Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion)
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); or
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).

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. 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=2016 July 27}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2016 July 27|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]

27 July 2016[edit]

25 July 2016[edit]


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

Before I started contributing to the article, it looked a bit unsubstantial to me, so I looked around to see if there were any sources as part of BEFORE. I discovered that there was indeed quite a bit of press coverage of this software, so I decided not to nominate it. It came as a surprise, therefore, when the article was A7'd. I'm requesting a review of this decision. I attempted (permalink) to start a discussion with the deleting admin, but they didn't respond. (They have, however, been active on Wikipedia since the discussion started.) Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 01:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. Since we non-admins can't see the deleted page and since generally I'm inclined to give an admin the benefit of the doubt in spot judgement, I'd suggest User:Enterprisey offer these sources they've found to make a case the page shouldn't have been deleted. My cursory search finds only one article I'd consider as meeting WP:IRS but even then the subject gets what I'd call insignificant coverage. If the contributor has sources please present them. BusterD (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For my part, I don't count either of the presented sources as reliable or independent. These are two websites which are in the business of promoting alternative coinage. The author of the CoinDesk article is Stan Higgins who "enjoys camping, cats and poetry. He currently resides in Boston." That hardly describes any expertise or background. CoinFront is little more than a blog. I wouldn't trust either of them. That's my humble opinion. BusterD (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @BusterD: I've temp undeleted the article. —Cryptic 02:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I'd encourage Enterprisey to make the case in pagespace. I'd be glad to re-assess once sources are applied presented. Just for the record, is Enterprisey a paid editor in this situation? BusterD (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    No. Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 05:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your response. BusterD (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore and take to AfD. The sources BusterD and Enterprisey found are certainly enough to meet the A7 credible significance threshold. Whether they are sufficient to establish notability is a discussion for AfD, not for A7 (and not for DRV either). Thparkth (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse. In the state the article was in at the time, A7 seems appropriate. And, looking at the two sources presented above (coindesk and thecoinfront), neither strikes me as even meeting the very low bar for A7 to not apply; they are both perfunctory coverage in niche publications. But, I have no real objection to bringing this to AfD for a better review. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • An AfD wouldn't do irreparable damage to the encyclopaedia, I suppose.—S Marshall T/C 17:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore and take to AfD. If sources can be located, this subject can be discussed without mystery. BusterD (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's send to AFD for a full discussion. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Probably not going to make it, but send to AfD as a reasonable objection to an A7 deletion. Hobit (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Send to AFD, borderline A7, and certainly don't have anything against the deleting admin for taking the action that they took. It will in all likelihood get pulverised in AFD which should put it to rest once and for all. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC).

23 July 2016[edit]

22 July 2016[edit]

File:Mariah Carey - Love Takes Time US cover.jpg[edit]

File:Mariah Carey - Love Takes Time US cover.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I contacted both Explicit (who deleted the image), Smarty9108 (who nominated the image for deletion) and Masem. Even with or without responses from either of them, I still believe that the CD format version of Love Takes Time is wrong for readers. The nominator believed that the US cassette version of the single should have high-res. Therefore, he orphaned the image and then replaced it with the CD one, which was not released commercially. I think that the commercial cassette one should be undeleted and then reused (and then improved if someone would take my request for image improvement). Then the promo US CD one should be removed as less true to readers. --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Don't see how this is an issue for deletion review, as far as I can see the same user uploaded both images, and then nominated the other for deletion. Yes participation was non-existant, but as we can only keep one of the two images DRV overturning this or turning to softdelete is essentially deciding which image to keep. That actually seems to be an editorial decision, so I'd suggest you thrash it out on the article talk page with the other editor and anyone else who cares to join in, then I'm sure some admin can delete/undelete as necessary. Or am I missing something? -- (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Oh... I didn't fully summarize the file's history logs. The file was originally of the CD image, but then I replaced it with the cassette one downloaded from eBay. --George Ho (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
So sounds even more like a content dispute, other editors add a picture, you decide it's the wrong picture and replace it with your preference, they effectively change it back. I really can't see DRV deciding a content dispute for you. -- (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think this is the wrong forum. Should be worked out as a content dispute first. If consensus is reached to use this file, a request to undelete can be made at WP:REFUND. Kelly hi! 09:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

21 July 2016[edit]

Mrs Denis Thatcher[edit]

Mrs Denis Thatcher (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not believe that there was consensus at RfD to retarget and would prefer to get this relisted to get a clearer picture or overturned to no consensus. I outlined my reasons for suggesting a relist/no-consensus close with the closer here, but did not come to an agreement.

3/6 !voters endorsed Margaret Thatcher (specifically the early political career section) as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term, including one person who explicitly endorsed my proposed target over retargeting to Denis Thatcher#Marriages when asked. The issues over lack of context raised by the IP !voter (whose invocation of WP:COMMONNAME would imply that they also see Margaret Thatcher as the primary topic) were addressed by changes to PM Thatcher's article. Given all of this, a relist and pinging/notifying the involved editors for their views after the updates would have led to a better close instead of discarding !votes because of how they were unclear as the closer did.

The quote "Mrs Denis Thatcher redirects to someone else for other Mrs Denis Thatchers see Denis Thatcher" by the closer in the linked conversation above shows that the closer may not have understood the PRIMARYTOPIC arguments in the RfD, since PM Thatcher was referred by that name by some reliable sources in her day and even now as shown by the links provided in the RfD, so that is an additional reason to bring this to DRV.-- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Relist The process-based reasons are that A) there is now information in the MT article that discusses this name. That happened late and may be enough to sway people. Also, B), it's possible that the closer missed that someone changed their mind but not their !vote, so the consensus is less clear than it might seem. It is worth noting that the closer may have missed that one of the !voter. My other reason is that I just can't get my head around the justification for the new redirect target. Maybe it is best (as it could be referring to a number of people and they are all covered in that target). I don't feel too strongly here--the final outcome isn't crazy, but I'm not sure it's really what the consensus was or what it should be now that the MT article has been updated. Hobit (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Relist Patently absurd result. I'd retarget to #Person life rather than #early political career, but this is an alternate name that has been used for someone who has an article in her own right. I have not been able to think of any circumstances where we would want to do that for anyone. There were comments that the prev. redirect was sexist; they have it upside down--to redirect to the husband when the wife is notable is what's sexist. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Relist. The close was in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus was ludicrous.—S Marshall T/C 20:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The only reason I don't think the outcome was utterly ludicrous is that the name could also apply to Margaret Doris Kempson, his first wife. She's doesn't have an article and so is unlikely to be what anyone is looking for, but if I squint, I can kind of see the argument. Hobit (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: The nominator of the original RfD has removed the relevant sentence from the Margaret Thatcher article and opened a discussion on the talk page on whether it should be included on the page at all, so all commentators here are invited to share your opinions there as well. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I agree with the closer that the discussion shows a rough consensus of redirect to Denis Thatcher#Marriages, multiple participants supporting that, and it making the most sense. I did some editing to the target because it is an odd little section that is confusing/astonishing without clear headings. In short, Denis had a little known short wartime marriage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Eden English School Btl[edit]

Eden English School Btl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I bring my own close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden English School Btl here for review. The argument for delete was lack of sources; the argument for keep was long-standing precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I found a strong consensus for keep, but this has been challenged.

It is true that no better source seems to exist online than this, but I don't think it is seriously suggested that the article is a hoax and no such school exists; if so, this photograph, with the school name on the side of the bus as well as on the building, would be a rather elaborate deception.

The initial version was promotional; the article as it stood during the AfD is here. Since the AfD it has been stubbed as unsourced, then redirected to Education in Nepal, then restored and moved to Eden English Boarding High School, then once again redirected. I have restored the stub, but the choice between these different versions is a matter for normal editing and is not the issue here.

