Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
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.

Purpose[edit]

Shortcut:

Deletion Review may be used:

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

Deletion Review should not be used:

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

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

Shortcut:

Instructions[edit]

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]

 
1.

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.

2.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3.

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:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
4.

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

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
5.

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.

6.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 April 28}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 April 28|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]

28 April 2015[edit]

27 April 2015[edit]

List of state and local political scandals in the United States[edit]

List of state and local political scandals in the United States (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting the deletion of List of state and local political scandals in the United States and List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States be overturned.

The reasons given for the original deletion by the nominating editor were;

*Per WP:BLP, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Many of these entries are supported by only one reliable source. The actual WP:BLP policy quote is, “If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs IN THE ARTICLE – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.” ALSO “All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person IN THE ARTICLE.” – Clearly these WP:BLP policies refer to using ‘multiple sources in the entire ARTICLE. A list however, has only one or two sentences per citation. I can find very other few articles that have multiple references per sentence and no other articles which consistently adhere to multiple sources per line. One sentence, one source, is de facto wiki policy, to which this article adheres. *Per WP:BLP, “If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." This list not only omits denials, but also omits acquittals, which is really unacceptable. - The nominating editor has not listed the offending allegation. I believe the single offending citation he refers to is a case in which the politician was accused, arrested, indicted and then resigned. He was then convicted. Years later, his case went to the Supreme Court where it was overturned. He is therefore innocent and yes, this one item should be removed from the list or kept with explanation. This is a case of a dated entry, not a cause for systemic deletion of the entire article. The presumption of innocence is so prevalent in the US that to re-iterate it time and time again for every citation in a list would unnecessarily expand length of the article. If necessary, a single sentence added to the lead paragraph would suffice. *Per WP:BLP, "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law….Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association…. "Here, accused and acquitted people are mixed in with convicted criminals, which is guilt by association. -I couldn’t find this policy and don’t see how it applies as stated. This is a list of SCANDALS, not convictions. Further, every person listed has his own citation and his own reliably sourced reference. Guilt is never implied. *Per WP:LISTN, I don’t see that “state and local political scandals in the United States” are notable as a group. - This is an opinion by the nominating editor, not a statement of Wikipedia policy. WP:LISTN redirects to Wikipedia:Notability/Stand-alone lists, which states, “The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.” I would say that “lists”, “states”, “politicians” and “scandals” are all notable groups and have been treated in Wikipedia extensively. *The list is prone to being outdated, and thus an unintentional BLP violation simply by the passage of time. - This is another opinion by the nominating editor. No Wiki policy is mentioned and I could find none at WP:BLP. An unintentional BLP violation deserves correction of the offending item, not deletion of the entire article. Further, I would ask what Wiki article is NOT affected by time? Are old articles worse than new ones? Are old subjects less important than current ones? This editor is grabbing for it. *The main aim here is apparently to connect persons with crimes, or imply that they are guilty of crimes, for which they were not convicted. - Another opinion. Again no Wiki policy is mentioned. This article only reports that the politician was charged, indicted and arrested, ousted or resigned. The definition of a scandal is “an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage.” Given the number of Wiki articles about Benghazi, Whitewater, Lewinsky etc, this list is certainly within Wikipedia guidelines.

  • WP:NPF applies to some of these named people who are not public figures.

I quote WP:BLP/People who are relatively unknown, “Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. “ – And that is exactly what has been done. According to the eligibility criterion in the lead paragraph, only politicians, their appointees and staff may be included and only referenced information about each such person maybe been used. *WP:Recentism is violated (scandals from this millennium are given undue weight) - Huh? Scandals from this millennium are given more weight only because there are more of them. Does he really expect that scandals in the 13 colonies would equal those of the 21st century? Again I quote WP:Recentism, “Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer.” This is not even close to a problem.

  • Unencylopedic.

- Once again I quote from WP:Unencyclopedic/Just unencyclopedic, “Saying something is "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" are empty arguments. Unencyclopedic means "not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted". So when you use it as a justification for deleting something, it's a circular argument: "Delete, because it should be deleted". This is just repeating yourself.” So the nominating editor is again referring to a policy of which there is no violation, as stated by the very policy to which he is referring.

I believe the original deleting editors were not concise enough in tracking Wiki policy and were swayed by the large number of deleting votes. Puppetry is not new to these articles. I should also note that the parent article List of federal political scandals in the United States originated in 28 January 2004‎ and was nominated for deletion on 26 November 2010. The result was delete, overturned at DRV to KEEP. That list and this, List of state and local political scandals in the United States are nearly identical in scope and execution. Both should be kept. For these reasons I would ask the deletion of List of state and local political scandals in the United States and List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States (which was deleted for the same reasons) to be overturned.Polarpark (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Permit reconsideration with a change of title There would I think be no objection to a list of "List of local and state officials in the US convicted of ...." The more important question is whether we would include a list including those never tried or even acquitted if there were a suitable title , like "List of .... accused .... " Normally ,some BLP consideration apply with considerably less force to elected officials, because matters that would not be relevant for private individuals or even individuals in other types of activities are relevant here, because the necessity for voter trust is relevant to their careers. Even the totally false accusation of a politician could be notable enough for a separate article, though we would need to be very careful with the title. It would certainly be notable enough to be included in their bio. But would it be of sufficient importance to e given the added prominence of a list? This is a very difficult question, and I'm not sure about it. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse my close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States (no comment on the other AFD listed here).

