Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DELREV)
Jump to: navigation, search
This page deals with the Deletion discussion process. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

Administrator instructions

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

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



Deletion Review may be used:

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

Deletion Review should not be used:

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

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



Before listing a review request, please:

  1. discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #Purpose.
  2. please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

In the deletion review discussion, please:

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

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion[edit]

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

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]


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


Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

}} ~~~~

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

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

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

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

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


Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 August 30}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 August 30|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is different than the deletion review's section header:


Active discussions[edit]

30 August 2015[edit]

29 August 2015[edit]


2600hz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was being debated as valid. The editor who nominated it for deletion did not work to improve the article first, and contributors to the article contested that. Then the original editor who nominated it started working with another contributor to clean up the page after the deletion was contested, so that the page could be brought up to date and additional notable sources could be cited. I believe the page was deleted because it reached the 7-day period for review and the majority answers were Delete, but the Deletes were specified prior to the page receiving a clean-up. Per Wikipedia rules, an article that may be relevant and is just poorly written or cited should first have the opportunity to be updated before being nominated for deletion. You can see an active discussion (still ongoing) about the content of the page here with the editor who originally nominated the page for deletion. Darren Schreiber (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse - consensus was assessed correctly by the closing admin. User:Darren Schreiber is the creator of the deleted (and later userfied) article, and declared a COI on his user page. (Disclosure is required per WP:AFDFORMAT which applies also to DRV.) Kraxler (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

28 August 2015[edit]

Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion‎[edit]

Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I hadn't realised that this category was being discussed, and I am quite surprised that it was included in the bundle of other categories to be deleted. The Order of the Netherlands Lion article says that it "could therefore be considered the Dutch equivalent of the Order of the Bath," and "since 1980 the Order has been primarily used to recognise merit in the arts, science, sport and literature." I can only assume that this was included by mistake, since the subcats of Category:Order of Orange-Nassau were not nominated. I would also like Category:Grand Masters of the Order of the Netherlands Lion, Category:Commanders of the Order of the Netherlands Lion and Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion restored. There was no specific discussion of any of these categories in the deletion discussion. StAnselm (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the discussion may have been open for two months, but I didn't know it was going on. The first indication I had was when I saw the category had been removed from Ellen van Wolde (for whom the category evidently was defining). StAnselm (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
This gets back to the content of all previous CfDs about awards. The argument is that it is not defining for her. It is her occupation that is defining - while the award is merely a sign of appreciation for the work that she did in exercising her occupation. This is the typical argument that has been used throughout all these discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I closed the discussion and just wanted to make a brief comment. I didn't elaborate on the reasons for closing it as I did, but note that this nomination was one of a series of several CFD discussions regarding these types of awards bestowed by countries. In all of the recent discussions, there has been a consensus to delete. By pure vote count, this one looks close, but taking all of the related discussions into account (which I did), and especially in light of the categorization guidelines, I don't think it's that close. (I endorse my own close, for what that is worth.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (as the nominator): the recent discussions that User:Good Olfactory is referring to are the ones that pop up in this [[2]] list. There are quite a few of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Alas, none of us can watch everything. I would have !voted keep on every one of the deletions. Categories are navigational deices and meant to be useful. Looking for other people who have received a notable award is useful. That they include major heads of state of other countries does not detract from it. For articles, we can overcome even a justified clear consensus deletion by writing a better article. There's no such mechanism for categories. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn. From my reading, the nomination statement and the bulk of the delete comments on the CfD were about political honors, and inapplicable to categories such as this one devoted to artistic/scientific honors. So as an off-topic afterthought to a long list of other categories, it has not really had a proper discussion. No prejudice against relisting individually. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

26 August 2015[edit]

What's 9 + 10[edit]

What's 9 + 10 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Has enough sources for inclusion, prematurely speedy-deleted Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse textbook example of non-notable web content. Had no sources at all at time of deletion, only reference was to knowyourmeme. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • endorse fair close, and fair enough opinions at AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse the only source cited was [3], which is clearly not a reliable source. There were no assertions of significance, the article's only content was a description of the video. Hut 8.5 19:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow Recreation Because Knowyourmeme is reliable, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_158#Know_your_Meme, and I've found another mention/source, Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Struck the recommendation as this is the nominator and that counts as their vote. It might be helpful to explain how that single source meet the needs of WP:GNG ort is even a WP:RS. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 12:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Per this (and several similar discussions) Know Your Meme is a user-contributed wiki with some degree of oversight from an editorial staff. This particular entry has not been "confirmed" by the editorial staff, so it's effectively a page on an open wiki. An entry which has been confirmed might not be a terrible source for some information within an article about a meme but it's hardly something to use to demonstrate notability. The discussion you cite does not demonstrate that the site is reliable, only that one person thinks it's reliable. The Volokh Conspiracy is a legal blog, a very brief post there doesn't establish the notability of a meme. Hut 8.5 13:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy. Knowyourmeme is a reliable source for explanations of the origins of viral online content; I see no discussion to show that inclusion it in is a reliable source for notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Endorse and Salt. There's an extremely low chance of reliable sourcing with this one other than Knowyourmeme. Not notable at all and possibly a vandalism target. -- (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Valid application of WP:CSD#A7, and valid reading of the sentiment expressed in the AfD for a speedy close. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

25 August 2015[edit]


4shared (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Notability seems to have increased. Worth noting on Italian Wikipedia that an article creased in 2010 has been undeleted and is still up in 2015. The 2010 nomination problem was that it was not notable, and the 2012 deletions cited this reason as well. Since then, it has received some notable coverage.

