Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 2015 Deletion review archives February 2016 >

31 January 2016[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Mangalcharansingh/Arjan Singh Dillon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

DRV "procedural close" has no procedural basis. As noted in the discussion, this was entirely wrongly "drafts being deleted out of user or draft space in ways that are contrary to policy and harmful the the encyclopedia". To then refuse to close it through made up policy wonkery doesn't resolve the actual issue. 166.170.46.62 (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but we would like to know who you are. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 January 2016[edit]

29 January 2016[edit]

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

Procedural error: abrupt closure while discussion in progress prevents clarification of a key point and precludes evolution of consensus.

I request a review of User:Sandstein's closure of the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Earthquake sensitive as abrupt and premature (less than 24 hours after a signifcant comment), thereby preventing disambiguation of the basis for deletion, and for an incorrect summary of the ostensible consensus. I do not challenge the deletion itself (there was a general sentiment that article was crap), nor am I requesting that any material or the history be restored, I am requesting that the discussion be restored so that we may finish assessing whether the topic is notable or not. I believe it may be possible cover the topic with a suitable article, but this is precluded because the discussion was not allowed to reach a point of disambiguating the notability issue from other issues. I have discussed this with Sandstein; he refuses to re-open the discussion.

I ask that the discussion be re-opened so that we may settle the point of possible notability. J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer's comment: As I've already told J. Johnson multiple times, they are free to continue a discussion wherever they like about how to cover the topic outside of its own article; and they may even recreate the article if the AfD's concerns can be clearly addressed. That AfD discussion, however, lasted for the required seven days, reached a consensus that is apparently not contested, and is therefore over. It is no more and has ceased to be; bereft of life, it rests in peace. This is an ex-AfD.  Sandstein  22:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seven days is the minimum for a discussion, not the maximum. Discussion was continuing. And while deletion was not contested, the basis for deletion was. There was no harm in letting discussion continue a few days more, and surely there is no harm it letting it resume for a few more days. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The AfD is pining for the fjords. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Self-contradictory close: "can be editorially resolved with editing and a redirect or disambiguation to wherever the topic ends up at; " is a reason for keeping, not for deleting. Deleting first, with the offer to undelete for merging makes no sense to me. Perhaps the best solution is a move to Draft space or even user space. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps that would indeed be a solution, but it's not the outcome of the discussion. Editorial solutions do not require the deleted content to be available. And the "delete" outcome is not even contested here, only the time of closure.  Sandstein  08:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking for the deleted content to be available; that is a non-issue. The issue here is not the "time" of closure per se, but that closure came before discussion reached an outcome on an important point: whether the deletion was warranted on the basis of non-notability. You said in the summary that "this can be editorially resolved with editing ..." - I would be happy is that were so, but a finding of non-notability would preclude that. If you were to clarify that there was not consensus re notablity then an "editorial resolution" could be attempted. (Restoration of the article or its history neither needed nor desired.) Or if you would simply re-open the discussion then we could work that out ourselves, and this discussion would not be necessary. Why are you so adamant in refusing this? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The discussion was open for 8 days 17 hours, discussion had ceased for 20 hours, the apparent consensus was to delete. This is all perfectly in line with the guidance: Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. The timing of closure was within administrator's discretion. If the OP wishes to create a stub as he suggested, there is nothing to stop him doing so (except for the matter of sourcing). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion had not "ceased for 20 hours", that is a typical turn-around time where people take time to deliberate on what is being said. And a not bit unusual in that discussion, where there were several 20 hour interludes, even a 48 hour gap, but none of those marked the end of discussion. In fact the discussion was proceeding.
Sandstein suggested that the discussion could be continued at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Earthquake sensitive, but elsewhere he mentions that we do not have Talk pages about non-existent pages. And I feel that my talk page is not the proper place to have a discussion that might lead to alteration of a closed AfD discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the discussion was open for over the required period of time. While allowing AfDs where discussion is still ongoing to be kept open a little longer isn't necessarily a bad idea, the last comment here was 20 hours before the close and AfDs shouldn't be kept open indefinitely. This is particularly true with regard to the issues here, which don't relate to how the AfD should be closed - there is agreement that the page should be deleted. I would suggest that the OP here carry on the discussion on any convenient relevant talk page. Hut 8.5 16:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to incubate on request  As DGG says, the closing is internally contradictory, but this is more complicated than that.  We have VIP editors using vulgar language, the closer is induced to participate in these appeals to emotion, and Wikipedia is brought into disrepute.  There is no argument for deletion in the nomination, and because the vulgar nomination reflects on the work of the article creator, the first !vote by the article creator is one of duress.  The 2nd deletion !vote is tied to the first !vote.  The final delete !vote says that Wikipedia should stay away from someone in the real world, which, since not stated in terms of Wikipedia policy, is inflammatory and prejudicial.  The article is said to be well written.  Nbcnews.com [1], states that there are 1000 workers worldwide in current related research. 

