Glad to see that User:Liftarn has finally started making improvements to these articles in the last few days. Hopefully he will be able to clean up the main article as well - note that it was not I who protected it, nor did I request for that to be done. Deb (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion per RoySmith. Publishing records by one or more notable artists is a sufficient claim of significance. There is no reason to assume that this claim is clearly non-credible. The idea that "sources are dead" is a reason to delete is problematic when sources are not even required to pass A7. Regards SoWhy 16:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that significant improvements have been made - both to this and to the linked articles - by the creator and others since this discussion started. We have moved well past the stage where "overturn" has any meaning. If the article had been in its present state when I deleted it, or if the creator had been willing to supply genuine references instead of expecting others to hunt for them on Swedish wikipedia, the course of events would have been completely different. Supplying misleading "references", as he did, is worse than not supplying any. Deb (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the deleted version showed that several notable artists was published by the label. // Liftarn (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it did not show any such thing. Deb (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy and take to AfD The fact that the links are dead does not mean the claim is not credible. Is it enough for notability? Probably not, but it's enough to get past CSD. Smartyllama (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Vascon Engineers

Reference to the discussion at [[71]]; We had no such intention to promote our company Vascon Engineers on Wikipedia. We wanted to have a Wikipedia page just like other real estate company. Mr. Mansoor (LinkedIn) has left the company in March and it was not coincidence. We are not here to promote our company, even if the article has only two sentence, we are okay with it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Recent&oldid=842432189"