Find sources: "4shared" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR · free images · wikipedia library Using 'news' I found it:

Part of the initial concern was that the article was created as an advertisement, I do not know how it originally looked, but it should be possible to recreate is as a kind of stub to simply mention how it is considered a notable file-sharing website. Ranze (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I had speedy-closed this, but it was pointed out to me that my reason for doing so was flawed, so I've reverted my close -- RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • permit recreation The G4 speedy deletion were mostly invalid as the new article was different to the old. Also A7 speedy delete was invalid as there were claims of importance and the promotion was not so bad as a G11 would apply. However I did not see suitable independent sources. SO I wolud recommend any recreator find references first. Original AFD was valid however. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Unsalt. While not all the linked sources may be reliable it still is enough for a recreator to propose new content for this article. -- (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

IFA Paris[edit]

IFA Paris (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello together, so we are quite a big French fashion school called IFA Paris. Our entry existed at until about a week ago. You can check the talk and history page, but basically we did update some information, but it might have sounded too promotional for some people and we worked hard to reduce the promotions and edit the text as well as incorporate information only with trusted sources. We did have sources for everything we claimed, but they weren't good enough for some of the Wikipedia community. We were working on removing information and updating sources when all of a sudden the page was gone. FYI, the French and Chinese versions of the Wikipedia page still exist. We know there obviously is a conflict of interest, so please can someone write a neutral article on IFA Paris and reinstate this page? Thanks. Nikki38394724 (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think what you want to do is add your entry to Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences#Schools, colleges, and universities. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore or permit rewriting The final version was not promotional. Earlier versions were highly promotional, but the change was not noticed in the afd. I note that it is a degree granting school, but it would very much help to write a replacement article if there were some information about accreditation.--the statement in their FAQ is ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ DGG (talkcontribs) 20:41, 25 August 2015

Thanks so much, I have put a request where you said. Hope the format is ok there. Any idea on how long it usually takes until someone gets around to writing it? Thanks! Nikki38394724 (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It varies widely. Any volunteer can choose to accept any of the requests on that page at any time, or it may be that no one will ever accept a particular request. Frankly I no longer recommend use of that page because of frequent long delays. DES (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • keep deleted It still had promotional aspects when deleted, but the primary reason for deletion was a lack of independent sources establishing notability. I wouldn't object to a copy being recreated in draft space under the AfC project, and subject to AfC review before being moved back to mainspace. However, I and other editors sought for sources and were unable to find any that established notability. DES (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
As for "We were working on removing information and updating sources when all of a sudden the page was gone." the nominator was notified in this edit about problems of promotionaolism and lack of sources before the Afd was opened, and in this edit of responses to messages the nominator had posted on the talk page of the AfD. In addition, the nominator posted several times on the talk page of the article during the AfD, asking that the deletion process be stopped in response to various changes in the article. Some of these involved removing promotional content, but none involved adding significant reliable sources. But in any case, the nominator here was very much aware of the AfD and of concerns about sourcing prior to the AfD, and did not provide useful additional sources. DES (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Searches revealed no notable coverage. I fully agree with the AFD. -- (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

24 August 2015[edit]

Alex Gilbert[edit]

Alex Gilbert (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Page achieved notability. Was accepted to the Main Space and then removed. It's now at Draft:Alex Gilbert. Please look at the sources on the page before commenting. It is clear that it is a notable article. It was even approved by a reviewer. DmitryPopovRU (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. I can't see any evidence that the subject has ever had notability. It's been through AfD twice and was deleted on both occasions.-gadfium 05:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes it was deleted twice. For different reasons. Not relating to why it shouldn't be in the Mainspace now. read the sources on the draft. Clear notability. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation. The last AfD was closed 20 July 2014. There are several sources in the draft published after that AfD close. Here are two:
    1. Hurley, Sam (22 August 2015). "Whangarei boy who traced Russian roots helps fellow Kiwi adoptees find bloodlines". Television New Zealand. Archived from the original on 26 August 2015. Retrieved 22 August 2015. 
    2. Newlove, Alexandra (August 7, 2015). "Russian adoptee shares stories". The Northern Advocate. Archived from the original on 26 August 2015. Retrieved August 7, 2015. 

      The article notes in the first paragraph: "A former Russian adoptee raised in Whangarei is helping other adopted people share their stories."

    The coverage of Alex Gilbert's efforts to "hel[p] fellow Kiwi adoptees find bloodlines" indicates that there is a good faith argument that WP:BLP1E no longer applies.

    The sustained coverage of the subject one year after the AfD indicates that concerns about the coverage being transitory were wrong. From the AfD "subjects of this kind of coverage have no ongoing notabiity (sic)" and "The amount and duration of coverage were limited, and fall short of establishing Gilbert as an ongoing notable individual."