    I think that the consensus is that this is a well-written article that has been around for years, that there are legitimate concerns, and that there are editors actively engaged with improvements to address those concerns.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It seems necessary to point out I am not asking for an undelete, and I am fine with endorsements of the actual delete. (There was near consensus that it was not a well-written article.) What I am asking for is to re-open the discussion (only) so that we may resolve an important point about the basis of the deletion. Also, I fail to see why there should be any harm in letting that discussion have a little more time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)
I think incubation is not necessary. It might be useful to have the Talk page incubated at Draft_talk so there is some record of the problems for which the earlier version of the article was deleted, but the article is not needed. (I have a copy, but am doubtful of any of it being salvageble.) The only thing holding me up from proceeding with an entirely new draft is that it is wasted effort if there is a consensus of non-notability. And between evolving a consensus on this point amongst the interested editors, and an administrative finding that the AfD discussion did not reach consensus on this point, I much prefer the former. Which would best proceed from the interupted discussion, but could be re-started at Draft_talk. To this end I have opened a bare stub at Draft:Earthquake sensitive ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have a ruling that the topic is probably non-notable, and you could ask Sandstein for further clarification.  Your initial draft is completely unsourced.  The people at WP:Articles for Creation have experience with getting new articles to the level at which they pass AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bother with any sources because I don't want to put in a bunch of time and effort [as if this isn't] only to have the rug pulled out from under me, without discussion, on the basis that non-notability was already determined. I see some comments here suggesting that I can continue, but that conflicts with the "ruling that the topic is probably non-notable". Ah, screw it, just close the damn discussion, I've just lost interest. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not really that hard. Are there independent sources that discuss the subject directly in any depth? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proper place to discuss the issue of notability itself (as distinct from discussing whether there was consensus on that issue) is not here, but at the now closed AfD discussion. (Or possibly at the Draft_talk page.) But in a certain respect, yes, it is "really that hard", as there are (to my knowledge, and I have studied the overall topic) no reliable scientific sources covering this specific alleged effect. But that was the issue that was being formulated when the discussion was truncated, whether the proper basis should be scientific, or the popular media. Also, the question of whether humans can detect earthquakes is a subset of whether animals generally can detect earthquakes, and on that there are scientific studies. So the answer to your question is: undetermined, as it depends on what qualifications are assumed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to continue the discussion on the talk page of the AfD (Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Earthquake sensitive). However, the AfD should be considered concluded, with the purpose of the discussion being on how to respond to its points. Similarly, the purpose of this DRV discussion will shortly conclude.
"no reliable scientific sources covering this specific alleged effect" Well, yes, that is a problem. Wikipedia is frequently targetted as an outlet for propagation of belief in pseudoscience. As a consequence, Wikipedia is firmly, sometimes overly firmly, resistant to things that look like unreliable pseudo science belief. Debating the merits of the subject is of no point, when push comes to shove all that matters is independent reliable sourcing.
I am familiar with this subject, as a subject often documented on TV as possibly real myth. Yes, animals detect and respond to vibrations before the full earthquake is apparent to humans. Blurring this "detection" into "prediction" is where the scholarship fails.
Scientific studies are rarely useful for these discussions, as they are primary sources and require too much care and interpretation to be included directly in an encyclopedia. If you can find a source that discusses scientific studies, well that would be excellent. Independent reputable secondary sources are needed, not qualifications. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close reflects the discussion. In order to settle the point of possible notability, write a new and better version. DRV is not a forum for hypothetical questions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per consensus at the AFD. As usual, incubation/drafts/improvement work are not prevented. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, do not re-open AfD, no prejudice to recreation. Whatever issues there were with the close (and I personally don't see any), they are minor and clearly weren't going to affect the outcome. At the same time, nothing JJ wants to do is prevented by either the deletion of the article or the closure of the discussion. For both of these reasons, I see no possible practical benefit in re-opening the discussion. Thparkth (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as the AfD discussion was open for more than the required amount of time, and the closure reflcets the dicussion. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close per Hut8.5's comment above, with the caveat that the article may be recreated if notability and reliable source issues are properly addressed. The problem with such topics, of course, is that rarely do the proponents of such articles write a factual, reliably sourced article that states some people believe that phenomenon X exists, but its existence has not been proved/cannot be proved scientifically, exclusive of fringe sources and personal opinions. This is the core problem with "paranormal" article topics for an online encyclopedia to which "anyone may contribute." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat that although I am a proponent for an article (well, a stub), I am not a proponent for the topic (BIG difference): yes, precisely. And "rarely" not withstanding, I can write such an article. But at the moment I am a bit burned out. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 January 2016[edit]