    It's always a pretty tall order to ask that a unanimous WP:CONSENSUS in such a well-participated AFD should be disregarded, and here Polarpark has basically just disagreed with the outcome and the commenters' reasonable interpretations of policy. Even if you are not inclined to take the AFD commenters at their word, the content of the list itself was a hodgepodge of some mere allegations and some convictions, some actual crimes and a lot of mere infidelity, and little substance offered to establish that there was actually a "scandal" as opposed to merely "this happened" or "this was alleged". Perhaps most importantly, none of the purported scandals themselves have articles (contra the federal scandal list offered for comparison above). And the sourcing was mostly, if not entirely, from mere news stories. All of this together supports that the unanimous deletion consensus reached in the AFD was completely reasonable and addressed to unfixable problems in the very conception of the list. I could not have closed it as anything other than delete, nor is there a basis presented here for overturning that now.

    (note at the time of this posting that notices of this DRV have not been placed on either AFD.) postdlf (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse The problem with these lists is that we are left with nothing more than a bunch of wholly negative mini-bios, often for subjects about whom we would never even consider having a full article because they fail one guideline or another. If there was a way to enforce the addition of only bluelinks to them then I'd be OK with them, but there isn't a way to do that - the editors who insist on us hosting these don't want that, and certainly the people who add the latest municipal scandal du jour (often in bad faith) to them don't either. And of course we're all about adding stuff to them but in the long run we're provably incapable of curating them correctly and following up when the facts for a given entry have changed (unless of course they write screaming to OTRS or show up trying to fix them and are often blocked for vandalism because they have no idea how to do it correctly). These are collections of little BLP nightmares in the making and they should be kept off the encyclopedia. If a person is notable then they should have a bio; if the scandal is notable then it should have an article. We should not have lists that get around those two restrictions. In any case the consensus in the AFD was clear and the admin's close appropriate. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a fair assessment of the consensus. I agree there are many problems with the nominating statement but the purpose of DRV is to examine the closing, not the opening. Thincat (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see a second AFD was nominated but I shall endorse that one as well. I can't see anything remotely wrong with that close. Thincat (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse both; closer has followed deletion process correctly. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse- no reasonable administrator could have closed that any other way. DRV is not a second go at AfD. Reyk YO! 09:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Water to the Soul[edit]

Water to the Soul (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After people recommended that Water to the Soul be deleted, I added a great deal of information to the article indicating that "Innocent Child" received substantial airplay, which I vaguely remember hearing back in the day. Only one comment, indicating that the album article DID INDEED go beyond a track listing, was instated AFTER the relisting. Jax 0677 (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse My own close. The redirection was a kindness in my opinion, perhaps in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE by the participants, and there was obvious consensus for it in the discussion. Because it's important to point out that we have no article for the group that performed this, or even for the album. For all practical purposes this should have been an A9. As far as re-creation, as far as I can see nothing added by the requester between the start and end of the AFD rises to the level of notability required by WP:NSONGS. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as reasonable. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist or Allow recreation - The statements are not quite accurate. We did have an article for the album until it got redirected. We do not need to satisfy WP:NSONG for an article about an album. Writing about a song in an article about an album is what is referred to as a "top down approach". Artists articles write about original albums and songs by the artist all of the time, therefore, an album article may write about a song if it so chooses. An album article simply needs to be more than a track listing, which it was, and a song article needs to be more than a stub, and more than a description about the music video. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist - allow an admin who isn't imposing their preferred outcome (as FreeRangeFrog's endorsing of their own close is an admission of) is necessary. WilyD 09:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

26 April 2015[edit]

Elizabeth Chambers (television personality)[edit]

Elizabeth Chambers (television personality) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was an article about journalist Elizabeth Chambers that has been re-directed to her spouse. The AfD was based on the reason that the nom couldn't find coverage strictly about this topic. Not only was there no consensus to redirect to the topic’s spouse, but ‘’all’’ the abundance of coverage strictly about the topic, not the topic’s spouse, was found six days after the AfD began and one of the two "redirect" !votes occurred. [1][2][3][4][5][6] There was a strange straw man “WP:NOTINHERITED” argument when almost the entire article and the coverage of this person was strictly about her, not her husband. In the pre-redicted article here, as is typical in biographies, there is only a mention of the topic’s spouse buried down in the “personal life” section.

AfD closer Black Kite ‎stands by the closing. --Oakshade (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • She meets the GNG and has coverage that is largely about her. I'd have !voted to keep here. But I think both redirect and NC were within discretion given the discussion. When more sources pop up (ideally ones largely about her) I'd say you'd be okay with restoring the article. redirect results at AfD aren't overly binding if new sources pop up. Hobit (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn to No Consensus - there's enough sources here that the keep position is tenable, and the redirect/merge arguments are based on gut feelings about what "ought" to be notable, rather than what is. Keep has policy, redirect has headcount. There's also a real problem with enforcing systematic bias here that the closing admin has a duty to be careful of. WilyD 09:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure; those wishing to change from a redirect to a full article when the time is right can gather consensus on the talk page to do so. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the closure, the 6 articles that Oakshade mentioned above, 1 of which isn't reliable (Hollywood Life), the E! article is about them having a baby and would have been written regardless of her because of who her husband is. The People article is hardly an article, it's a mention about why he wanted to get married. LADY LOTUSTALK 11:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
This was part of the problem of the AfD. Your rationale was there were no sources "strictly about her" when there was an abundance of sources strictly about her presented six days after the AfD began, and you're having issue with only a couple of those 6 sources (indicating the desire of the unusually high standard of "like 5 or 6" sources).--Oakshade (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a reasonable measure of the consensus of the discussion, though IMO deletion would have been preferable as there is only the barest of mention of her at the target article. Tarc (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Just trying to understand this rationale; Because the article of another person barely mentions this person, deletion of this topic would have been preferable? --Oakshade (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Nim (programming language)[edit]

Nim (programming language) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was the nom for this AfD. In closing it as no consensus, Ymblanter stated, Everybody agrees that there are some sources which count towards notability (I think four sources have been identified). This is simply not true.