    Cunard (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse continued deletion. Nominator stated "Page achieved notability" but then brought forward absolutely nothing to back that up. This is pretty clearly a self-promotion attempt, and there's very little reason to imagine yet another AFD will result in anything other than yet another deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This page is a self promotion?? It has achieved notability from the sources on the article. As stated before. It's clear. Read and look at the sources. Thanks DmitryPopovRU (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - A kid who got a smidgen of press for finding his parents via social media. Textbook WP:BLP1E, draft has no chance of surviving a deletion discussion. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article is not just notable for him finding his Birth Parents. The sources clearly cover his book and page that was covered in the press. Not a smidgen of press. This article was reviewed and was passed as notable. People aren't reading the article clearly or the sources. DmitryPopovRU (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. NOT TABLOID and NOT NEWS are the governing policies. There is no actual notability here. His film career is not notable, & there is no indication that his book is either. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - per DGG and also it's borderline BLP1E, the only event being his adoption on which he is trying to capitalize. Kraxler (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

23 August 2015[edit]


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

I am here to request the undeletion of the article Checkmarx ( It was previously deleted numerous times and then blocked from recreation. It was deleted in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2013. You can refer to the previous link for the deletion discussions associated with the content.

First, I am not receiving compensation to write this article. I read the guidelines on conflict of interest and want to make sure that is clear. I do have a connection with the company which is another reason I am here. I have created a draft in my sandbox that I would like reviewed and if appropriate, have the article unblocked and restored to the version I created. I believe it is non-promotional in tone and adheres to Wikipedia guidelines.

The reason I feel it warrants undeletion is because the last deletion was in 2013. Prior to that time, the company had little press that showed it to be notable. Unfortunately, it appears that people tried to create and cram the article into Wikipedia anyway. I cannot apologize for that as I was not associated with those creations. However, I would like to show you a few things that have made the company notable since its last deletion in 2013.

Since 2013, the company has received a ton of press coverage in reliable sources, both in Hebrew and in English. They can be found through a quick Google search on Google News -

The article in my sandbox can be edited to how you feel appropriate. I feel it is non promotional, but ask that you review and edit it if you feel it is not. I am just hoping for two things here. The first is that the draft be reviewed for its content and adjusted as you see fit for Wikipedia standards. The second is that it be undeleted and the draft in my sandbox be used as the article.

I requested user MBisanz consider in deleting the article, but was told to come here because of the numerous previous deletions which I completely understand.

Thank you for your consideration.--Weirdedsultry (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. This has been deleted 5 times:there were two successive speedy deletions, followed by 4 consecutive afds closing as delete (one under a variant name). The reasons for the deletion were not just lack of notability, but promotionalism. The article in your sandbox at User:Weirdedsultry/sandbox would probably be deleted for lack of notability, but it's hard to predict. I know I would make the argument that being on a fast20 list is an indication that the company is not yet notable. The article in Jewish Business News is essentially PR, and very similar to press releases about the companyin other sources. SalomLife 's article is blatant PR. The Inc.article is an article about multiple companies. ``
Thank you for the comments. I agree that there was probably PR involved in the previous articles. For the current, what would you suggest for the references? There are tons available, but I am not sure the ones Wikipedia would accept. I read the guidelines but obviously don't fully understand based on your comments. I have looked through many references and thought those were good.--Weirdedsultry (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that part of the issue with the sandbox copy sources is that so many of them give off the impression that they're heavily based on press releases. They sort of have the PR buzz feel to them, especially this one. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. I guess the way I looked at these is even though they were originally alerted from a press release, the sources that wrote the story did not simply reprint the press release. Since they have editorial standards, they would have fact checked the press release before writing a story with information contained in the press release. Most news from companies starts with a press release. An example would be Google’s recent announcement that it was creating a parent company called Alphabet. Despite it being a press release in the beginning, reliable sources picked up and ran with the story after fact checking with Google and other sources. Not arguing, just trying to show you how I was looking at things and not trying to spam content from press releases.
That aside, there are some additional references that I found. Actually, one was brought to my attention by DGG so I cannot take credit for it. Here they are [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].
I guess what I am looking for here is not perfection, but the opportunity to create an article on a notable company. The article I created can be changed if necessary to meet guidelines, I am just not understanding the exact way to do it in order to satisfy everyone’s concerns with the references. If you check Google, you will see that there are numerous in depth sources such as the ones I provided. Hopefully these will show that the company is notable and that the creation of the article be allowed.
Again, sorry if I misunderstand any of the policies and I in no way want to spam an article in Wikipedia. Thanks for being corrigible with me and providing advice up to this point. Any help that you can afford me would be greatly appreciated.
I want to thank you for taking the time to review the information I have provided and understand your position regardless of the decision made. --Weirdedsultry (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

22 August 2015[edit]

Jeffrey Allen Sinclair[edit]