The principle involved is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Secondary schools and verifiability. JohnCD (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Overturn or relist, due to procedural errors in the discussion. Note that the relevant part of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists". Sources establishing that this is a secondary school did not feature in the deletion discussion, and nor did the version of the article that was kept cite any sources. The current version also has no sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Just to acknowledge that the nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry, though I still think the nomination was a worthwhile one. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify, this refers to the AfD nom, not the DRV nom (which I'd thought for a moment and had my head spinning). Hobit (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I think it's perfectly clear that it exists and is a secondary school and therefore meets the criteria of the consensus. The AfD result was pretty unequivocal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Can I ask what sources you are judging by, Necrothesp? It would have been helpful if sources had been discussed in the AfD. JohnCD mentions this above, but I am not sure whether it is a RS. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • It's not a good source, certainly, but I think it's enough of a source to prove existence, as John says. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I rather suspect that its content is user-generated, and also note that it lists the school's website as the Wikipedia article, which does not fill me with confidence! In any case, these discussions should have taken place during the AfD. If it is relisted, we can have them properly. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
          • But all the information was there for the AfD discussion and the decision was still overwhelmingly to keep! No new information has come to light undermining the AfD discussion. The closure was entirely correct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
            • Yes, but there was a procedural error in the discussion, because the keepers didn't take into account the need to verify the school's existence. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
              • That's not really a procedural error. And contributors obviously considered its existence had been verified in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Note also that when I've searched for other Nepalese schools on Google, I have found them in lists on government websites (see Eden National Boarding School, which I sourced just now). With Eden English Boarding High School, I can't find such sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • endorse I know we don't have agreement on school outcomes, but numerically there was no way to get to delete and the keeps had a reasonable argument (we've been doing this for years and years). NC might also have been a reasonable outcome, and I'd have endorsed that too, but keep is, IMO, more reflective of the discussion and at least the historic general opinion of Wikipedia. Hobit (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • What about the fact that that historic general opinion of Wikipedia requires verification that the school exists, Hobit? That part of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES seems to have been ignored by the keepers in the AfD discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I'll admit I'd not realized there was serious doubt about its existence (the sources showing it's existence seem pretty strong, but I agree it's not impossible that they are all a hoax). I've contacted pabson via their website to see if it is a member of their organization (as far as I can tell, they don't maintain a list of members). Hobit (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Hobit. I checked their website earlier and couldn't find a list. When you say that the sources showing its existence seem strong, can I ask which sources you mean? I only see one mentioned here, and none in the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Just the website and picture. It seems like a rather elaborate hoax if it is one, but I agree it's possible, which is why I've reached out. Hobit (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
            • I haven't found a website for it. Could you provide a link if you've found one, Hobit? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
              • [1] looks like a website for the school. Given that it's really easy to find, I'm guessing you've seen and and don't believe it is a site for this school. What am I missing? Hobit (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
                • That's a directory of schools, which is believe is probably reliant on user-generated content, Hobit. You'll see on the right-hand side of that page that it lists the website of the school as the Wikipedia article. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
                  • I believe it's the effective website of the school. I agree it could be part of a hoax, though I very much doubt it. Hobit (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
                    • If it has been created by the school though, Hobit, then it's not an independent source, which is what WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES requires. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
                      • Lack of independent sourcing is a problem per policy. More importantly, I'm concerned this is a hoax (if there were sourcing I 100% believed but wasn't independent I'd probably be okay with the outcome). I'm waiting on a response by the oversight agency that I contacted. But I'm likely going to be off-line for a while, and it doesn't look like they are responding. So relist though if I hear back from them and they verify this isn't a hoax, I'll likely endorse again. Hobit (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
                        • Thanks for your efforts, Hobit. If they do reply in the affirmative, the question then is how we source the article, given that sources need to be published, but let's cross that bridge if we come to it. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
                          • FYI, I've heard nothing. Hobit (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse but encourage AfD2 The consensus was absolutely clear that we should follow our usual practice, which is to to have the article. NC would not have been a reasonable close. Repeated efforts in the last few months by a few editors to changethe practice have all met with consensus to keep the current practice. By this time, its getting perhaps near to being disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Although I disagree with the consensus, that is not the argument here, DGG. The consensus is that secondary school articles are kept if independent sources verify the school's existence. The article cites no such sources, and sources verifying that the school is a secondary school were not provided in the AfD discussion. The outcome therefore isn't in line with the consensus documented by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
as that was not discussed at the afd, i think the best course is to bring an afd2. This isn't to place to determine the facts of the case. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That's why I was hoping to get the AfD reopened, but I would be happy to start a second AfD, DGG. Should I wait for this deletion review to conclude first, though? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It's confusing to do the same thing two ways at the same time. I changed my !vote to "Endorse but encourage AfD2" DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn. OUTCOMES is only an essay and merely reflects what has typically happened in previous discussions; in § Citing this page in AfD, it stresses that "[a]ll articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies such as [the verifiability policy]." SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not reflect consensus that articles about schools are always kept, only that—eliding the unsatisfied accreditation and sourcing bits—"[m]ost . . . high schools are usually kept." By its explicit instructions, it is not to be read to vitiate our verifiability policy and notability guideline, yet that is exactly what happened in this discussion. The votes citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES as trump card should have been discounted as contrary to policy, illogical, or uninformed.

    I also object to the notion that AFD consensus can override VERIFY and BURDEN ("Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.")—established policy—in the (kept) article. Rebbing 20:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Ooh, this is another interesting debate. (I've found several excellent ones today, for some reason). Here we have a supermajority for "keep" in the face of no decent sources. In the battle of consensus vs policy, who wins? If it had been a consensus to ignore schooloutcomes, then I think it would have to stand, because IAR is policy. But I don't think it was. It was more a consensus that the article met schooloutcomes, even though it's not at all clear that it did. Let's chicken out of having to decide. Let's just relist. This should NOT be understood as an "overturn", because the closer did close in accordance with the consensus and that's what a closer's job is to do.—S Marshall T/C 21:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think relisting is the best option, so I have struck the first part of my previous "Overturn or relist" comment. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Overturn but more importantly an Objection to the idea that a keep outcome absolutely precludes redirecting an article for which no reliable sources can be found. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does still require existence, as others have pointed out, and this steaming pile of scraped data, operated by a "social media promoters" company, is most definitely not a reliable source to support such existence. If a bunch of people base the entirety of their keep argument on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES despite no reliable sources available at all, I can sort of understand closing it as keep based just on the pressure of numbers, but that it isn't deleted doesn't mean it can't be redirected if there are no usable sources and thus no usable content. I don't think that actually requires overturning or relisting. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Relist I understand that the closer was in a difficult position and would have had to close this either as keep or no-consensus. I also commend the closer for bringing the close to deletion review themselves. I am going for a relist here as WP:V cannot trump WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. At least one reliable source (not user generated/self published) has to be shown which proves that the school exists. That was something which was not shown in the AfD. We have since had more discussions and realised that WP:V is important. If this is relisted, it will give participants in the AfD a chance to have a look at the verifiability angle and also look for sources. Btw, the source mentioned is user generated/self published and is clearly not a reliable source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Relist, with no prejudice against the admin who was not given much to work with. Consensus is clear, but it's based largely on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which is worthless if it lets articles like this that have nothing in the way of reliable sources to continue existing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC).
  • Overturn - I endorse SCHOOLOUTCOMES but self-created photos do not count as verification. It seems to me that the best thing that could be done here (presumably after another AfD) would be to USERIFY the current page until the editor that wrote and took the photos can provide some independent secondary sources which show that the thing isn't a hoax. Note, I don't think it is a hoax, but believe that we do need some kind of standards for school pages, and providing something which shows it exists is a pretty low bar, given that it can even be in the local language. That's the argument I'd be using if it returned to AfD. JMWt (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