To establish notability under WP:GNG requires multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the topic in detail. Each of those words has meaning. I don't believe there are any such sources for this subject, I said that clearly, I said that based on carefully reviewing every source offered, I still say that, and it looks to me like there are 7 others who agree with me and said the same thing based on the same careful review. Most of those arguing for keep have been canvassed off-wiki and not one argument for keep was policy-based. To the extent they even addressed policy, most argued either that we should bend the rules (e.g., to accept a primary source as evidence of notability because Dr. Dobbs printed it) or that we just shouldn't have these silly rules because this is really important stuff. I appreciate that this has been a contentious debate, but an AfD is not a vote and it does not help to close the debate with a blatant misrepresention of the participants' positions.

When I approached Ymblanter on his talk page to suggest he should at least acknowledge that not everyone agrees there are sources lest it go to DRV, he accused me of blackmailing him. Msnicki (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Overturn to delete. And here we are again. Again, there does not appear to have been consideration for the numerous SPA issues and canvassing in this case. After discounting the meatpuppets that were canvassed at the links provided, the only keeps that remain are arguments using github, reddit, ycombinator, and the like as if they were WP:RS. The one Dr. Dobbs article not by the creator of the language, is a brief mention, not significant coverage, and therefore does not meet WP:GNG's requirement of 'significant coverage'. ― Padenton|   14:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, you're a hypocrite that cries "canvassed" when it suits him for a Keep vote, but doesn't care about canvassing when it comes with a Delete vote. The fact remains that any canvassing on IRC was unbiased. --IO Device (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The AfD was inappropriately canvassed at nim forums and nim IRC, which I found and reported to the AfD. Later, towards the end of the AfD, it was canvassed in Wikipedia's IRC channel. IO Device claimed that another user in the AfD (who voted delete) was canvassed to the AfD. I looked at his claim, and even went to the IRC myself to ask one of their opers about it. In my comments below, I told IO Device he/she is welcome to claim that the message was inappropriate canvassing through a biased message, but that more information is needed. As you can see below, my comments in responding to IO Device are completely appropriate, and I even invited IO Device to present more information on the IRC canvassing so that we could discuss it, but he/she has not done so yet. If any uninvolved admin finds fault in my actions here, I am happy to accept a block or a warning. Padenton|   18:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The nominator says that "A fair appraisal of the discussion might conclude there was no consensus"[7] and that was indeed the conclusion reached by the closer. I did not see a consensus either. I think maybe the closing statement wasn't ideal but it doesn't indicate to me anything improper or incorrect in the way the discussion was closed. There can be legitimate differences of view when considering a non-independent author writing in an independently published journal but generally it is the independence of the journal that is considered relevant. Thincat (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
What I meant by that is that I'm sufficiently open-minded to consider a cogent argument or a restatement if there is one. Lots of times I may disagree with an outcome but agree that it falls within the range I'd consider fair, based on the analysis offered. Perhaps I've missed something. Perhaps I'm too close to the issue. Perhaps we're talking past each other. I am always willing to listen to the possibility I'm wrong and I frequently change my !votes based on what other people say. This was not one of those cases. I stated my concern, I think I was pretty clear about it and I invited discussion. Let's not mistake my respectful approach for a concession that's not there. Msnicki (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, although I would still have endorsed no consensus even if you had said you rejected this outcome with no possibility of changing your mind. Thincat (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's my other concern, Thincat. You claim it's the independence of the journal that's considered relevant. I don't believe that's true and I don't believe you can cite anything in our guidelines to support that claim. We routinely accept primary sources as WP:RELIABLE for routine facts. But to establish notability requires more than just reliable. WP:GNG requires that the source must also be WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT. The only significant source was an article written by the author about his own work, published in Dr. Dobbs, making it clearly WP:PRIMARY. It wouldn't matter if it had been printed in the NY Times. If he writes his own article about his own work, it is neither secondary nor independent and I just don't see how you get around that. Msnicki (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. No consensus. The users Msnicki and Padenton have repeatedly attempted to hijack rather than respect the review process, and have harassed numerous users. -IO Device (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
If what you said is true, you should have no difficulty proving it with diffs. Let's see them. Alerting AfD participants to inappropriate canvassing WP:CANVASSING and tagging canvassed editors is completely within policy. ― Padenton|   17:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak overturn- I can see the arguments for no consensus. But some weight should have been given to the fact that, after the relist, the discussion was clearly leaning delete. There should also have been some weight given to the fact that the delete side inspected the sources and found them unsuitable, while the keep side was uniformly "Keepkeepkeep- ILIKEIT". Reyk YO! 06:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. We got hit right away with a flood of WP:SPAs that had been canvassed off-wiki. By the last relisting, that had died down and more of the new !votes started to come from our own community. Except for a couple keeps arguing that we ignore/bend the guidelines, all those new !votes were delete and all stated the same guidelines-based reason, that the sources simply aren't there to support notability. Msnicki (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse - headcount favours keep, though WP:N is very stretched here to make a policy argument, it's not quite to the point where headcount can be ignored. Temporal ordering of the !votes can only really be a factor when facts change during the discussion (which I don't see happening here). It's also simply not true to claim "authored by the person means its not independent" - the publisher is the main consideration, not the author. But it is a factor which weakens the source (again, putting us at "very weak sources, but not non-existent where you can just ignore two-thirds of the editors' appraisals). WilyD 09:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you are confusing reliable with independent. From WP:GNG, "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. And from WP:SPIP, The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. These authorities appear to say you're flat wrong. Can you you cite anything in the guidelines to support your clam that only the publisher needs to be independent?
If we accept your argument, that all it takes to make someone's product notable is for them to write their own article and get it published in a techie magazine, I think we'll have completely gutted our basic principle that notability requires that other people people must take note, that they must actually write or say something. We'll also have gutted the requirement that it be secondary, that it must contain their own thoughts, because obviously it wouldn't.
It is simply not enough to argue that the editors at Dr. Dobbs must have thought this was notable because why else would they have published it and from there, make the additional leap that if they (maybe) thought it was notable, that's good enough for us, we don't need no silly rulz. That is, I think, what you're asking here. Msnicki (talk)