Jeffrey Allen Sinclair (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There is no clear consensus to delete. While this is not a vote-count, you had 8 editors arguing to keep and 6 arguing for deletion. The main argument given for deletion was WP:BLP1E, followed by not notable. On the keep side, you had editors who pointed at the essay WP:SOLDIER, but also pointed as sound policy reasons under notability that were not addressed nor considered by the closing admin. Sinclair is one of just a few generals who have been court-martialed in the last 60 years. There were reliable sources covering other portions of his life, as a battalion commander in combat, as a brigade commander in combat. These policy based arguments were not considered by the closing admin, even though they directly rebutted statements made by those arguing for deleting the article. Next, it is an improper analysis of BLP1E which requires all three of the criteria be met. Sinclair does not meet any of the criteria listed, he is covered by WP:RS outside of the one event, as a general, he is not a low-profile individual, and the event was both significant and Sinclair's role was significant. This should be overturned on policy grounds. GregJackP Boomer! 00:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I have notified all of the participants of the AfD. GregJackP Boomer! 00:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse different reasons were given. But I accept the closer's conclusion that the marginal notability of this Brigadier General with respect to other matters than the events leading to his demotion and resignation after allegations of misconduct (his plea of guilty to minor violations was accepted) did not overweight the BLP concern regarding our coverage of minor crimes. (There were also accusations of major crimes, but he was not convicted of them--had he been, I would have probably supported keeping the article.) DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse' as nominator, without prejudice against covering this event within the wider context and potentially with a redirect. BLP1E is there for ea reason. Guy (Help!) 00:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Insufficient reason to reverse That a closer might have reached a different conclusion is not, in itself, sufficient to overturn the close. This does mean that the person is specifically "not notable" but that the article had significant problems with the BLP dwelling on material which consisted of contentious claims falling under WP:BLPCRIME, where the value of having the BLP was outweighed by its problems. Collect (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - WP:NOTSCANDAL (this is policy, not an essay like WP:SOLDIER) says "Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." Claiming he was a flag officer with inherent notability was only a pretext to wedge in a BLP about an adulterous affair. If he had been court-martialed for any military short-comings, he would be eminently notable, but that's not the case here. Kraxler (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
'comment', & here is the full text of "wp:notscandal", taken from the source cited above:
Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
SO, is the above user contesting the factuality of the story? because, i'm pretty sure the charges & COURT MARTIAL TRIAL were not just "gossip, heard through the grapevine". Lx 121 (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The factual accuracy is irrelevant. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true..." There is also WP:SENSATION. Adultery is not a crime in most jurisdictions nowadays. "Sex scandals" are run-of-the-mill newsmedia fodder in the US, even respectable papers like the NYT would engage in "tabloid journalism" in such cases. It's misplaced in an encyclopedia, under current policy and several guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I never watched the deleted page and I did not participate in the AfD, but my watchlist includes the talk pages of some of the editors who were notified of this DRV, so I decided to give an uninvolved view. I think that the closing statement is correct about participants being roughly divided between keeping per WP:SOLDIER and deleting per WP:BLP1E. (I've looked for sources about the subject, and the "one event" appears to have been court-martial for crimes, rather than military distinction, so SOLDIER appears only to apply marginally.) I think that the strong importance that the community places on WP:BLP indicates that the close was correct in weighing BLP1E above SOLDIER or the numbers of !votes cast in the AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure (summoned by bot) - Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure was reasonable, based on the relevant policies. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse (conditionally) From where I sit, the outcome should have been listed as "deleted without prejudice" to confer that while the BLP issue came down as delete there was no prejudice against recreation of the article in the event that additional information on the general and/or the event came to light. That having been said, at the moment we lack enough information to build a comprehensive article on the general, therefore the article was properly deleted based on policy driven consensus. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist I !voted to delete early on in the AfD, and I was considering changing my !vote in light of the work that rescuers did, while the AfD was pending. As I am not an admin I cannot see the article to arrive at a final decision. I would favor relisting the AfD (which cannot hurt) so that I and others have a chance to review the article and our !votes and to get additional voices. This was not an easy decision per Xymmax's wonderfully nuanced comment near the bottom of the AfD. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - the closure was based on appropriate weight being given to policy based arguments over those which relied on an essay and in that context seems reasonable to me (although I did of cse !vote delete for that very reason so I am admittedly only really supporting my own previous reasoning here...). If there is significant coverage on this officer beyond the scandal it wasn't clear during the AFD. I do however support recreation of the article if / when such coverage becomes available that allows for a full biography to be written covering all significant aspects of his life and career using RS (and not just focusing on the scandal). Anotherclown (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn when using "essays" it is common practice to ignore the GNG and notability is presumed, ie schools. The community discussed those criteria and set those so this is more of a IAR and personal opinion close then was consensus. We keep loads of shitty schools that will never be notable based on those essays and we have an actual person who is notable and we fucking delete the article. Seriously? What the fuck people. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hell in a Bucket, have you considered that the persuasiveness of your arguments decreases with every swearword you use? Frankly, I could never take seriously any person who expresses themselves the way you do, no matter what the merits of their arguments are.  Sandstein  07:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • User:Sandstein, I briefly considered that but then I considered the average intelligence level of the editors here and assumed that the editors here would have the intelligence to understand that adult words used by an adult isn't something to get their panties in a twist. I'm sure you will learn this concept someday. I am curious how long it will take for you to get chased out of this new fiefdom of yours, hopefully not as long as AE. I wonder if you will blame it on people using the word fuck, there was a reason I didn't care what you said on your page, your history says you will not listen to the other side once you have made a decree so why waste the time? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
comment - & that speaks badly about your judgement, sandstein. you should be judging the arguements on their merits, NOT on your feelings about the choice of language, OR the user. with all due respect, Lx 121 (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As closer, I maintain the view expressed in the closure. In requesting this review, GregJackP makes a defensible argument why WP:BLP1E should not be applied to this article – I haven't, myself, formed an opinion about this. However, I did not evaluate that argument as it is made here, but the arguments that were made in the discussion. There, the view that this is a BLP1E article was not seriously contested, but rather countered by arguments to the effect of "but generals are notable". As stated in the closure, these are weak arguments to oppose a policy with, and I accordingly gave them less weight.  Sandstein  07:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
comment - & to me, that suggests a "weak" rationale for closing as delete, which is now weaker, by your own admission; in a debate which WAS contested & no clear consensus was reached. & quite frankly, it suggests that you decide closes on a very narrow basis. you are citing the discussion "as given in the dd", as though you were incapable of considering anything other than the text on the dd page, in reaching your decision. if we are really going to dance around "blp1e", then why not rewrite the article, as covering the scandal & court martial? the event is certainly notable enough to merit inclusion. support undelete & by the way, when did "undeletion" become a parrot's chorus of uncritical support for deleting closes? the last time i bothered with this page, there was some actual DISCUSSION of cases, not just a snowstorm of "yeas". again, with all due respect, Lx 121 (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse per DGG and Guy. A very good close by Sandstein, appropriate weight given to policy based comments over an essay. Govindaharihari (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