  • Ashlei Nemer – recreation permitted; there's rough agreement that a discussion on mandatory notifications of article creators when making an AfD nom should be started. – ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ashlei Nemer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I deleted this article today as a result of an AfD, and the original author re-created it without attempting to discuss the deletion with me, appending an explanation of sorts to the closed AfD discussion. I could just speedy the re-creation per criterion G4, but I figure that the matter is likely to end up here in any event, so I'm bringing it now. Do the additional sources in the re-created article (most of which I can't read, as they're in Turkish) justify the re-creation, or should the article be deleted again? Deor (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page creator really should have been notified. I thought Wikipedia's automated deletion nomination processes told the page creator automatically? Has that accidentally failed or was it circumvented?

    I have to say, if someone had begun a deletion discussion of one of the pages I'd created, then I would expect to be told, and I would think it quite rude not to mention that to me on my talk page. When nobody has bothered to notify the author of the deletion discussion, it seems strange to expect him to talk to the deleting sysop before re-creating. I'm rather shocked that this doesn't currently seem to appear in the deletion policy. I don't want to see AfDs taking place in stealth mode, and I have quite a bit of sympathy for the original author here.—S Marshall T/C 00:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you watchlist the pages you create? If so, presumably you would notice if one were tagged for AfD. Some people create AfD discussions "by hand" rather than by means of Twinkle or another automated tool (I always have), and the article's creator won't be notified unless the filer remembers to do so. But all of this is rather beside the point of what to do with the article. Deor (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do watch the pages I create, and that is also the reason I saw that the page was deleted. I check the watchlist every day and it's strange that I didn't notice it. A reason that I might have missed this one is that my watchlist is verry long these days, as I created this month about 100 pages per day, and there are now over 12.000 pages on my watchlist. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 07:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I'm sorry for not notifying you, Sander.v.Ginkel. I should have done that. From the additional sources, it does seem likely that this person is notable, but I will remain Neutral on this DRV. Natg 19 (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Deor, I think that's your answer. Sysops don't usually watchlist the AfDs they close, but they expect to be consulted if someone feels their close is mistaken. This is exactly parallel with someone who's created colossal numbers of pages and can't be expected to watchlist everything; they rely on others to consult them about page deletions, and I think that a prolific content creator should be able to rely on that. I'm bewildered that this is not in the deletion policy. It seems like an un-Wikipedian failure of transparency to me.