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

Allow recreation of this version based on sources provided. When the article was nominated for deletion it was in this condition only three sources. It has since been expanded to the current version in my space which is written by Prisencolin. Sources such as theScore, Yahoo! eSports, The Daily Dot and ESPN all give him significant coverage over a long period of time. These are all reliable mainstream sources. He has been signed by multiple teams and is currently with Echo Fox. In eSports, this is the definition of professional. One specific editor requested that this go through DRV. So allow recreation. Valoem talk contrib 15:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Endorse G4 speedy and salt to prevent any more similar disruption. This has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FREAKAZOiD and the original deletion was upheld at DRV just a week ago. Now, Valoem got it userfied and then immediately put it back in the mainspace without doing anything except minor cosmetic changes to the CITET templates. All the "sources" currently in the article were known to the AfD and DRV participants. Valoem has not actually added any content since the article was deleted. I nominated it for G4 speedy as a re-creation of material deleted at AfD without doing anything to address the reasons for deletion, and it was indeed speedily deleted. I regard the latest userfication and DRV to be an attempted end-run around the deletion policy. Reyk YO! 15:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The fact Reyk endorsed a speedy highlights his bad faith in this matter. Speedy nominations of because of personal conflicts is by definition the behavior of an editor who is not here to build an encyclopedia. The sources I provided shows this is clearly notable. Please do not let our unpleasant encounters in the past affect your judgment. Valoem talk contrib 15:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Reyk also knows that the sources he references were added during the AfD. In the DRV, he advanced the curious idea that !voters should be presumed to have seen sources added to the article after their last contribution to the AfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it's even weirder to presume they haven't. It is very common for people to do a search for sources, find a few scattered mentions here and there but nothing impressive, and vote delete. That someone later is more impressed by those sources and adds them should not create a presumption that all earlier delete votes should be discarded. That's not only dismissive and insulting, it would encourage drip-feeding crappy sources into an article just to invalidate previous votes. In this discussion, the early delete voters turned up at the DRV and endorsed the result. I assume they wouldn't do that if they actually had not encountered the new "sources" and thought the new material would have changed the outcome, so I do not think my opinion is unreasonable. Reyk YO! 06:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No its not, I assume if they read the sources provided we wouldn't be here. We are here because of lack of due diligence. No one has highlighted in any discussion the issues with the sources provided. Valoem talk contrib 18:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment- in addition to my first comment, I'd like to add that this DRV is just a re-argument of the original AfD. And that is not what deletion review is for. I see no attempt to argue that either the AfD deletion or the subsequent G4 speedy were wrong in any way. Reyk YO! 15:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This is an argument to allow recreation for a situation when sources have been provided and the subject is clearly notable. Valoem talk contrib 16:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • allow recreation yes it was deleted and that deletion was endorsed at DRV. And yes, that was clearly the wrong outcome. We've got in-depth sources including ESPN with a 1000+ word article solely on this person, a Breitbart article (~500 words) on an incident he was at the center of, more than a dozen articles at Daily Dot that at least mention him (including some where he is the focus of the article). There is also an article on Yahoo and a number of pure-esports reliable sources. Clearly way (way) over our notability bar. Hobit (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • So if I am adamant that I disagree with an AfD and DRV result, I am entitled to remonimate the article a week later without adding anything new to the discussion? Reyk YO! 07:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Good question. And that is the big issue here. If something that plainly has no sources gets kept, it would be unusual to see it renominated for deletion a week later, though not unheard of. In this case, we've got something way over the bar and it was deleted. I'd have personally preferred we wait for another source or two--they clearly will come. But the nom jumped the gun and happens to be correct--this easily meets WP:N. I have a hard time telling someone they can't create an article when it clearly meets the letter and spirit of our requirements. Hobit (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
      • On the substance of the article, do you agree it meets the GNG? If not, why not? I've provided 6+ sources focused on the subject of the article. The ESPN one is in great depth. Hobit (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse AfD. Endorse last week's DRV. Endorse G4. There is nothing here that's new since any of those. We should also stop userfying deleted pages unless the requesting user can present a reasonable plan for improving the article, to avoid this kind of time-wasting nonsense. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • RoySmith the article already passes our standards here. It is in start state, how can we improve the article if it is delete? Valoem talk contrib 18:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree we've been here before. But I don't see how you can claim that the topic doesn't meet the GNG. We've provided (in this DRV) articles from ESPN, Breitbart and Daily Dot among others. The ESPN one is purely about the subject with 1000+ words. The others are also in depth. It's plain that we've got multiple, independent sources that cover the topic in depth. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Help me out here, Roy. You changed your !vote in the AfD admitting that the sources were adequate to meet GNG but you didn't like the topic (feel free to correct me if you think that's an inaccurate summation of your statement). So why this sudden hardening of your stance against this particular article? Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • What I object to is dragging something back to DRV a week after it was here, with nothing substantially changed since last week. I get that you don't agree with the outcome from last week. Fine. There's lots of decisions that get made that I don't agree with. There's a ton of other work to do, move on and do something else. Wasting other people's time by arguing the same case over and over again is counterproductive. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    • So you weren't able to bring yourself to cast a delete !vote that you wanted to, because you knew it did not meet criteria for deletion, but you're OK with a result you believe to be incorrect being affirmed, just for the sake of process? I tend to take a different view: If wrong decisions--and not borderline ones, but clearly incorrect ones that don't conform to our own stated policies--are allowed to stand, the damage that can be done to the encyclopedia by misapplication of poor decisions justifies getting more eyes on the matter in an attempt to overturn a wrong WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and replace it with a policy-compliant outcome. I think Wikipedia is becoming deaf to the difference between principled opposition to incorrect results and ongoing advocacy, and I fear the attitude you express here leads to that result. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Then Roy took this "time wasting" accusation and refused to userfy another page for me. Very disappointing that to accuse others of time wasting when you know the decision was wrong. If anything is a waste to not immediately fix detected issues. If any outcome is wrong we should revisit repeatedly until it is corrected. Valoem talk contrib 18:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse Though there is consensus to cover individual gamers, there is not to cover those as minor as this one. In judging the sourcing needed to meet GNG, we need to considerthe density of available sourcing in the field. In this case it is so high that the barrier should be interpreted much higher. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Reviewing this at Valoem's request, The discussions at some afds have indicated to me that it is possible that I may have some prejudice from lack of understanding in the field. Decisions at AfD (and consequently, here also) can involve a value judgement about what is important as well as a consideration of the technical requirements of sourcing, so it would be fairer if I did not !vote or even comment. DGG ( talk ) 10:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Looks like I'm going to lose on this one, but I will admit I don't understand your argument. If an area is so popular that there are lots of articles on the topic, doesn't that mean we should be covering the topic? Isn't that the entire point of the GNG? And it's not like these aren't main-stream sources. Also I fixed a few typos in your comment, hope you don't mind Hobit (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
DGG Do see any issues with these sources:

These sources alone should pass GNG. But there are many others [2] and [3]. Can you show me what type of sources you are looking for ... to pass GNG? The sources I provided give him extensive coverage, are secondary and reliable. I understand that eSports is a topic that maybe unfamiliar to many, I hoped I provided sources that it is notable. Valoem talk contrib 19:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Allow Recreation per Hobit. The level of sourcing here is clearly adequate, which suggests there is a subtle prejudice or systemic bias against non-traditional athletes. He has ongoing coverage in RS'es that cover his sport... even if that sport may be derided by some as not very sport-like. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I !voted at DRV1.[4] It is a bad mistake to improve an article during an AFD. Many people will not notice (or care) about the change and the improved article is wide open to G4. Far better to just let it be deleted and then recreate it with new, improved, referenced content. Thincat (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I do not consider that good advice in most cases. WP policy is not to delete fixable articles. The fixed article is not liable to G4, if it is indeed fixed , and I think most admins including myself would be vey reluctant to delete as G4 during a discussion if there was any indication of improvement. On the other hand, if an article is hopelessly contaminated by promotionalism or copypaste, then WP:TNT is sometimes appropriate in order to discourage that sort of editing. And it is usually not a good idea to rewrite completely--if that is needed, then deletion does make more sense. DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'd like to show some sources which I posted on DGG's talk page:a few major mainstream publications which give the subject significant coverage far beyond what is required
    • Jacob Wolf (2016-05-07). "fREAKAZOiD at DreamHack Austin". Retrieved 2016-07-19. 

      The article notes:

      But one of Splyce's stand-ins, former Cloud9 entry-fragger Ryan "fREAKAZOiD" Abadir, is just happy to be here. He's not competed in a tournament since the Major League Gaming Columbus major in March--leaving Cloud9 just after. But competing again, he says he's found a new hunger for the game he's been a pro in for seven years.