comment - & here, just for the record, & the merry HELL of it, are some sources, to establish notability (he even has his own tag on the huffington post, AND stars and stripes). BY THE WAY he WAS a general (& yes, brigadier generals do "count"), subsequently demoted, so he DOES qualify for "notability" on that standard.

& here is the New York Times! ^__^

i know we dont like op-eds, but here is a good one, @ a reasonably notable discussion-site

& here is the AP story she cited

& here is a quote from AP "U.S. Army prosecutors offered the first details of a rare criminal case against a general"

had enough yet? there's more: UPI

&, not that i like them, but the washington times is a major news outlet

NOW, is anyone seriously contesting the "notability" of the subject? because i can just keep going... Lx 121 (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  • comment - they are all one event - and ultimately the one event was not even a court martial - so although there were at the time a lot of newsy reports the final outcome of the sex case makes even that not worthy of an article, attempting to assert his individual noteworthy status using an essay in an attempt to overcome/violate BLP1E is not a good reflection of wp:policy and guidelines Govindaharihari (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • comment - i don't really CARE whether we make an article about the PERSON or the EVENT; that's "chicken & egg" agruement & i dont want to waste my time on it. HOWEVER, the CASE is notable, & it merits an article. the fact that the case was plea-bargained, does NOTHING to reduce its notability. the south-carolina church shooting seems likely to end in a plea-bargain right now; would you argue that makes the case "non-notable", or the accused? Lx 121 (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • So you are asserting a notable issue for the case, then try going down that road then ... that does nothing to affect this deletion review of a wp:bio though... If you create an article about the sex case what would you call it? Govindaharihari (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
what about something like "j. sinclair vs us army" or whatever the case heading was from the legal procedings? or "the sexual misconduct case of former brigadier general jeffrey allen sinclair, us army" or ANYTHING' like that? the case for deletion is on pretty weak grounds, if we are down to arguing what the name of the article should be. Lx 121 (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
btw, you are wrong about it being "not even a court martial"; the case was brought forward, hearings were convened, he plea-bargained, & there was a sentencing. i invite you to read the article about court martial trials; a court-martial is (first & foremost) the process, not the outcome. Lx 121 (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
btw your comments support the closure of the AFD - sinclair vs us army - If you think it would comply with wp:policy and guidelines go for it then Govindaharihari (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment, were the article to be about the case, it would need to be The Trial of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair or The Court-Martial of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. An appellate case would be titled Sinclair v. United States, it would never be titled as against the U.S. Army. GregJackP Boomer! 17:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment: for BLP, we are extremelycareful about accusations that are not supported by a conviction, and the standards for including them are properly quite restrictive high, especially for non-public figures (& very few generals are that) . (I note that some versions of the article put incredibly high emphasis on the accusations of which he was not convicted, which indicates to me the intent to use the article for the purpose of abusing the subject. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
comment -- there was a case', there was a trial, he PLEA-BARGAINED it. what part of this is being factually contested? & he was a united states army general, therefore a high-ranking public official, & that counts as a "public figure". i didnt get to read the article before it was disappeared, so i have no opinion on the "tone" of the piece; my arguement is that we need to have AN ARTICLE about this case. i'm not debating the merits of the article-that-was. Lx 121 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The reason for deletion, as clarified by the closing admin, was WP:BLP1E. It states: "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:"
  1. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event". This is something questionable because there are publications about this person with relations to other events.
  2. "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.". No, a general is not a low-profile individual per our military history guidelines.
  3. "If the event is not significant". No, that was a pretty significant event based on the huge press coverage.
None of WP:BLP1E conditions has been actually met. My very best wishes (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse The closing administrator must determine whether arguments are based on policy or guidelines. WP:SOLDIER is not a guideline but an essay and in order to use it editors would have to show how it related to guidelines. They would have to show not only that WP:SOLDIER said generals were inherently notable but that that was a reasonable inference to be drawn from Wikipedia:Notability (people). Furthermore, it is debatable whether a brigadier general is a true general. TFD (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
comment -- no, the closing admin is supposed to judge the case on its merits, & on the consensus reached in the discussion. Lx 121 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • User:The Four Deuces it is not debatable, the article Flag Officer article subsection for United States has a | government source of what is and is not a Flag Officer and a brigadier General of O-7 is the lowest level Flag Officer in the United States army and as Tomstar noted in the AFD there are other lower ranking flag officer positions in other armies. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The U.S. considers brigadier generals to be flag officers, while the UK does not. A British brigadier would therefore be considered a flag officer by the U.S., while an American brigadier general would not be considered a flag officer by the UK. Both the U.S. and UK consider brigadiers and brigadiers general to be equivalent ranks. Hence it is debatable whether a brigadier/brigadier general is a true general. TFD (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
with all due repect, BULLSHIT; he was an officer in the UNITED STATE ARMY. when we are considering a UK officer, you can try this arguement out again, then. Lx 121 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hence why it is stated the rank they can have their own flag. A brigidier General qualifies them for their own flag, the same would be true for the countries that have Colonels that have their flag, they are at that point Flag Officers in that army. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, it is debatable whether a brigadier general is a true general. This is truly one of the most ill-informed statements that I have seen on Wikipedia. A brigadier general in the U.S. Army is defined as a general officer by law. See 10 U.S.C. §§ 524-25. He's a general whether another country recognizes it as being a general or not. The fact that the U.K. or another nation chooses to organize their armed forces differently does not mean that they do not recognize an American brigadier general as a general officer. British soldiers in a joint assignment address American BGs as general, not brigadier. Jeez, if you don't know something, ask someone who does. GregJackP Boomer! 20:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
A fatuous argument, in the end, because there is no such thing as inherent notability and the vast majority of people of this rank do not have an article, nor would there be reliable independent sources enough to write them. In this case we have sources related to a single event. WP:BLP1E and WP:TABLOID apply, muddle-headed ideas of the status of essays and subject-specific notability guidelines notwithstanding. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
he's a US general who BROKE THE LAW, was court-martialed for it, plea-bargained his guilt, & removed from the army. that's pretty "notable". Lx 121 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Exactly which of the three BLP1E criteria did the article meet, and how? You have completely misapplied the policy. Not to worry, we'll do an article on the court-martial, there's plenty of sources for that. GregJackP Boomer! 00:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I originally came to close the AfD, and my evaluation of the discussion essentially was the same as Sanstein's. I just thought the discussion had not grappled with the most important issue, which is why I voted instead. I suggest the way forward is to consider an article about the trial. And thanks, Jytdog, you're very kind. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - At first I thought this was about Babylon 5's first commander. Phew! Anyways, consensus of the discussion was that BLP1E applied, and that a wiki-project's essay on notability does not carry the same weight as a project-space WP:SNG. Tarc (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