But since it isn't in the deletion policy I can't be too assertive about it, and of course even if that was a procedural defect, it's not in any way Deor's fault because he wouldn't be expected to check that. I think that in order to assess the new sources properly, we need the help of an uninvolved Turkish-speaking editor, and I suggest that a neutral message is placed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey to try to recruit one.—S Marshall T/C 19:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The concept of enforced notification of authors I am sure is one which has been discussed in the past. Each article may have many editors, the original creator may have created a one line stub, whilst the current article could be only one or two other editors. Why would it follow that the original creator must be informed? their investment in the article is comparatively small. Deciding who the most significant editors to an article to notify them is pretty subjective. The original creator or most significant contributor may have left the project or be otherwise inactive, perhaps we'd need to have those listing work through the contributors ordered by subjective significance value and finding the first active one to notify, or notifying all active editors. To inform too many editors could be pretty impractical and likely to have an effect of pre-stacking the participation in any discussion on the article.
The idea of notification is a nice one, but tends to be impractical. You either end up leaving it to listers discretion, with what may be a meaningless notify the creator or with a set of creeping rules to follow which act as a barrier to actually listing stuff. --86.30.174.23 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having problems reading the sources (even with Google translate it's rough going) but they appear to be RSes and covering the topic in a reasonable way. I'd lean toward undeletion or relisting. Hobit (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • permit recreation With failure to notify the major editors, I think the deletion debate is likely to be problematic. In this case I would recommend allowing the recreation. I have declined a G4 speedy delete, as the player has played in a world championships, according to the article. I can't say that the debate was closed incorrectly though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • permit recreation. The sources (read via machine translation) appear to be sufficiently credible evidence of notability that at the very least, the previous AfD is no longer pertinent. I do notice that there is significant coverage in Polish-language media for this individual, who apparently plays for a professional Polish volleyball team. Thparkth (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have as strict an interpretation of the notability and suitability guidelines as anyone who regularly participates in AfDs and other XfDs, but I have always been appalled that it is not 100% mandatory that an AfD nominator must notified the article creator of a pending AfD discussion for all of the reasons evident in this DRV discussion. The usual responses are that article creators do not "own" an article in mainspace, and the creator should watch-list the article in question. I don't believe either of those are adequate responses. Very often the creator may be among the most knowledgeable Wikipedians on the subject, and/or may be able to readily correct any problems identified. At the very least, the creator may be able to answer some of the questions raised during the AfD discussion. If anyone wants to start an RfC to make notifying creators mandatory in XfDs, please ping me. That's something that needs to be addressed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 January 2016[edit]

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

The deletion of useful content. My plan was to start a separate article. Now the draft article is gone. -- Taku (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has now been moved to mainspace as Exact couple by RHaworth DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. Yes, I just noticed (so this review is no longer necessary.) The draft article wasn't actually finished and so he (RH) shouldn't have moved it to the main name space and he should asked for a permission first; apparently he doesn't care. -- Taku (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • User:Dr99698/Duncan Ryan – Nomination violates WP:POINT. – Stifle (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment after a premature close I'm not going to challenge the above close, but I do not consider the appeal unreasonable. No admin should be closing MfDs as delete when nobody comments except the person proposing the deletions. the default if there are no comments is no consensus. (To be sure the article fragent is of no encyclopedic value, & I would have !voted delete in the MfD.). But this is a place to enforce proper procedure. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • DRV generally frowns on personal attacks. I suspect a DRV that was not an attack would get a real hearing. Hobit (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
an attack on the entire admin corps is not a personal attack. Saying that a particular admin's close was used to hide an error is not a personal attack. I agree that being tactless doesn't help here, but tactless is not the same as personal attack. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a banned user; I can track down the banning discussion in the ANI archives if anyone really feels the need for me to do so. I know DRV regulars love to discuss the bureaucratic minutiae of deleted pages, whether or not the initial request or underlying page has any merit, but can we please just revert him like would be done anywhere else? —Cryptic 07:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is pertinent, and supports Cryptic's position.—S Marshall T/C 18:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Dr99698/Duncan Ryan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No actual discussion here. The "procedural close" excuses are just another attempt for the admin Corp to cover their tracks. As discussed at WP:VPP, there is no support for the deletion of userspace drafts. 166.171.123.100 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 January 2016[edit]