    "Since I've been around for so long, everyone's kind of saying I'm washed up," fREAKAZOiD says with a smile. "But I feel like I have a new hunger for the game. Taking that time off, just not playing, I just feel like, this new hunger. I kind of feel like a new me is going to come. I don't really know how to explain it, but that's how I feel right now. I almost didn't want to come here, but coming has made me wanna play again at the highest possible level."
    fREAKAZOiD isn't the only stand-in for the team. The other is popular Twitch streamer Jaryd "summit1g" Lazar. He's never played in a Counter-Strike: Global Offensive offline tournament, and he's currently the fourth biggest streamer on the Twitch platform. But despite having streaming as his income, fREAKAZOiD says he's confident that summit1g could make it as a competitive player.
    "He takes it serious, he wants to win," fREAKAZOiD says when asked about his fellow stand-in. "I think people get kind of confused because he's a streamer, but he loves to compete, I can tell. You can see when he's playing and how he talks and like, he goes for it. I respect that a lot about him. He really does wanna play for a top team.".

This is an ESPN source which give elite players in sports and esports coverage and does not give run of the mill players coverage. Additional sources include The Daily Dot, theScore, and Yahoo! eSports. The version in my user space I am trying to restore passes WP:GNG and is acceptable as a start article. In terms of eSports a player is deemed professional when he or she is signed, same as in standard sports. This player has been signed by multiple large sponsors including Cloud9 and Echo Fox, therefore this player is professional by any means. I understand there may be bias in this field, but unless we change our policies, this person currently passes. I would recommend at least a relist, I am confident this will survive.

Valoem talk contrib 13:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

20 July 2016[edit]

Octaviano Tenorio[edit]