::::NO, that was not the "consensus". if you go back & actually READ the DD, you will find blp issues played a very MINOR part in the discussion. that was the closing admin's "rationale" for disregarding the non-consensus outcome. Lx 121 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I STAND CORRECTED; i was thinking of a different dd. this one did include some discussion of blp; 12 mentions, including 2 mentions by the closer. my mistake. Lx 121 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow creation of an article about the trial using as a basis the material about the trial in the deleted article Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. The sources provided by Lx 121 (talk · contribs) above clearly demonstrate that the trial is notable.

    Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." The full quote (my bolding):

    When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.

    Cunard (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The question is simply whether Sinclair is notable. Even if all the material about the scandal is deleted he would still be notable as a general officer. There have been many AfDs concerning general officers from all over the world, many of them holding equal rank to Sinclair. As far as I remember, not one of them has resulted in a deletion. It is a fact that consensus is to keep all articles on general officers because of their seniority. It is ridiculous that that consensus has been ignored on this one article simply because he was involved in a scandal. It is not a BLP1E issue. It is an issue of his rank and status. There has been much blarting about "policy"; WP:IAR is also a policy. It says (since many apparently don't realise it, although they quote other policies with gay abandon): "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That, in my opinion, applies here and to every other general officer. That is why those who are knowledgeable about such things have formulated WP:SOLDIER. It is unfortunate that it has not been raised from the lowly status of an essay to the vaunted status of a guideline, since many editors seem to like "rules" and get all confused and upset when told there aren't any rules here, but it is still accepted by almost all of us who write and know about such matters, and for very good reason. The fact is that if Sinclair had not been involved in a scandal nobody without an interest in military matters would have got involved in this AfD and the article would have been kept per WP:SOLDIER with quite probably no opposers. In any case, given the number of "votes" to keep, this article should quite clearly have been closed as no consensus even without the existence of the de facto consensus to keep general officers. The closer's statement that "WP:SOLDIER is an essay, and as such does not represent community consensus" is utter rubbish. Consensus is not just laid down in policies and guidelines; it is formed in many places, including at AfD, where it has on this subject already been formed years ago. In my opinion this was an incorrect close and should be overturned immediately. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Your claim to consensus about WP:SOLDIER by "those who are knowledgeable about such things" isn't supportable. There isn't even consensus within MILHIST for the weight you ascribe to it, not that that matters anyway. Several current and former co-ordinators of that project have stated here and on that AFD and others that it is just an essay and that it does not outweigh policy (including myself). By all means develop the community consensus for WP:SOLDIER to be elevated to policy if you wish but just because it gets incorrectly applied at AFD on occasion by some of the few volunteers that regularly chose to work in that area doesn't mean there is consensus. Regardless, in no place does WP:SOLDIER actually say a general is automatically notable, it only states that they are "presumed to be notable" (for the purposes of that essay) because they "will almost always have sufficient coverage". Yet by that wording if they don't have sufficient coverage then they aren't notable (hence WP:GNG). Anotherclown (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
comment - well, when a us army general breaks the law, is court-martialed, plea bargains, & is forced to leave the army, in a very public SCANDAL, with enourmous press coverage, isn't that "presumed to be notable"? Lx 121 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a problem though because there is indeed a multitude of sources, I find it ironic that the people here think it is unacceptable to have 3 sentences in a bio stub about the scandal but somehow it's ok to have a whole article on the trial. Dude was a notable soldier. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, a predictable comment by one of the few editors working on military history articles who disagrees with the consensus. You must be overjoyed. However, this one ridiculous AfD outcome does not change the consensus established over dozens of AfDs, even if it isn't overturned as it should be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse, open and shut WP:BLP1E case, closing administrator absolutely and unquestionably made the correct call here in putting our BLP policy ahead of a contested notability essay. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC).
comment -- dear user:lankiveil, re: "contested notability". if you wish to stand by that comment, i shall RE-POST my collection of source links for you here,since you seem to have missed them, above. shall i do that for you? :) Lx 121 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