No, I'm not. An invited article (or whatever) is more like an interview - which involves the person, but where the decision to publish (which is the metric of notability) is independent. Neither of those are great sources, but they do go towards notability. If I write about my painting (or whatever), nobody will publish it, because nobody else gives a shit. If somebody else gives a shit - and so much of a shit that they're willing to spend their money to publish it in the expectation that people are so interested in it they can make their money back, that's notability. A literal and thoughtless reading of a couple guidelines that begin by warning you not to do that aside. WilyD 10:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete. The closer appears to have given more weight to the limited-quality sources than appropriate to do. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd have preferred "delete", but sysops are rightly given additional leeway to use their discretion in cases where there has been canvassing. I can't say Ymblanter's close was beyond the pale. A "no consensus" outcome allows early renomination, and I'd suggest having another discussion in a couple of months.—S Marshall T/C 11:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete User:S Marshall's view is pretty close to where I am, what perhaps pushes me over the edge to an overturn is the closer's statement which in places seems at direct odds to the opinions expressed. Somewhat disappointed with their response to the enquiry, although I can understand how the request could have been read, I would have thought that an admin should rise above such and give due comment/consideration. Might change my mind to an endorse if there is a decent explanation from the closing admin. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    Well, at least someone got interested in my opinion. Concerning the closure, I believe that I did take into account all arguments. There have been sources presented, and the sources DO create some notability. The discussion was whether this notability is enough to keep the article, and my reading is that there was no consensus for this point. I obviously noticed that there were keep voted canvassed, and this is in my closing statement. It is incorrect to say that the delete voters looked at the sources, and the keep voters did not; take for instance DGG who voted keep (not even weak keep) referring to the sources. I would personally vote delete myself, but I am not a voter, I was a closer, my business was to evaluate consensus and not to present my personal opinion. Concerning the request, I read it in the way "Either you change your closing statement to be it how I like, or I go to DRV" (even though it was ploitely formulated) . My response was go to DRV, well, this is not the way we should treat closers. This is great to see that delete voters are more persistent, but at this point I stand by my decision.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    Well here's my problem, looking from the bottom up Reyk and Stifle at least (I didn't read any further up) don't give any indication that they believe the sources "DO create some notability", the nominator here clearly doesn't believe that. There are many comments which don't even try to evaluate sources instead fall back on non-arguments (So maybe they do think the sources are helpful for notability or maybe they don't and that's why they avoid arguing on that front). So your view that it does create some notability and your closing statement that "Everybody agrees" doesn't align with my reading of the discussion. On the other matter I don't think that has a great bearing on the correct outcome here, but the whole point in anyone discussing with the closing admin is to avoid needing to come to DRV, I can see that it can be read as a threat (though since any admin can expect their decisions to be challenged from time to time, should be happy to have the checks and balances, and DRV isn't a punishment, then it would be rather misplaced as a threat), but I can also see it the other way. My point there was I'd expect an admin to rise above the bait and simply discuss rather than being apparently dismissive of it. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    My reading of the original discussion is that they do create some notability. I do not believe any sane Wikipedia user can think that a subject with an article published about it is EXACTLY as notable as a subject with no articles published. My reading of the argument why the Dr.Dobbs article is not sufficient is that the source should be independent and this source is not independent. I am fine with the argument, and not everybody agrees with that. But nobody, as far as I see, is arguing that Dr. Dobbs's article creates as much notability as a facebook post. Concerning DRV, this is not my first closure by far, and not my first DRV (for the record, I have never been overturned), but this is the first time anybody approaches me like this. Well, DRV is within the policy, fine with me. If someone wants to waste community time, let them do it. I am not a mind-reader.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There was nothing disrespectful or threatening about my remark. I clearly stated my complaint, that you had claimed an agreement that did not exist, it's a substantive complaint and I merely suggested that I think you need to at least acknowledge the opposition rather than claim it doesn't exist if you hope to avoid having your close taken to DRV. What was truly unhelpful was your refusal to discuss your close or my complaint, contrary to WP:ADMINACCT which asks, Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Msnicki (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I maintain the agreement did exist. You are continuing to misread my statement, even after I have given very clear explanations. This is WP:IDONTHEAR.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I was in that AfD and I assure you I did not agree and I still don't. I don't count? And what about the other 7 people who agreed with me and don't agree with your claim. You don't hear any of us? It's all well and fine to say you're satisfied by the sources but quite another to claim other people are satisfied as well when they are practically shouting that they don't. Msnicki (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I wrote in my statement that everybody agreed smth is blue and you are shouting (first blackmailing me and then wasting the community time at DRV) that you disagree smth is green. Fine, I disagree as well. You have wasted 30 minutes of my time today, and it is quite a lot. Now I will have some sleep. I feel I provided enough explanations for the closing admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
So much for admin accountability. And who knew that accountability was such a waste of time. Msnicki (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse I thought and continued to think that the sources are sufficient, considering the nature of the subject. The rules at GNG are guidelines, subject to interpretation, and the place where we interpret them with respect to specific articles is at AfD. But that is a question for afd2, not here. If others disagree, the appropriate way for them to go about things is a second AfD., No consensus does not exclude that, so I would normally say there is no reason to bring a non-consensus close here, unless the reason is that the closer has made such a gross error that it must be corrected for the benefit of closers in general, and for their own benefit in subsequent closes. If you disagree with the close, there is in this case nonetheless no such gross error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs)
  • Endorse, but renominate in a few months: The consensus for notability seems to be that it's not yet enough or it's just borderline, without the canvassed votes (one-third of the votes). If editors disagree over the notability of the article itself, a second AfD would be more appropriate. This is a no consensus result, so it should be nominated a few months later if the notability is challenged. Esquivalience t 02:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse, with a sense of weariness that we're here again. The original nomination relied on some rather subjective interpretations of what was notable and what wasn't, and even after removing the meatpuppets there is still clearly no consensus on those questions. I also believe that the "Delete" side used some rather creative interpretations of WP:RS that were not universally agreed with, and not refuted by anything stronger than an "is not!". Finally, I can't really fault the closing admin for not getting into an extended discussion here, since it was patently obvious that nothing short of complete capitulation to the nominating editor would stop the discussion from ending up here anyway. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