  • PureScript – This content is now being worked on at User:Dnalot/PureScript. Because DRV has inspected the draft and broadly approved its creation, it shall not be deletable under any speedy deletion criterion; for the avoidance of doubt this means that anyone wishing to delete this draft will need to go via MFD and achieve a full consensus. However, there is not, as yet, a consensus that the draft is ready for mainspace. When editors feel that it is ready, they are encouraged to come back here to DRV, where one of our functions is to review previously-deleted drafts and see if there has been sufficient improvement to restore. Before bringing any such nomination to DRV, editors are asked please to read RoySmith's advice below with care. – —S Marshall T/C 08:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
PureScript (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The language PureScript has gained rapidly in popularity, there are companies using it in production now symbolian for example, and it has a thriving ecosystem including a package manager, a documentation website and a book. It would be useful for people to be able to get an overview of it on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libscott (talk • contribs) 13:41, 26 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's always a bit of a red flag when the very first contribution by a new user is to DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PureScript. Sources presented are not within WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and please read WP:N. The sources provided don't count as independent reliable sources. A book written by someone other than the creator of the language would count. I'd be happy to discuss with you what would be needed (I'm an academic in CS but not a PL person). Hobit (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted below we welcome direction! I'm a PS user and PL connoisseur. I reviewed the original deletion and have been gathering more noteworthy sources but don't understand how to effectively present them? Dnalot (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • relist new sources have come into existence since the last discussion and while I think the case is debatable, I personally believe this has gotten enough traction in RSes to meet WP:N. The RSes are, for the most part either interviews or not a primary focus of the RS and very niche sources, so I can see why others might object, thus the relist rather than restore. Hobit (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation I attempted to contact Nakon last week per WP:DRV with our work on a new page and independent sources[1][2][3][4][5][6] (9 talks by 8 speakers at 8 conferences not cited here). We're unfamiliar with the review process. Would you help us navigate the way forward? Dnalot (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Srb, Michal (12 June 2015). "Haskell-Like S-Expression-Based Language Designed for an IDE" (PDF). Imperial College London: 9. PureScript is a strict (not lazy), Haskell-like language which strives to compile to readable JavaScript without having to provide a large runtime library. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ Google (28 April 2015). "Pursuit enhancements". Google Summer of Code. Enhance PureScript's Pursuit tool to provide better searching by names, searching by types, and a centralized documentation store—the three of these together should make it significantly easier to discover and use PureScript libraries. {{cite web}}: |author1= has generic name (help)
  3. ^ Google (28 April 2015). "Exhaustiveness Checker for PureScript". Google Summer of Code. The main goal from this project is to provide an exhaustiveness checker for pattern match errors that allows non-exhaustive patterns to exist, yet ensures that a pattern match error does not occur and thus avoiding unexpected crashes while executing a program. {{cite web}}: |author1= has generic name (help)
  4. ^ De Simone, Sergio (22 September 2014). "PureScript: A Haskell-like Language that Compiles to JavaScript". InfoQ. [PureScript] is written in and inspired by Haskell and aims at allowing to write very expressive code which is still clear and readable when translated into JavaScript.
  5. ^ Proctor, Steven (15 September 2015). "Episode 26". Functional Geekery. We cover his reason for creating PureScript, how it differs between other languages that compile to JavaScript, PureScript Conf 2015, the future of PureScript, and different ways to get started with PureScript.
  6. ^ Eames, Joe (9 December 2015). "PureScript with John A. De Goes and Phil Freeman". JavaScript Jabber. …people will find PureScript useful for the same reason that I created it and why I find it useful, which is that you want something fairly close to JavaScript like TypeScript is, [but with] the nice syntax and types that you get from Haskell.
  • Alllow recreation in Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! We're actively drafting it in my user space to move over for review. Dnalot (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as draft for now, and address COI issues. The language sounds interesting, but the AfD was unambiguous. Based on the current draft at User:Dnalot/PureScript, I don't see the sources that would be needed to move this back into main article space. At some point in the future, with the appropriate sources, it might be fine, but not today. Equally important, it seems clear from the comments above (We're actively drafting it, We're unfamiliar with the review process) that this is some kind of group effort and almost certainly there's a conflict of interest here. Please read WP:COI, paying particular attention to the sections on Terms of Use and Declaring any conflict of intrerest. Any future draft to be considered for main space would need to fully comply with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • By drafting in my space, I meant to imply “not today.” It should be clear it's something I'm doing out of altruism in my spare time, so I'm still collecting material. It is only a group effort inasmuch as I'm an individual user of the language (without any source contributions), and asking other members of the community for resources as I go. I'm not sure who could have the aptitude to post without using it? Although not how WP guidelines work, it's an order of magnitude more notable than other projects here, and one of the mos popular functional languages in the JavaScript ecosystem. Dnalot (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment, I'm not sure who could have the aptitude to post without using it? brings up an important point. It is certainly true that people with first-and knowledge of a subject are often in the best position to write about it. But, that's neither a necessary nor sufficient condition. In fact, somebody with first-hand knowledge writing from their personal experience, would be a primary source. In general, we don't like primary sources. What's we're really looking for is secondary sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Mummyreturns69/Steven Hornby (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The nomination alone isn't an actual discussion. No basis to delete. 107.72.98.187 (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have you discussed the nomination with User:xaosflux prior to listing here? Stifle (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporarily restored for the purpose of the discussion, as this has potential. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a copyvio from the About-the-Author page of his book, visible here or here, for example. —Cryptic 12:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redeleted in that case per CSD:G12. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:RReynolds09 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No basis for deletion made. 107.72.98.187 (talk)