Octaviano Tenorio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closure is a supervote, imposing the closer's own views against the consensus of the discussion, and without a policy basis for doing so. (I tried a discussion with the closer before DRV (permalink))
Two main probs:
1/ The closer asserts that if a major religion considers a topic notable there's a prima facie presumption of notability.
1/A That is in effect a special notability guideline (SNG), but no such SNG has ever achieved consensus. Those which exist have all arisen out of lengthy debate, and it is wrong for a closer to announce an unwritten SNG without evidence of consensus to create one.
1/B The phrase "major religion" is at best highly problematic here. Several comparisons were made with the Roman Catholic Church, which has existed since the 1st Century CE, and currently claims 1.27 billion members. There are ~1.7 billion Muslims, and ~500milion Buddhists. By contrast the LDS Church has existed since 1830, and claims less than 16 million current members. That's two orders of manitude smaller. So even if there was an existing consensus to treat major religion topics as notable, there would be a further debate as to whether the tiny LDS fits that label. Whatever the outcome of such a discussion, it is a matter for consensus rather than ex-cathedra pronouncement.
2/ The closer's dismissal of the argument that the sources are not independent is eloquent, but it is a personal view rather than a weighing of the discussion against policy. The closer even introduces his own analogies rather than drawing on the AFD. In post-close discussion, the closer claimed[5] that the key delete argument was that "a source is unreliable if it's associated with the organisation from which the article subject derives their notability". This is a fundamental misrepresentation of the delete argument, which is about a difft pillar of the WP:GNG: it's about the independence of the sources rather than their reliability.
The core argument for deletion was that i) Deseret News is not just a supporter of the LDS Church, or run by adherents of the LDS; it a wholly-owned subsiduary of the LDS Church structure itself. ii) No matter how accurate/honest/reliable its journalism, its choice of topics cannot be be regarded as "intellectually independent" of the organisation which owns it; iii) that lack of independence means that the only sources on Tenorio are articles written by employees of the organisation in which he is a senior member. In other words, the only people who write about Tenorio are the wholly-owned employees of his team. (As a general authority, Tenorio is at the highest levels of leadership in the church which wholly owns the paper.)
The closer uses the analogy of The Spectator magazine, which usually supports the British Conservative Party; but the Spec is a friend of the Conservatives, not a wholly-owned subsidiary, and it can be vociferously critical of the party. That confusion between subsidiary and partisan ally blurs the crucial difference between friend and servant.
I restate that argument for deletion not to re-fight the merits of the case, but to emphasise that the closer fundamentally misinterpreted the arguments they were supposed to weigh against policy ... and inserted their own view rather than weighing the discussion. The AFD should be relisted, and the closer should participate in the discussion rather than making a supervote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry about this, BHG, I really am. I can feel the passion in your statement and I can tell that you feel a sense of injustice here. But honestly, I don't think this listing has any prospect of success. When there's been a very long, full discussion and editors can't agree, and the closer calls it "no consensus" and backs that up with a thoughtful and nuanced closing statement, DRV always endorses. Always. It was indubitably the right close. I'm sorry to be so negative but I can't envisage any other outcome.—S Marshall T/C 19:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @S Marshall: But you would concede that this outcome is a one-off and shouldn't be used as a precedent for outcomes of future AfDs? You'd agree that there wasn't consensus to establish any SNGs (which the closure comes dangerously close to suggesting in his close) or any precedent that Deseret News is independent of Mormon leaders despite being owned by the LDS Church? Because there is already talk of using this outcome to restore other Mormon leader articles here. In his close, the closer comes too close to establishing precedent with his wording, and that's why we're at DRV. pbp 19:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I absolutely and emphatically agree that this close should not establish a precedent of any kind. A "no consensus" close of an outlier debate is certainly no basis for a SNG (and deletion review has a long history of taking a dim view of SNGs). Hard cases make bad law and this case was as hard as they come. I am confident that "no consensus" was the correct close. This is not to say that I agree with every word Iridescent typed, and for the avoidance of doubt I don't.—S Marshall T/C 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
        • @S Marshall: thanks for your friendly and thoughtful comments. I appreciate what you're saying.
          My own definition of "success" here would be for someone to find two or more independent reliable sources, so that GNG was clearly established. However, unless and until that happens, we are in this mess, where there is no satisfactory outcome.
          I can appreciate the argument for saying that "no consensus" was a likely outcome, but while I disagree that it was a reasonable close, my concern is not really about this particular article. Like Pbp, I am most alarmed at the prospect of this setting some sort of precedent: that because we don't want to appear mean, we overlook the fundamental reasons for requiring independent coverage to establish notability, and thereby chip away at a very fundamental principle of how Wikipedia works as a tertiary publication. I am particularly alarmed at the notion that a closer can pronounce an unwritten SNG, and whatever the fate of this article, I hope that can be nipped in the bud. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
          • It would take a full RfC to enact a new SNG on Wikipedia. I'm sure Iridescent knows this. His explanation of his close is commendably full and thorough, and of course when someone writes a lot of text there's always a weakest point. The implication of some kind of new guideline is there, if you read what he wrote in the wrong light. It's unfortunate and, I'm sure, unintentional. In view of the concerns raised by respected editors, perhaps the closer of this DRV could say that while we endorse the no-consensus finding, we specifically reject the establishment of any guideline or precedent on the basis of that finding.—S Marshall T/C 20:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
            • @S Marshall: thanks again. It has been an unexpected pleasure to find such a civil and constructive start to DRV after an unusually raucous AFD.
              Your suggestion of a qualified endorsement sounds like a good way of containing the fallout from this saga. It would push the meta-issues off to where they really belong, which is in RFC territory. That would provide some firmer ground for everyone to stand on if this comes article returns to AFD.
              BTW, I should say that while I disagree strongly with this close, I have not lost my long-standing high regard for the closer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse S Marshall pretty much nails it. There was no consensus. Even as someone who leans pretty hard toward being an inclusionist, I've got to say that the keep !votes were on the weak side. But even then, a delete outcome was probably outside of admin discretion. The arguments were reasonable, if weak, and there are sources that maybe count as independent and reliable. The numeric outcome was close and while the delete folks, IMO, had the stronger argument, it can't be said there was a consensus here. I think NC was the only possible outcome. Hobit (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Hobit: You do also agree with SMarshall that no precedents should be gleaned from it, right? pbp 23:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia isn't really precedent-based and certainly one close doesn't create a precedent (though bringing it to DRV for such an overwhelming endorse does create a stronger case that the close has consensus...). We work via policy and guidelines with a bit in the way of "common outcomes". Personally, I disagree with the closer and think the delete side had the slightly stronger case as I at least partially buy the lack-of-independence argument here (but wouldn't agree that Saint Mirin suffers from the same problem). However, NC is the right outcome and the language of the close with within discretion. Hobit (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This discussion may have been headed for a "no consensus" close, but I have to agree with those above that the closing statement (and subsequent defense of it) were fucking atrocious poorly thought out. BHG is right about the closer dismissing certain arguments based on his own preferences rather than their strength and relation to policy. I'm also not thrilled that Iridescent gives so much grief to Purplebackpack89 who, though badgery and ranty stayed pretty much on topic, and gave a free pass to people who made wholly inappropriate insinuations of religious intolerance. Finally, from reading Iridescent's talk page it's clear that he fell into the trap of conflating independence with accuracy, or at least is a little hazy on the distinction, despite everything those o the delete side said to explain the difference. So on the whole I'd say overturn to delete just to explicitly repeal the bad close. A borderline and crappy article isn't worth setting bad precedent over. Reyk YO! 22:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse close – well-reasoned close. It does indeed depend on whether the Deseret News is sufficiently independent of Octaviano Tenorio, which IMO it is. Others disagree. Oculi (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete, or at the very least consider a one-off with no bearing on policy, guidelines or precedent: I'd go so far to say the nominator’s close was uninformed at best, and a biased supervote at worst. Three reasons why:
  1. He essentially unilaterally attempted to create a specific notability guideline that doesn't exist. There is no SNG in writing that says that all Mormon leaders are automatically notable. A majority of participants in the discussion said that there either wasn't and/or shouldn't be said SNG. There was also an attempt by the creator of the Tenorio article to try and institute said SNG here; there is a solid consensus against instituting said SNG. Neither discussion produced anything approaching consensus ‘’for’’ an SNG.
  2. The close, and in particular comments made by the nominator on his talk page here, indicate a lack of understanding of the difference between reliability and independence. It’s never been argued that Deseret News is unreliable, and never needed to be. We were arguing that Deseret News was not independent from the organization from which Tenorio draws his notability. A solid majority of the participants in the deletion discussion who weighed in on the question of sourcing said that Deseret News wasn’t independent, regardless of its reliability. A side discussion on the independence was started by somebody else here; a majority of participants there also agree that Deseret News is not independent of Mormon leaders. It certainly cannot be interpreted in future AfDs that this AfD resulted in a consensus that Deseret News is independent of the LDS church and its leaders, despite what the closer and keepists might say.
  3. Comments within the close, as well as comments and here, indicate that part of the motivation for the close was motivated by an attempt to be punitive toward me and other deletionists rather than ignoring all noise that occurred from either side and focusing on policy arguments. The fact that he even brought it up in the close, and brought it up one-sidedly instead of considering misdeeds of both sides (chiefly baiting by one of the keepists) suggests that the closer did not come to the discussion wholly neutrally. Or, to put it another way, what Reyk said above about giving me a lot of grief while giving a free gave a free pass to people who made wholly inappropriate insinuations of religious intolerance.