24 April 2015[edit]

Grace Sai[edit]

Grace Sai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I disagree with the deletion process, the original G7 request was false, and I also believe the person in question from a neutral standpoint exceeds the requirements for Wikipedia notability

I find the discussion on Grace Sai's page most uncomfortable. A G7 request was issued by User:JohnCD but he is not the main author (I do not know what he added at all, to be honest) which started a process of deletion just days after the article was reviewed and accepted. Grace Sai is a very notable person in Southeast Asia and has numerous articles written about the two companies she has founded in Indonesia and Singapore. She has been mentioned as one of the top 50 voices in social entrepreneurship globally in a referenced Guardian article and has been profiled in Singapore newspapers and appeared on radio, TV, TedX and spoken at universities across the world.

The ensuing discussion had many people stating false accusations, e.g. that most references were written by herself (one was wrongly categorized as such, but fixed later) and one claimed that the company she founded was a part of a university, which is false, and therefore questioned how real her entrepreneurial success was.

I like the crowdsourcing aspects, but the deletion process is not working properly. Furthermore, as the author, I was not given the option to keep a copy of the article, and it is now completely gone.

I would like the Admins to review the original article and the ensuing discussions. Tobiastan (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Two quick remarks related to the issues raised above:
  • The G7 deletion criteria is used as a deletion rationale if the original creator of the page explicitly requests its removal or blanks the page. In this case both applies: On "21:02, 28 March 2015" you blanked the page with the summary "Created by mistake, apologies". Amortias subsequently tagged the page as G7 (Deletion requested) and the page itself was subsequently deleted by JohnCD.
  • Deleted article's are not completely removed from Wikipedia, but are instead made inaccessible. It is possible to ask for a page to be restored to your user space to allow further development on it. Note that pages removed for issues such as copyright infringement or libel will not be restored.
Aside from this: Are you and Klippgen (talk · contribs) related somehow? Both accounts edit the same pages and seem to be active and dormant in exactly the same periods of time. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 08:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: article temporarily undeleted for review. JohnCD (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse the G7 deletion is a complete red herring. As noted the nominator themselves blanked the page and regardless the article at that point in time was pretty much the Steve Jobs article the G7 will have had no impact on the deletion which just occurred through AFD, for which no reasonable argument has been put forward that the process wasn't followed or that the closing admin misread the consensus of the discussion --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Apologies, I did indeed create the article initially in the Sandbox and thought that was a private, which is why the Steve Jobs article ended up there - and I now understand that the G7 by JohnCD was fully in order. Regardless, I remain critical to the review process for the ensuing, correct article which has more than 20 references, as the contributors to the discussion did not seem to have read the full article; did come with inaccurate descriptions of the references and put other information in doubt that was in fact confirmed in the references. Would a possibility be to re-write a shorter article and resubmit it? Tobiastan (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, it would be a possibility. I would suggest that you prepare a draft of the article in a sandbox in your own userspace, such as at User:Tobiastan/Sandbox. When you've finished the draft, bring it back here to Deletion Review. Part of our function is to examine fresh drafts of previously-deleted articles.—S Marshall T/C 10:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a promising start. Not all the sources in the article are about Grace Sai. I checked a couple of them at random ---- source #4 and source #6. Source #4 doesn't seem to mention Ms Sai at all, and as far as I can see its only connection with her is to describe the venue she co-founded as "another co-working space". Am I missing something? If not, that source should be removed on the basis that it's largely irrelevant. Source #6 is better. It identifies and quotes Ms Sai, and describes her as the co-founder and CEO of the venue. That's helpful: the Guardian is an impeccable source. Unfortunately, the sentence it's actually placed after reads: "Sai is also a thought leader on social entrepreneurship in Asia." There's no sense in which The Guardian says or implies this, so the source should not appear after this sentence.