  • Have you discussed the nomination with User:xaosflux prior to listing here? Stifle (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse in any event, perfectly valid basis for deletion which was that it was an abandoned userspace draft. Had not been edited in five years. Motivations of the nominator here are unclear. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These were all nominated by me over a year ago. I probably should have done more to find the copyright problems first. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a copyvio of the first source cited right in the draft article itself. —Cryptic 13:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Tpauly8/Robert A. Johnson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Should have been history merged not deleted. No basis for deletion 107.72.98.187 (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have you discussed the nomination with User:xaosflux prior to listing here? Stifle (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse. The entire content of the deleted article was "Robert A. Johnson authored several books, including Balancing Heaven and Earth", plus templates and references. A history merge would not have been relevant. The page was clearly an abandoned userspace fork and had not had any material edits for over five years before its deletion. Leave it in peace. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Mangalcharansingh/Arjan Singh Dillon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No basis for deletion expressed. 107.72.98.187 (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the content so the full article, line really, can be seen here and people understand what's really being argued here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you discussed the nomination with User:xaosflux prior to listing here? Stifle (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse in any event. It is manifestly unclear why a random IP editor is listing DRVs for random deleted userspace articles under specious grounds. The article, which was last edited in 2009 and deleted five years later, was of no value, is very clearly an abandoned userspace draft, and there could have been no reasonable objection to deletion. The user who created it had no other contributions. The nomination here is unfounded; the basis for deletion was that it was an abandoned userspace draft of no value, and if it is not in written deletion policy that such pages are liable to deletion, then it should be, as policies are merely a written collection and record of what we actually do. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say it's clear why this is happening. We have drafts being deleted out of user or draft space in ways that are contrary to policy and harmful the the encyclopedia. Sure, 99% of all these drafts will go untouched, but then again, but A) in general they do no harm as they are B) deleting them may push away potential editors. _if_ we are going to delete them, at the very least they could be deleted in a policy-compliant way (here soft delete would have been a policy-compliant way).
    Of course the editor is in violation of WP:POINT after the first one or two of these. And I think that doing so weakens the overall argument. Hobit (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on all of 4 of these: Agree, these were fairy weak "discussions" MFD usually is for sparse user subpages of inactive users. For what it is worth, I would undelete these on request of any of these subpage owners, however it appears they have all left the project a long time ago. I normally catch any of these that were copy-pasted to articles that had any editors other than the copier for history merge, and endorse merging any histories that I may have missed. Additionally, if there is any confirmed user requesting to adopt any of these, I'd happily restore it and move it to their sandbox, etc. These drv nominations do seem a bit unusual, and while possibly not meant to be disruptive - do appear to be being made for a point other than concern for this content. — xaosflux Talk 12:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    With the new information of copyvio's for some of these pages, I would not restore those as they are CSD's. — xaosflux Talk 15:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In situations where a page is a copyvio, I think that it is useful to amend the deletion log to mention this so that people who are unaware of the deletion review do not undelete the page. Copyvio is in my opinion a stronger reason for deletion than 'non-notable' or 'stale'. I don't know if this page is a copyvio, but it was stated that some of the other pages are copyvios. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, **I** would undelete all of these at the request of any owner or anyone who showed an actual interest in working on them. I do it all the time. If someone wants, I'll restore the page and you'll see exactly how ridiculous this request looks when you have the full context of what xaosflux and I saw. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 January 2016[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Duck16/Marle Place Wanderers U13's FC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