Conclusion: that closing the article as anything but delete was likely improper, and that using this article as precedent to create SNGs or sourcing guidelines (which in turn could be used as justification for keeping or restoring other articles) is even more improper. pbp 23:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe that on Iridescent's talk page was the first time I've ever seen anyone describe a "no consensus" as a supervote. I suppose it would be possible for the closer's own personal opinion to be "no consensus", if they had some kind of multiple personality disorder or something, but that's an unusual allegation and I think it'll be a difficult one to sustain.—S Marshall T/C 23:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The reason I'm calling it a supervote is because he used his close to try and write policy/guidelines without a consensus to do so, and if this DRV affirms anything, I want it to affirm that there is no specific notability guideline and there is no consensus that Deseret News sources are considered "independent" in the context of LDS officials. pbp 23:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Gosh, I see that SMcCandlish has expanded that essay enormously since I last read it. Wow. I think those expansions were mistaken, because when any type of bad close is a "supervote", the formerly-useful term "supervote" is reduced to a synonym for "bad close" that doesn't even save any keystrokes. After this DRV is over, I intend to revert that.—S Marshall T/C 16:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Given the arguments and the thoughtful closing statement, I can't see any other way this could have reasonably been closed. In particular I find the arguments about the Deseret News being unreliable due to its ownership to be quite unconvincing, unless it can be shown that the church is actively interfering in its editorial policies then such views should be discounted, as they correctly were here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC).
    • @Lankiveil: like so many others, you are confusing the GNG test of independence with the separate questions of bias and reliability. None of us here is any position to say either way what degree of editorial restraint or direction the LDSC places on its newspaper, but that is not the issue in dispute. As sole owner of Deseret News Publishing Company, the LDCS has the power to set whatever direction it likes for its product. Regardless of whether it exercises that power, the existence of that control is not independence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
      • @BrownHairedGirl: I understand the argument that you are making, but I'm afraid that I just do not find it at all convincing. Unless there is some evidence that this "control" is actually exercised then we're talking about a hypothetical possibility and I don't see that as good enough to rule the whole newspaper out. Coming back to the AFD discussion in question, it appears that enough of the participants were also unconvinced of the argument that a no consensus close was proper. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC).
        • @Lankiveil: the closer's job is to assess whether the argument was founded in policy, and then weigh the strength of support or opposition. What happened in this case is that closer fundamentally misunderstood the argument being made by those seeking deletion, and on that basis described it as unfounded ... and therefore didn't weigh the support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
          • @BrownHairedGirl: Didn't you at one point dig up the editorial and advertising policies of Deseret News and find that they were bound to not go against the policies and teachings of the LDS church? @Lankiveil:, that's why I don't trust the independence of Deseret News. Also, we're not "ruling the whole newspaper out". All we're saying is that it can't be the thing used to establish the notability of Mormon officials. I'm still saying it can be used to source statements...if articles on Mormon officials also have non-affiliated sources in them to address notability. And it can be used to establish notability AND source statements of anything that isn't Mormon-related. pbp 01:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse simply because I cannot see any more discussion on the matter reaching a consensus. Leave it a while, if need be get broad discussion going on what counts/doesn't count as independent etc. The stuff about SNG is not totally incorrect, the old statement "policy is descriptive not prescriptive", it's what we do (not withstanding certain constraints from the foundation level). If we always blocked someone after 1 revert (say) it wouldn't matter what WP:3RR says, our policy would be 1 revert. Now I don't wholly agree with the closing statement, and I don't believe that the general way we deal with religious figures etc. can be expressed quite so simply, there is a lot of potential nuance criteria which may or may not be applied to determine what's in/out, but without developing that on a fairly broad and neutral basis, I would suspect we are going to have cases like this which are just going to boil down to disagreement or no consensus if you prefer. -- (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse That debate did not reach a consensus and therefore the result was proper. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse close - "No consensus" was the actual result of the debate, if the more than 2 score badgering comments by the nominator and 30 by another deletion-desiring editor are sifted out of the mix. The only other possible option would be an Overturn to Keep, since the argument against Deseret News — the largest daily newspaper in the largest city in Utah* — is independent of the subject of this article, a high functionary in the Mexican section of the Mormon church, and GNG is met if this source is rightfully allowed. The bitterness of this debate over this barely debatable point indicates that there was probably some ulterior agenda coming into play here; those interested in putting two and two together can do their due diligence. Carrite (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC) * Addenda: I checked on this. The Tribune has a larger daily circulation by about 20K, but the News has more than 50K pdf subscribers. The point is: it's an authentic, large, major metropolitan newspaper of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    • [Reply to addendum] It's quite extraordinary that after all this debate, some keepists are still trying to pretend that the issue at stake is reliability. Between AFD+DRV, there must be several dozen posts stressing that the case for deletion is based on the other pillar of GNG: independence.
      What's going on here? The distinction is not complicated, and if there is a good faith explanation for this, I'd like to hear it.
      As to the notion that circulation is some sort of indicator of quality ... are you serious? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    • If you have an allegation to make against people who disagree with you, you should have the decency to state it explicitly. Reyk YO! 09:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Allegations that those advocating deletion had an ulterior motive were a repeated feature of the AFD. They peaked with a series of explicit allegations of religious bigotry by the article's creator, which were eventually redacted. It is sad to see these smears being repeated at DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Tenorio as a General Authority was a wolrd leader of the LDS Church. He may have mainly had specific assignments to oversee the Mexico Area of the Church as one of 3 men serving in the presidency, but his calling and assignments were on a global basis. He spoke at the internationally boradcast, published in the all official magazines of the Church in all languages they publish in, general confrerence. General Conference talks are looked on as more authoratative than any statements in other meetings, unless these other statements are also published in Church magazines. Tenorio while a general authority was a world leader of the LDS Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • For once, I agree with JPL. In this case he has usefully demolished Carrite's attempt to cast Tenorio as some of distant regional officer who had no connection to the LDSC's wholly-owned subsidiary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Though if he really was important, there would be ample sourcing aside of Church publications. pbp 15:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
          • The fifth sentence of WP:N starts, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as...importance...  Unscintillating (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
            • That was kind of my point @Unscintillating:. Determining notability DOES depend on things such as independent sources, which the article doesn't have. pbp 23:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Carrite: Just because a lot of people read the Deseret News doesn't make it independent of the LDS Church. There are news stories on Deseret News' website that are verbatim copies of LDS press releases. It may be reliable, but reliability ≠ independence. pbp 17:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
quasi-arbitrary edit break[edit]
  • Endorse. Sigh. I tried to read through the whole AfD. I read most of it, and skimmed the rest, but I just couldn't force myself to read every word. In any case, it's clear that there's deep disagreement between the two camps here. The nose-count is pretty even, and I see reasonable arguments being made on both sides. That is the essence of a lack of consensus. Beyond that, we're being asked to pass judgment on the exact wording of the closing statement, and declare whether one sentence establishes a precedent or not. That is clearly outside of the scope of WP:DRVPURPOSE. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, questions of whether a close sets a precedent clearly are outside the scope of DRVPURPOSE... but that's a rule that DRV has occasionally temporarily set aside in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, e.g. here and here. I think it's right that we discuss that occasionally, because there does need to be a venue where editors are allowed to raise questions of precedent, and if not here, then where? I don't think there's a place better suited than DRV. Yes, okay, I'm saying that there are precedents for saying there's no precedent. Irony? Oxymoron? Idiocy? I'll let you decide.  :-)—S Marshall T/C 17:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, fair enough. There seem to be two issues here:
  1. Are sources with a narrow scope suitable. My first thought is No; if only the LDS (or, LDS-owned media) is writing about an LDS official, then that's not enough; we need to see them being talked about in the wider world. Same for any religion. The Pope is notable because everybody writes about him. The Archbishop of New York is notable because I see articles about him in the NY Times and other lay newspapers (but, to be honest, I'm having trouble finding coverage in papers which are neither related to the Catholic church, nor based in the NYC area; I don't see The Times of India, for example, writing about Cardinal Dolan). But, then, let's take a topic such as Delaunay triangulation. or 74181. All the sources for those articles (and, all the likely potential sources I can imagine) are in technical literature. Does that make those sources inappropriate? As Tevye would say, I'll tell you... I don't know.
  2. Then, we're being asked to rule on the statement, if a major religion considers a topic notable there's a prima facie presumption of notability. I'm inclined to say that's a stretch, but, sadly, I'm finding it hard to say that. I'm convinced it shouldn't be enough. But, as an observation on current practice, it, unfortunately, appears to be true. Does that mean that stating that in an AfD closing makes it law? I think not. But, then again, have I just argued Delaunay triangulation off the Pedia? I hope not. But, I see Tevye hiding in the wings again.
  3. @S Marshall:, I hope this has clarified my position to you, as much as your comment above has clarified yours to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yup, that's crystal clear, thanks. I'm not even remotely qualified to evaluate questions of religion. I'm copiously, radiantly, sumptuously ignorant of everything God; I'm a secular humanist born to secular humanist parents; nobody in my family, in living memory, has believed in a deity, got married in a church, or been buried in holy ground. I've never uttered a prayer. I've never read the Bible or the Koran or any other holy book. I am sooooooo clueless about this it's unreal.