    I advise re-drafting the article a bit, ensuring that all the sources are as relevant as possible and that each source specifically and precisely supports the claim in the preceding sentence. It's okay to remove some sources ---- you only need the two or three very best ones. Only describe her as "a thought leader" if you have an impeccable source that uses those exact words, because the phrase "thought leader" is a subjective judgment. Also, that phrase has been spoiled a bit in the minds of experienced editors because marketers use it a lot, often when describing people who have no real or substantive leadership role, so it becomes a red flag for what we call "puffery"... in other words, it might attract negative attention from editors and accidentally obscure Ms Sai's real accomplishments.—S Marshall T/C 19:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • PS: I should have included an apology with that post. These are things that should have been said to you at AfC. You should not have had to go through the article creation process, the article deletion process, and the deletion review process to reach this point. I'm sorry: Wikipedia is normally better than this.—S Marshall T/C 19:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi S Marshall, no apologies necessary, I am learning a lot from this, and in particular from your last and very kind post. I will revise the article tonight and make sure all references support all claims 100%. Thanks again, Tobias Tan (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

23 April 2015[edit]

Allied Wallet[edit]

Allied Wallet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Overwhelming consensus to delete. Not a single person, over two AfDs arguing to keep the page in mainspace. Even if you discount the editors who were allegedly canvased there is still a consensus to delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Overturn to Delete, if there was an issue with consensus, the closing administrator should have relisted the discussion and/or tagged it for further review. This was a clear delete. Nakon 04:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep article. I've removed the puffery. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    • This is a review of the deletion decision and as such we are discussing whether to overturn or endorse it. We are not discussing the article (not directly at least). Stifle (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn, delete, and trout. Decision was not one to which any reasonable administrator could have come. Even taking account of the canvassing — only one person who was "pinged" actually turned up and contributed. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete - everyone argued delete, a non-delete can only be construed as a super!vote. Though actually userfy to the person who requested it, since that doesn't require a discussion. WilyD 11:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I would, of course, have no objection to userfying to Cunard, and letting them move it to the mainspace when they feel it's ready. WilyD 16:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete notifying everyone who commented in a previous AfD that there was a renomination ongoing isn't necessarily inappropriate, and certainly isn't justification for closing an AfD with the opposite outcome to the one everybody wanted. Hut 8.5 18:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist to discuss the sources I have found:
    1. Adams, John (2013-11-21). "Allied Is Building Biometrics for Mobile Wallets". PaymentsSource (SourceMedia). Archived from the original on 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2015-04-23. 

      The abstract at http://www.paymentssource.com/eletter/profile/3/18218.htmlWebCite says:

      Allied Wallet is developing new payment technology that allows users to identify themselves by using an add-on fingerprint sensor, and also plans to build biometric acceptance for merchants.

      When the technology is deployed early next year, consumers will have the option to register their fingerprint as a way to verify transactions made via the Allied mobile app.

      "You verify the payment with your fingerprint and then choose the card you would like to use to pay the amount on the bill," says Andy Khawaja, CEO of Allied Wallet, which has 88 million users globally and is available in more than 250 countries and more than 50 currencies.

    2. Sikimic, Simona (2013-04-19). "Meet the eccentric behind multi-billion-dollar e-commerce giant Allied Wallet". LondonlovesBusiness. Archived from the original on 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2015-04-23. 

      The article notes:

      Bearing in mind his e-commerce company Allied Wallet is expecting to transact $55bn (£36bn) in 2013, you soon realise why the American takes his work so seriously – for Khawaja, every day is at least another million.

      Allied Wallet provides a secure online payment system (similar to PayPal), as well as peer-to-peer transfers and smartphone card payments.

      Thanks to the unstoppable onslaught of e-commerce, Khawaja says his company grew by a jaw-dropping 6,000% in 2012 (though he won’t be drawn on profit). The numbers are hard to verify, but aren’t outright impossible.

      http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/about-us/WebCite notes:

      LondonlovesBusiness.com launched on 5 September 2011. It is the second title from Casis Media, co-founded by Graham Sherren (the mastermind behind Centaur Media and all of its great titles) and Mike Bokaie (founder of Caspian Media and creator of Real Business and Real Deals Magazines).

    3. "Who Really Benefits From Job Perks?". CBS. 2015-01-05. Archived from the original on 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2015-04-23. 

      The article notes:

      The Valley Village resident recently started working at Allied Wallet, an e-commerce services company ranked among Fortune Magazine’s “10 Great Workplaces For Millenials.”

      “A lot of the perks just surpass everything I could imagine: Friday lunches, weekly massages, a $50 stipend in the cafe downstairs. It’s really incredible,” Cosper said.

      ...

      But Allied Wallet’s management disagrees. They say the perks are just that – perks.