No legitimate basis for deletion. We shouldn't be driving off content creators. 166.170.51.134 (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist. This was deleted at MfD, [[2]] but there were no comments except the nominator. That is not consensus to delete. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as a reasonable soft deletion that can be reacquired at WP:REFUND. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn to soft deletion and treat this DRV as a request for an undelete, thus restore. If someone is going to use the soft delete part of our deletion guidelines, they should make it clear they are doing so. I'm going to make a BOLD clarification about this to our deletion guidelines and see if it sticks.Hobit (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Neptune Regatta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted under U5 but this is not in userspace. Can't be a userspace violation in Draftspace. 166.171.121.173 (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Harmless error. This is a clear G11. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could this be undeleted and redeleted to fix the deletion rationale, then? It looks confusing to see a U5 rationale in the draft namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done so. —Cryptic 23:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. Having a correct rationale avoids future unnecessary deletion reviews. If it is also copyvio, then it is in my opinion clear: the page should not be undeleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:List of shape topics in various fields (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

G13 deleted but not an AFC draft. WP:REFUND is for AFC drafts so it must be restored to work on. 166.171.121.173 (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a request for routine undeletion? There seems no reason not to do so. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
that and it shouldn't have been speedy deleted.
Does this count? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 January 2016[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Principal orbit type theorem (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