    But I could ask myself:- "Can a no-consensus close of an outlier AfD set a precedent on Wikipedia?", and the answer was immediately obvious to me. And I think it's helpful to articulate that in this case, because the filing party was specifically and, I think, quite seriously, concerned about setting precedents.—S Marshall T/C 17:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Endorse The Closing reflected good reasoning. Beyond this "major religion" is not just a measure of religious size. It is a measure of religious body influence. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will on some world maps be one of 10 designated religions. Utah is the only state in the USA where a majority of the Population is a member of a specific religious body, and that religious body is the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints. Beyond this, LDS form majorities in north-east Nevada, eastern Idaho, south-west Wyoming, and also I believe parts of eastern Washington. In all of Nevada and Arizona and Idaho as well as eastern Washington State there are significant numbers of Latter-day Saints. Not appearing on world maps but equally important, almost half the inhabitants of Tonga are Latter-day Saints, and well over 10 percent in Samoa and French Polynesia. If New Zealand is not over 10% it is close. The attempt to argue that they are not a major religion by numbers alone ignores that religions are more than just their members. The LDS Church has cultural, political and other impacts beyond the members. The arguments that the Deseret News can not be counted involve much too loose a definition of what is and what is not an indepedent source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Just because there are 15 million Mormons doesn't mean this one passes GNG. And @Carrite: just because a lot of people read the Deseret News doesn't make it independent of the Church that owns and controls it. Please take a look at the links BHG provides above about the strong connection between Deseret News and the LDS hierarchy. pbp 15:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn while I haven't attempted to read the whole discussion, the closing statement is fundamentally flawed and should not be held up as the result of that discussion. Its two points both seem to me unfounded:
    The argument that LDS sources are too closely connected to the subject was dismissed for being too tenuous a link, which I don't see at all. The subject holds a senior management role in the organisation which owns the publications in question. It's entirely plausible that this situation might lead to the publication being overly deferential to that organisation or to the publication giving undue prominence to the organisation, which is why we ask that articles be based on independent sources in the first place. The situation is analogous to The Times being used to support the notability of a senior executive working for News Corp. Whether you agree with this argument or not it is at least reasonable, and the degree to which this compromises the independence of the publication should be decided by the participants, not imposed by the closer.
    The other point was that if a major Christian denomination considers something to be important then it should be presumed to be notable, which I think is unfounded. The closer didn't cite any supporting evidence for this view, there are no relevant subject specific notability guidelines, and the only suggestion I am aware of (WP:CLERGY) specifically doesn't mention LDS clergy. If a major denomination considers something to be important then it is likely that the numerous scholars specialising in that denomination will have written about it, which is why such things tend to be notable. If the subject here falls into this category then it should be possible to demonstrate that they meet the GNG. Hut 8.5 21:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The closing does not contain the word "important".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No it doesn't, I was paraphrasing. The exact words used make no difference. Hut 8.5 19:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn The close has fundamental errors.
    • The admin has substituted their own personal definition of what is an independent source for what is in Wikipedia guidelines (WP:BASIC) and what is dictated by common sense. As I stated in the AFD (and was unrefuted) this "...concept of independent would have us use the press releases of companies touting their latest hire as proof of notability." Expanding, many major newspapers have "Appointment" sections where companies tout their latest hires. Even though these newspapers are more independent from these companies than Deseret News is from the LDS Church, we still wouldn't accept these announcements as primary indicators of notability. As such, "discounting those delete arguments made on this basis, it's clear that there's no consensus for deletion here" is a fundamental mistake.
    • The statement "if a major religion considers a topic notable there's a prima facie presumption of notability" is quite noticeably bereft of diffs, links, or any other kind of evidence that this is anything other than the admin's opinion. The admin then goes on to provide an example - Saint Mirin. However it took me about five seconds to find a source not owned by the Catholic Church. [8] The admin confuses neutrality with independence and has created a WP:SNG by fiat, without gaining consensus from the community.
  • These are two arguments used by the admin to reach a finding of no consensus. Both are incorrect. --NeilN talk to me 03:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse. As per almost everyone else here. Clearly no consensus and reasoning given both reflects the discussion and current keep/deletion practices. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse close: Per the above and per this. Clearly there is no consensus and the longer the debate goes on, the more heated it is getting. I think about a six-month moratorium on bringing this article up again would also be good. The wiki will not break if it stays live for a while. Montanabw(talk) 22:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse, or change to keep ' My personal view about the article is an unqualified keep: We've always kept LDS people at this level, on about the same basis we've kept RC bishops. And for religious figures I try to be inclusive in the case of doubt, to avoid the possibility of bias. But a NC close is reasonable, because of the strong opposition and disagreement on the appropriate interpretation of guidelines. Guidelines are meant to be interpreted, and the decision on how to interpret them is left to the community, not the closer. The consensus here was to interpret them to keep the article. The proposition that we do not have the right to interpret guidelines or even use IAR is opposed to the fundamental principles of WP. We make the rules ourselves, and we make the interpretation. We have the freedom to make any rational interpretation for a given article, except where it runs counter to Foundation policy as for copyvio. The person appealing is trying to say that their interpretation of guidelines is the only correct one. Nobody has the right to say this. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @ DGG: that's an outrageous misrepresentation of my case for this DRV. You have inverted by position with that of the closer.
      I agree that guidelines are for the community to interpret, and the whole basis of my appeal is that the closer substituted his own interpretation of them for that of the community discussion. Here's what I wrote: the closer fundamentally misinterpreted the arguments they were supposed to weigh against policy ... and inserted their own view rather than weighing the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, first, I waas replying to NeilN, a little above. But @BHG, I think the community discussion was possibly inconclusive, which is a reason to support the NC close. I also, with respect to you comment below to JClemens, do view the COI claim for COI about the same way he does. I'm not LDS, and I've always supported LDS hierarchy at this level, but normally not lower levels. And similarly for other religions; I normally interpret notability arguments over religious (& political) figures & groups in a relatively favorable way in cases of doubt, to avoid even the possibility of bias. To avoid the need to discuss bias, I don't always say so, but it's how I think about them. DGG ( talk ) 14:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@DGG: It seems your interpretation is at odds with how Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Leaders_in_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_and_other_religious_organizations is going. --NeilN talk to me 14:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)\
thanks for notifying me of it. I repeated the argument there in more general terms. But even if that should be the decision, there is still noconsensus at the afd. Any afd can make an exception to a general rule. And I certainly see no consensus behind the assertion that LDS related sources are not sufficiently independent. I think it a little absurd to say they are not, but it is true there was no consensus on that. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn to keep the argument that mutual LDS affiliation between an admittedly RS and an article subject impairs independence of the RS'es smacks of anti-Mormon bigotry. AGF'ing that that's not the case, it remains simply a bridge too far. Once that argument is dismissed as specious, we're left with nothing but a keep option. Jclemens (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Jclemens: Woo. Smear-time big-time here.
      You dismiss the conflict of interest as "specious" (synonym for deceptive), despite the fact of its existence being undisputed — only its significance is contested — and despite the fact that evidence of the lack of independence from RSs was posted both at AFD and above.[9]
      And as to the first part, that's a very sleazy trick, raising the flag of religuious prejjudice, and then withdrawing it. If you are AGFing, why raise it?
      If that's the sort of approach you want to take, then I'll break from my usual standards and try it back at you: the airing of an unevidenced suggestion of religious prejudice accompanied by a denial of the existence of evidence smacks of a sleaxy, lazy, dishonest bit of muckraking from some ulterior purpose. But I'll AGF that's not the case. </haveityourway> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
      • The attacks on the Deseret News advertising policy that you engaged in to try to prove that it is not notable enough, added to the attacks on the reputation of BYU, definately have a combative, denigrating tone that makes it easy to see why bias is seen. In the case of the Deseret News, the fact that it will not run advertisements for liquor and other items that violate the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not at all relevant to its news reporting decisions and seems to indicate a desire to negatively portray the paper by any means neccesary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
        • JPL, you choose to cast every piece of evidence as an attack. Sadly that use of the cry-bigot card has been a consistent feature of your participation in these discussion, and it is a disgraceful way to behave in consensus-forming processes.
          For example, I posted[10] evidence of LDCS restraints on academic freedom at BYU ... and your response[11] was not to engage with the evidence, but to accuse me of irrational bigotry[12], and a a bigotted attack on the reliability of the sources[13]. You followed that up by asserting that Reasoned critiques do not include attacks on the academic integrity of an institution[14].
          In other words, actual evidence is inadmissible if it points to answers you do not approve of.
          As to Deseret News, there is plenty of direct evidence of LDCS influence over its editorial policy, e.g. what I postedhere.[15].
          But no matter how such evidence is presented, your consistent response has been not to discuss the evidence, but to repeatedly engage in vicious ad hominem attacks on anyone presenting it. That's the JPL approach: smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear smear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Attacking the integrity of BYU is figting words. BHG does not even know how to properly appreviate The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. LDCS makes no sense at all. She ignores the fact that coverage of LDS subjects by the Salt Lake Tribune isalways suspect. The Salt Lake Tribune acted as the support to the denial of Mormons the right to vote in the past. JC Clements truly bigotted attack on the LDS Church should have no place here. To call it either "racist" at its formation, when Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Able to the priesthood, or "mysoginistic" when Joseph Smith admitted to the highest rites of the Church women, when Utah granted women the right to vote in 1870, only to see the federal government (with Salt Lake Tribune support cheering it on) deny this right, and so on, just shows how willing people are ton incorporate and allow irrational hatred of Mormonism to stand. Much of the discussion above ignores the fact that A-editorial politcies are not the same as news gathering policies. B- the articles in question are not regurgitations of press releases. The Church News articles and Ensign articles written on the same people at the same time are very different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
          • BHG, I approached you at the AfD with total good faith and respect.  Your immediate response included the words, "You fail...", diff.  In that same diff, you said, "In fact, the paper's own statement on its Editorial voice is explicitly biased towards religion."  Yet the word "bias" does not appear on that page.  This "bias" is presented as a fact, but it appears to be an opinion.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
            • Unscintillating, please try to read my post as a whole, rather than taking words out of context in the hope of being offended by them.
              And, no, that page does not use the word "bias"; but what it does is to explicitly express its support for a particular sets of values, which are those of the religion which owns it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
              • That is not a statement of "explicit" "bias", and the claim that such is a "fact" is not verified.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