      Last year, Allied Wallet’s owner recognized Diab as Employee of the Year and surprised him with a brand-new Mercedes-Benz convertible.

      ...

      Allied Wallet plans to nearly double its Los Angeles staff in the development, marketing and tech areas within the next six months. The starting salary is around six figures.

    4. Martindale, Nick (Summer 2014). "No pay, no gain: How Allied Wallet founder Andy Khawaja fought to build up his online payments empire". New Business. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2015-04-23. 

      From http://www.newbusiness.co.uk/profileWebCite:

      New Business provides independent advice and guidance to directors and owners of small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) in the UK through this website, the quarterly publication New Business Magazine, and the free weekly e-newsletter.

      ...

      New Business magazine is a 68-page full colour magazine of the highest quality and provides in-depth reports and reviews on all key areas of business including finance, accounting, business planning, marketing and technology. It also features exclusive interviews with leading officials and entrepreneurs such as Sir Alan Sugar, Sir Rocco Forte, Duncan Bannatyne, Ivan Massow, Jacqueline Gold, Terence Conran, James Dyson, Mark Dixon, Charles Dunstone and others. We work with Government bodies, Regional Authorities and leading experts and associations including the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Chartered Institute Of Marketing,the British Chamber of Commerce, and the UKTI. The magazine is also distributed to the British and City Libraries in London and also City libraries throughout the UK. A selection of articles from each issue is included in the magazine archive on the website.

    5. "Payment processors forfeit $13.3 million to settle U.S. case". Casino Journal. 2010-09-01. Retrieved 2015-04-23 – via HighBeam Research. (subscription required (help)). 

      The article notes:

      Online payment processors Allied Wallet and Allied Systems and their owner, Ahmad Khawaja, have agreed to forfeit US$13.3 million to the U.S. Justice Department to resolve claims that the funds were involved in illegal gambling.

      The agreement was reached in federal court in Manhattan, according to news reports.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Allied Wallet to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Overturn to delete- I get the argument about wanting to discourage canvassing, but it does not seem to me that canvassing really affected the discussion. There was a proper consensus established. Allow recreation if Cunard thinks there are sufficient sources, but I am skeptical that a bunch of run-ofthe-mill advertising churn will be sufficient. And really, stop taking up so much room with your replies. There is no need to hog so much screen real estate that it pushes everyone else's comments off the top of the screen. Reyk YO! 07:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I can see why Spartaz didn't delete it, and it's right that we give our sysops wide latitude to deal with canvassing, so let's not trout him! The gentle fishy caress should go to User:Boleyn whose apparently well-intentioned, but not well-advised, actions caused the problem in the first place. But, I'll join the chorus of overturn to delete. Unanimous !vote was unanimous. I can't see whether the article was userfied to User:ThaddeusB in accordance with his request. If not, allow userfication to him or to User:Cunard, both of whom can be trusted to improve it and restore it to mainspace when they feel it's ready.—S Marshall T/C 11:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    The article was kept, so yah it was not userified. I will reiterate my perfectly reasonable request to userify/draft, although I am perfectly fine with it going to Cunard's space if that is preferred. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn, Draftify, and Trout closing admin. The correct course of action when you feel all the !votes are without merit is to add your own explaining why. Not to super-vote. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC).
  • Relist. w/ no trouts for anyone. Only 2 of the participants notified, voted delete. The rest didn't respond. WP:CANVASSING allows for notifying editors that expressed interest in the AfD. ("Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)") It could not have been done more transparently, Boleyn's notifications to them were neutral, and there don't seem to be any users known that were in favor of 'keep' at the first afd. Boleyn was also uninvolved in both discussions his sole edit was to the second discussion to notify previously-involved users. At the time of this edit, he also added the CoI tag to the article. [8] The creator of the page, Online credit card processor, did not participate in either AfD and has not made a single edit since the few hours he spent creating the article last September. The article may have its issues, but the AfD had not been relisted once yet. No issue with Spartaz's other closes that I've come across, but I think it was a mistake to close this as no consensus without a re-listing. ― Padenton|   05:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse or relist, perfectly reasonable closure assuming research was done. Cunard's sources suggest the subject is notable and passes our GNG and RS guidelines. As per WP:PRESERVE the tone is sufficiently neutral, no OR exists, so I would be in favor or retaining. Valoem talk contrib 12:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete (I never thought I would be !voting to delete something where Spartaz had said keep or no-consensus--it has always been the other way round!! But the entire rationale and objection is fundamentally incorrect. The people involved in an article previously should always be notified, no matter what they have said previously, just as the creator should always be notified, though the creator will almost always want their work kept. In any case the people saying Delete and the afd are regular editors here, and 2 of them had not been pinged. The above sources are inadequate for notability-- nos. 1, 2, 4 are press releases, no.3 is irrelevant to notability, no.6 is a minor negative matter. If there are good sources, and from the size of the company it is possible, some uninvolved editor should start over. COI editing like this should not remain in the history. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete, and trout - See WP:CANVASSING: it allows pinging of previous !voters in discussions. Boleyn's notification was neutral, disinterested, done with no involvement, pinged all editors involved in the last discussion and acceptable. The no consensus close was a supervote, at least relist it if the current consensus may be compromised. Also see User:Boleyn#Pinging during AFDs.....: the closer should have been more careful in claiming that he/she was only pinging the delete voters. Esquivalience t 02:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment' I think you have to look at the context of the close where I had closed a lot of AFDs over a couple of days and encountered a number of AFDs where a couple of editors misused the ping system to canvass likely delete voters. If I ignore that I'm condoning canvass and will get ripped a new one when the deletion gets brought to DRV. If I try to be consistent to send a clear message to stop the misuse I'm apparently unreasonable and supervoting and in need of a trout. If I try to exercise some commonsense I'm then not being consistent and just look like some capricious jerk rather then trying to preserve the integrity of our consensus system. So basically whatever I did here I'm wrong by someone. Well I'm sorry but AFD is tettering on the edge because of limited participation and the last thing we want is to undermine what limited credibility the system has by condoning even the appearance of canvassing, so go ahead and blame me for trying to consistent and using my best judgement. Spartaz Humbug! 06:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Spartaz you've written above that it was a situation where a couple of editors misused the ping system to canvass likely delete voters. I thought from your messages to my Talk pagethat you understand that I had not tried to canvass likely delete voters? I can't think that your comment doesn't respond to me. As per others pointing out that canvass accepts pinging, in a disinterested way, those who have participated in previous discussions I will continue to do so. In my opinion, it can help solve the lack of participation in AfDs to let those who have been involved in the article know what's going on. However, that's essentially a discussion for elsewhere; if you think the policy at CANVASS should be changed, you can start a discussion elsewhere about that. Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Toradex[edit]