& since we are STILL going-all-around-the-mulberry-bush on this point, here are the three, *6, *7 most-relevant articles about 1-star rank in general, in nato, & in the us army.

& if you wade through all of that, then @ the end of the day you will find that yes virginia, in the united states army, a brigadier general IS a flag officer.

also, that in british, they just call it a "brigadier", with no -"general".

please can we declare that point to be settled now?

Lx 121 (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse. Reasonable close. For the record, I would consider a brigadier general to fall within the scope of WP:SOLDIER, though as a general officer (flag officer will always sound nautical to me). That being said, and as Xymmax said during the AfD, we don't have very many articles on one-star generals, and spot-checking Category:Brigadier generals reveals many articles which probably wouldn't survive AfD. The closer didn't have much choice but to privilege policy-based arguments (BLP1E) above the notability guideline. Mackensen (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Even the fact that we are having this very long discussion is an indication of notability. Unfortunately, I can not agree about BLP1E. It provides three conditions, none of which was respected by the closing admin (please see my comment above). After quickly looking at the page, I too initially voted "weak delete", however after checking the sources and listening to arguments it became apparent that he actually satisfied our notability guidelines - precisely per BLP1E: according to WP:BLP1E (which is the policy), he is not a person notable for only one event. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, no, a lengthy argument doesn't prove anything except that people disagree, which doesn't default to supporting one position over another. The question is simply whether the closer interpreted the discussion reasonably, and I think he did. We're not here to re-argue the AfD. To take your position, the question, put simply, is whether aside from being court-martialed Sinclair is notable. If you think WP:SOLDIER should be policy then the answer is yes, because general officers are notable. That position isn't accepted by the community. If the question is whether Sinclair passes the GNG absent the court martial, I think the answer is probably no. Either way, Sandstein's close is reasonable. Mackensen (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not telling that decision by admin was unreasonable. I am telling that in my opinion his decision was against the policy (this is matter under review). Obviously, he acted in a good faith. But decision-making is a difficult business. According to certain estimates, someone who makes more than 50% correct decisions is already a good administrator. Speaking more informally, I think Sinclair is notable not per WP:SOLDIER and not for his dismissal, but as a symbol of abuse in US army (as described here, for example), just as Budanov became a symbol of abuse in Russian army. Sure, Budanov was worse. My very best wishes (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse the argument that he is notable because of his rank is based on an essay and must be given little weight, and the sources here are such that it isn't going to be possible to write an article about this person without most of it being about the scandals, so that is the only real source of notability. You can argue about whether the subject meets BLP1E given the rank and nature of the case, and some people did, but most didn't try to contest this point and the argument certainly isn't bad enough that we should overturn based on perceived weaknesses in it. Hut 8.5 22:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
hello; in posting your comment, you seem to have ignored the LONG list of sources that i have posted above, to establish the subject's notability. shall i repost them down here for you? :)
ALSO - "You can argue about whether the subject meets BLP1E given the rank and nature of the case, and some people did, but most didn't try to contest this point" -- actually quite a LOT of people have contested this point, both there & HERE.
finally, we are not a bound by the rules of an "appelate court". if the decision was wrong, & the article should be restored, we restore it, we don't just sit here & argue that "the law has been applied correctly"; when did that become the "mission" of deletion review!?
Lx 121 (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
hello User:Lx 121; in posting your commens, you seem to have ignored WP:BLUDGEON. Kraxler (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • comment - if you can fault me on the content of my comments, or the quality of my arguements, then go right ahead. if you can point out where a comment i've posted seems misplaced, then i'm prepared to listen. if your only complaint is that "i'm arguing too forcefully", WHEN i'm right, then i do not apologise for that. experience has shown me QUITE clearly that being right isn't enough, & proving it isn't enough; in our little discussions on here, you often have to hammer the facts in repeatedly, just to get the point across.
otherwise, some idiot 3, or 10 posts down is going to completely ignore what you've posted, & return to arguing THE SAME DAMN THING, you've demolished further up the page.
chances are, they didn't even READ the thing you posted above.
find a way to fix that problem, & i'll think about going more "sotto voce" with my comments
with all due respect, Lx 121 (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Your list of sources isn't relevant. The argument for deletion is that the subject is only known for one event. Posting sources about that event does nothing to undermine this argument. Meeting WP:GNG does not guarantee that an article on a topic can't be deleted, only that it can't be deleted for being non-notable. By the point about contesting the application of WP:BLP1E, most people opposing deletion said that the subject was independently notable aside from the scandal because of WP:SOLDIER, and that argument is very weak because SOLDIER is an essay. One or two (and it really is only one or two) people argued instead that BLP1E is only applicable to low-profile individuals. I think that argument is reasonable but it's hardly knockdown and as I've said few people made it.
You don't appear to understand the purpose of DRV. DRV is not a second round of AFD, it's a separate process designed to review speedy deletions and closures of deletion discussions for procedural flaws and errors by the closing or deleting admin. An appellate court is actually a good analogy. Here our job is to assess whether Sandstein made a mistake when s/he closed the discussion, not to decide whether the article should be deleted or not. Now it is true that admins closing discussions should give positions weight according to strength of arguments, and give weight accordingly. Here the main argument cited for keeping the article (WP:SOLDIER) is very weak and was properly assigned little weight. However if two positions are both reasonable and one has far more support than the other then the more popular one will win. Here there was little dispute that WP:BLP1E applied, and so that is how it was closed. Hut 8.5 19:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. "But I found X sources!" is never an adequate rebuttal to an article that has been deleted on 1-event grounds, and frankly I find LX 121's Walls o' Text to be tiresome at this point, and his smarmy, sarcastic responses to be increasingly off-putting. Demonstrate that the subject is notable for more than one event, or that the event is so critically important as to justify a John Hinckley-like exception, and then we'll talk. Otherwise, this dead horse needs a ceasing of the beating. Tarc (talk)
  • Overturn There was clearly no consensus to delete. The close claimed that WP:BLP overrode this but, as My very best wishes has pointed out, WP:BLP1E did not apply because its conditions were not met. Andrew D. (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse as reasonable close. I'll also echo the warning that Lx 121 is WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion at this point. We can all post about haw various countries stack their military ranks until our keyboards melt, but the bottom line is there was nothing wrong with the close that bears our overturning it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