      • BHG, you have been around sufficiently long enough to remember the times I've stood up for the rights of religious minorities, including during my time on Arbcom. I don't have to believe that the religion in question has any merit whatsoever to extend due consideration and respect to it, and, for the record, I do not find anything compelling about Mormonism other than as a study in how a misogynistic and racist cult started by a semi-literate con man can transform itself to gain mainstream acceptance. I bring that up only to note my perspective as a disinterested party, who neither participated in the AfD nor who routinely watches LDS topics. Thus, while anti-Mormon prejudice, which is entirely a real phenomenon, is a sufficient explanation for several users' conduct, there is no compelling evidence of such. This leads me to the conclusion that while anti-Mormon bigotry may be present, the arguments against the topic should be addressed on the basis of their merits, rather than motivation: independence does not require a non-LDS source to cover an LDS individual to establish notability, even assuming for the sake of arguments that every disputed source can be considered LDS in character and mission. Jclemens (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this is even an option, but endorse outcome but overturn the rationale. If that isn't an option, overturn to allow a new close. The result was defensible, but the rationale was not. Say a company owns a newspaper and they publish an article about the editor-in-chief. That's clearly not independent, and I don't think anyone would argue about that. This close provides some extra distinction to religious organizations and the media they control that simply isn't written into any policy or guideline. Discounting opinions based on that argument was seriously flawed. The keep arguments based on the degree of independence are reasonable and shouldn't be discounted (which is why I support the outcome), but they certainly are not strong enough to discount the entire deletion argument based on existing policies and guidelines. "If a major religion considers a topic notable there's a prima facie presumption of notability" is simply not supported by anything in our notability guidelines and it makes this look like a supervote. Note that I supported deletion. ~ Rob13Talk 23:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse and possibly consider creating, at this point, Octaviano Tenorio Wikipedia article controversy... it's a reasonable close because 1) Octaviano Tenorio is clearly somewhere in the borderline area, depending on how broadly you define "independent of the subject" and other things, and 2) the headcount is fairly even I think, and 3) peripheral matters favor keeping the article, besides which the closer took the time to explain what he was doing, which kudos. By all means let the delete camp marshall its arguments and come back again in six months, hopefull this time a bit more succinctly.
As to the "set a precedent" thing, beyond the notability rules we have our common sense as human persons, and WP:IAR if it comes to that. Giving no special to any particular church or other organization: if you have someone who is just on the borderline of Wiki-notability by our (imperfect human) rules, but is clearly important and influential in the world -- a mover and shaker, does important stuff, not just a borderline D-list actor or failed novelist etc. -- and on whom there is plenty of clearly reliable material to write a reasonable article, should any of that matter for pushing the person over the borderline. I don't think it's madness or idiocy to at least ask that question.
Call it the Mycroft Holmes Rule. If Mycroft Holmes existed and did what he did (ran the British government behind the scenes, remember) but we could only dig up borderline-level coverage (he's very private), should we have an article on Mr Holmes or not? People may at least reasonably differ on that questions. Herostratus (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the fact that Tenorio never had any direct over-sight functions over the Deseret News needs to be born in mind. The very broad definitions of connection claimed by some here ignore the fact that he was not directly over the Deseret News.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That's not really germane to this case. The argument being made is that the Deseret News is so heavily influenced by the church that it wouldn't print anything negative about a senior church figure and thus can't be considered a neutral source, not that Tenorio sat there writing the articles himself. ‑ Iridescent 16:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse and kudos to the closer for taking on what was sure to be a thankless and controversial task. There was no consensus in this discussion, and so a NC close was the only sensible outcome. As a side note, I would have been afraid to !vote "keep" in the AfD because of the intimidating behavior of some of the participants on the other side. Thparkth (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment from original closer. I stand by the comment in my close which appears to be causing the most controversy. The General Notability Guideline is not Holy Writ, and Wikipedia deletion practice right back to Nupedia days has been based on the implicit assumption that "if a significant number of people are likely to consider the topic important, it's generally important enough to warrant an article provided one can be written", which is why we have so many articles on villages sourced only to the local authority, politicians sourced only to the government of which they're a part and so on. This isn't "unilaterally creating a new notability guideline", it's a straightforward statement of how Wikipedia functions; if you do want to elevate WP:GNG to policy status, that would be a massive cultural change and would require a widely-publicised project-wide RFC. However, that's irrelevant in the context of this particular discussion, since even if one discounts every argument, the straight headcount in the AFD (when one discounts the multiple delete votes from PBP) is 9 "keep", 10 "delete" and one "merge", which is pretty much a canonical example of "no consensus", so the only issue up for discussion is whether so many of the "delete" arguments are based on an invalid premise that the AFD should actually be closed as "keep". Regarding "setting a precedent", the mind boggles at the notion of how a single discussion could set a "no consensus" precedent; if there were a large number of similar nominations, all of which resulted as "no consensus", I suppose it could be argued that it would set a precedent that it's not worth discussing such things since it's impossible to reach a consensus, but we certainly aren't at that point yet. ‑ Iridescent 16:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@Iridescent: You have a habit of exaggerating my actions and mentioning my behavior in places where it's irrelevant. At the same time, you down-play the low-level attacks by JPL and other keepists, who tried to tar BHG and I as bigoted. There were no "multiple delete votes". There was one nomination and two comments urging the closer to reject the bad votes that you accepted. Both comments are identified as nom comments (one said "says nom" in bold and the other says "nom comment" in bold) and only a fool would confuse them with actual votes. It's blatantly clear from your comments both in the close and on your talk page that you were influenced in your close by trying to punish me and BHG in some way. I, for one, find that lack of neutrality unfortunate. Also, nine? There were eight keep votes. Finally, if you're prepared to ignore GNG in any kind of volume as an AfD closer (particularly in favor of a statement that is neither a policy nor a guideline), I consider you unfit to be an administrator. pbp 19:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Shrug—I'll leave it to others to read the AFD and judge your conduct for themselves. As for "trying to punish me and BHG", I've never encountered you before in my life, and you can ask BHG—with whom I have a history of working going back a decade, and was my de facto mentor when I first joined Wikipedia—how likely I am to have a secret agenda to punish her. ‑ Iridescent 19:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Johnpacklambert, Herostratus, Montanabw, Namiba, Steve Quinn, Cullen, Carrite, Oculi, Unscintillating =nine. As for "unfit to be an administrator", I'm sure you know how to find Arbcom. I'll point out in passing that I count three current or former arbs in this discussion, all of whom are disagreeing with you. ‑ Iridescent 20:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you don't want me replying to your comments, don't mention me in them. You're again trying to make this about editor behavior when editor behavior is wholly irrelevant. pbp 20:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering that people have said they would have avoided !voting "keep" based on how PBP and BHG treated those who did so, I think editor behavior is worth noting. When attempts to defend the scholarly intergrity of BYU Studies Quarterly are met with shooting "Bob Jones University", the tone is totally out of line.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I hate editing huge blocks of text so I'm inserting another edit break[edit]
  • If you'd just closed the AfD as no consensus with a rationale along the lines of "opinion is evenly divided and both sides make reasonable points" then I think you would have got a much more favourable reception. Instead you chose to leave a closing statement which ruled that the arguments of one side were significantly flawed without much to back that up. I can certainly see this setting a precedent, at least with this article. If someone renominates the article for deletion in the future and uses any of the arguments raised in favour of deleting the article this time, then the response is going to be "but the last AfD found that those arguments are wrong, so we can ignore them". That will substantially change the course of that discussion. Hut 8.5 21:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This is something that often weighs on my mind when I'm closing a complicated discussion. I will often start out writing a long essay, but then I think of back a few such closes where all I managed to do by writing a lot was to give people something to hang me with. If you keep it short and sweet, that's less likely to happen. I'm not saying that I'm encouraging people to keep it short, just pointing out the reality of things. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Overturn to wrong forum, with directed advice for implementors to implement the centralized discussion forum for redirect/merge discussions  Note that I was a participant in the Afd and that my viewpoint here overlaps my position in the AfD.  The AfD closer continues today to make unusually in depth and helpful analysis, including the longstanding concept that, "if a significant number of people are likely to consider the topic important, it's generally important enough to warrant an article provided one can be written".  But as per current policy, this AfD did not need to be decided on whether the topic needed a standalone article.  The only question that needed to be resolved in this forum was, "is there sufficient due weight for this topic to be a significant topic in any article on Wikipedia; to which BHG said (01:52, 18 July 2016), "he would still be mentioned in the list article."  If editors really want to have such nuanced discussions about whether Tenorio should be standalone vs. merged to the list article, root cause analysis of the problem at this AfD says that it would help to have the centralized redirect/merge discussion forum.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I would say the current list examples are hardly worth mentioning. One example is Koichi Aoyagi who we used to have an article on. The list merely mentions when he was called as a General Authority, when he was given emeritus status and his age. It does not mention even his nationality. There might be room for creating what amounts to short biographical articles, but I see no reason to reduce us from the information we currently have in the article, to loosing any mention of even the most basic information on Tenorio.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Aoyagi was closed as WP:DEL7, not WP:DEL8, so in spite of many similarities, does not compare easily.  And whether or not you or I like the idea of a notability debate starting on the heels of this AfD, this AfD is not binding on the issue of wp:notability, because the remedy for an absence of wp:notability is redirection or merger, and the forum here is "Articles for deletion".  AfD's closed without using admin tools are not binding on subsequent content disputes, partly because AfD volunteers are not superior editors who know more about content considerations than the content contributors, and partly because an AfD closure does not bind an administrator into ongoing supervision of a subsequent content dispute.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse close That's as clear a "no-consensus" discussion as I ever saw. (Unless that's an oxymoron or something). Any overturn could only be to keep, per DGG. I also reiterate the point made above that admins who put on the waders and actually close these discussions for us, once they have devolved into bickering as far as this one had, deserve our thanks. Begoontalk 13:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse close Once the keep side rejected the contention that Deseret News is not independent of the subject, the delete case collapsed under the weight of policy. It's understandable delete voters might feel hard done by, as their case was relatively well founded in logic and evidence, much stronger than typical deletionists arguments. Clearly Deseret News is less independent of LDS leadership than say The Spectator is of conservative MPs. Yet Deseret News was not shown to have been directly controlled by the subject as an individual, so keep voters were free not to make their own interpretation as to whether it counted as independent. I've seen many an AfD with a far weaker delete cases still result in the loss of articles. Thank God we had resolute keep voters in this case, and one of our best admins to close the AfD. If it had been accepted that a topic has to get "substantial coverage in a reliable source which is not part of their own team." , that would have been a terrible precedent, opening the door to article destruction on a biblical scale. Also echoing everything just said by editor Begoon. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

17 July 2016[edit]

15 July 2016[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
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December