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

The was no consensus to keep. Afd is not a vote. It's meant to be decided on the strength of policy based arguments, not on a head count or a willingness to lie about sources. All the keep opinions were very weak or straight out lies. Davey2010 - "meh keep". VMS Mosaic - WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Sunil - WP:OTHERSTUFF and a lie about independent reliable sources. Jonathan - a meaningless comment about good reference/content ratio. Sunil then goes on to lie again about sources. No one who said there was coverage in independent reliable sources was able to identify any truthfully. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment, endorse as AFD closer. At best, this would be a no-consensus close. There is clearly no consensus to delete. Nakon 04:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment 'I don't think they are notable, but the simplest thing would be to renominate for AfD. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - In all honestly I'd of preferred a second relisting as the keeps (inc mine!) weren't all that but I think it would've gained more weak keeps than anything, IMHO the easiest thing to do would've been to renominate in a months time which you can still do if nothing happens with this. –Davey2010Talk 07:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. No reasonable administrator could have come to a delete conclusion, and as I have repeatedly opined DRV isn't concerned with flipping between the various versions of not-delete. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus - or relist - there's exactly one source that can be invoked here to maybe justify claims this meets WP:N; the Gizmag one [9]. Even there, I'm not convinced (and I might be the biggest softy around on such things) - absent that source, I'd have honoured an A7 request. The case for or against that source isn't made convincingly enough in the discussion, though, to quite close based on a conclusion about it. There is a material difference in NC and Keep on the appropriateness of an immediately 3rd AfD - and so long as we're here, being lazy is a bad reason to endorse an obviously wrong outcome. WilyD 11:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse: based on that discussion a "delete" outcome would not have been within discretion. If the sources are bad, renominate it after a reasonable period.—S Marshall T/C 11:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - reasonable close based on discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Recent discussions[edit]

20 April 2015[edit]

Nim (programming language) (closed)[edit]

Clonazolam, Flubromazolam, Deschloroetizolam[edit]

Clonazolam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Flubromazolam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deschloroetizolam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The pages for Clonazolam, Flubromazolam and Deschloroetizolam have recently been deleted for the lack of credible sources. Today a new study, "Characterization of the four designer benzodiazepines clonazolam, deschloroetizolam, flubromazolam, and meclonazepam, and identification of their in vitro metabolites" was published, I hope that counts and the wiki pages for these novel substances can be restored.

I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia so I hope I didn't completely mess up the format of this undeletion request :)

Aethyta (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • The usual criterion is for multiple sources in independent reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Were there any other sources in the article prior to its deletion? The first two are quite widely sold in the UK and I'd be surprised if there weren't some other mentions of them in official documents or even just the media. Testem (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If I remember correctly, the deleted articles were full of unreferenced content, speculation, original research, etc. and that's why they were deleted. I don't think having a single scientific publication (which may be unrelated to the specific content that was deleted) addresses the problems with the deleted content. These chemical compounds can be listed at designer drug and/or List of benzodiazepines (some already are), but it doesn't look like there is much to say about them at this point with a single mention in the scientific literature, so standalone articles don't appear to be appropriate. If someone thinks there is sufficient reliable sources to support an article about these compounds, using the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process is probably the way to go. ChemNerd (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • They shouldn't have been deleted for those reasons. Failing WP:NOR is grounds to fix the article, not to delete it. The reason they should have been deleted because there were insufficient sources at the time to write a policy-compliant article. (Does this seem like splitting hairs? I think it's worth saying. It's important, at Deletion Review, that we're clear on the circumstances in which articles should and should not be deleted.)

    Now we have one source, which is insufficient for standalone articles as you and Stifle both rightly say, but it would justify a redirect.—S Marshall T/C 09:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion and permit redirects for the reasons given above. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

18 April 2015[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God (3rd nomination) (closed)[edit]

Andreas Lubitz (closed)[edit]

Eduardo (rapper) (closed)[edit]

17 April 2015[edit]

16 April 2015[edit]

15 April 2015[edit]

Archive[edit]

2015
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2014
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2013
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2012
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2011
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2010
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2009
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2008
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2007
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2006
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December