**comment; as i've said above several time before; I DON'T CARE whether the article is about the PERSON, or the CASE. that is a "chicken & egg" arguement, & i have better things to do with my time.
the event is NOTABLE; that point has been ESTABLISHED. anyone who STILL wants to dispute it, SPEAK UP NOW; 'cause, i've got CRAPLOADS of sources to cut & paste @ you! ^__^.
as regards some user's comments about my "style" of posting:
i argue FACTS, & use logical reasoning to do so.
IF you can counter me on 'that basis, then BRING IT ON; come at me bro. if you can't, don't waste my time complaining about "style". i have better things to do, than to care about whether you like my debating technique, or not. i care about what the right answer is; not "how you feel about it".
IF you "can't be bothered to read my "wall of text; your loss. i have posted my arguements; they are written in clear english, & should be reasonably easy for anyone to understand; given a t least average intelligence & ability in the english language. if you are participating in a DISCUSSION & can't be bothered to read other people's comments, the fault is yours.
i find it necessary to repeat myself OFTEN in these "discussions" precisely because a lot of people either DON'T READ before posting; OR they COMPLETELY IGNORE points raised in the preceding discussion that interfere with their own "opinions".
such commentors deserve & require to have the important points of the discussion that they have MISSED pointed out to them.
personally i find repeating myself to be BORING-AS-F*bowdlerised for your protection*K, but i have not yet found another way to address the problem of people who ignore everything that's been already said just to express an opinion which REPEATS something said above, & which has already been addressed in the discussion.
find a better way of doing that, & i'm all ears
with all due respect,
Lx 121 (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Repeating an action and expecting a different result is a sure sign of insanity, as the paraphrased saying goes. If your Text Walls(tm) aren't convincing other editors to change their mind on the matter, it could be a sign that there is strong disagreement with your point-of-view, rather than we're all unintelligent non-native speakers of English. Tarc (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. A valid policy-based close of a contentious AfD. It would also have been ok to close this one as no consensus, but that's not a good enough reason to overturn the close that was made. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Despite all the words we've spent on this, we haven't got to the right outcome. The media coverage in this case means this officer's name is a plausible search term. If we can't have an article, then fair enough, but we should clearly have a paragraph in Sexual assault in the United States military about the officer's plea bargain, and a redirect from his name to that paragraph.—S Marshall T/C 22:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Sexual assault in the United States military talks about the general concept, it does not cite any specific case of sexual assault, except one that caused a change in the legislation. Kraxler (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Chad White (closed)[edit]

21 August 2015[edit]

Template:AZBilliards (closed)[edit]

20 August 2015[edit]

18 August 2015[edit]


January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December