No need for deletion (since this draft article has not been abandoned. Taku (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Was never created. —Cryptic 05:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the correction. -- Taku (talk) 07:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy restore as an uncontroversial restoration. The deletion log says, "G13: Abandoned AfC submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13)". Cunard (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The full, non-attack-page content was "It states a principal orbit type exists" (without even a period). —Cryptic 06:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did ask for the restoration but the deleting admin (that is, User:RHaworth) refused. Please excuse my rather colorful language. He seems to have trouble understanding the article was a draft; it is incomplete and that's precisely why it's in the draft name space. Maybe we need some explicit policy clarifying the inclusion criteria for drafts. -- Taku (talk) 07:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy restore per Cunard. Being in atrocious shape is not a speedy deletion criterion for drafts. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy restore per HW. Also, Taku, your behavior linked to above is really unacceptable. Being right doesn't mean you get to threaten people (which is how I look that). Hobit (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've restored the draft, but I agree that Taku's behavior is unacceptable in all respects. First, the "draft" was barely a stub and ungrammatical to boot, and hadn't been edited in years. Second, right there in the deletion log, is the procedure to follow (WP:REFUND/G13). Instead, Taku goes to RHaworth's talk page and leaves a pretty rude notice (joined by a random anon), and then doubles down and implies RHaworth ought to be executed (which is perhaps the case, but unproven and unwarranted at the time). Taku then opens a DRV in which gets the name of the page wrong, leading to some confusion before the matter was sorted out. Taku isn't a new editor--in fact he's been since 2002, longer than most. There's just no excuse for this mixture of aggression and incompetence from a long-time editor. Mackensen (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It says that the page was deleted under WP:G13, and then again under WP:G10 a few hours later. It doesn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:G13 as there were no AfC templates anywhere. The undeleted revisions do not qualify for deletion under WP:G10, but maybe there were other revisions which were not undeleted for which that criterion applies. That said, the page seems to have been abandoned since 2014, and I don't see any point in having the page on Wikipedia. Maybe it should be listed at MfD. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The still-deleted version is a one-sentence attack on RHaworth, it clearly meets G10. Hut 8.5 22:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, that attack page (which I have not seen) was created by an editor other than me. -- Taku (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If Taku still wanted to create an article or a draft under this title, couldn't he have just gone ahead and done it? I know RHaworth continues to make many non-policy-compliant speedy deletions (and this looks to be another of them) but this was hardly a good example of one to make a fuss about. Thincat (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is the nominator going to actually work on developing this beyond seven words, or leave it fallow for another year and a half? The article was originally created on 19 July 2014, one of a number of tiny draft substubs created by User:TakuyaMurata over time, and untouched since. What benefit does it serve to retain these drafts which he/she clearly doesn't give a fig about unless they're deleted, in which case he/she comes crying to DRV? (Previous context at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 2, final section.) Stifle (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like a job for the Administrator's Noticeboard. Here at Deletion Review our primary purpose is to ensure the rules are correctly followed, and that gives us no option: we must restore the draft (as has, quite correctly, already been done). But this user's behaviour is quite surprising and I don't think it's right that he should continue to generate hundreds of words of bureaucracy over his seven-word drafts, nor that he should give administrators that amount of attitude over the same. This DRV should result in him receiving some guidance about appropriate conduct.—S Marshall T/C 12:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 January 2016[edit]

  • File:ABC2 (logo).svg – No Consensus. S Marshall makes a reasonable point, but failed convince enough of the other participants to come over to his side. No Consensus here means we fall back to the original deletion decision standing. – -- RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:ABC2 (logo).svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Image will be used in an image gallery that displays historical logos for the item's subject and includes written history in conjunction with the images (e.g. Network Ten#Logo and identity history. Spoke with admin Diannaa (originally deleted the file) who directed me here. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 03:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of the images in Network Ten#Logo and identity history are public domain due to lack of originality. All of the others are overwhelmingly likely to be deleted shortly, and so is the one currently at ABC2#Logo and branding history. So that's not, in itself, a particularly convincing argument.
    There's a high bar for inclusion of non-free former logos, since they generally fail Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #3a—so much so that the phrases "image gallery" and "historical logos" are both commonly used by themselves as reasons to delete such images, not to keep them. Usually there has to be sourced commentary that addresses the image directly and in detail, and while we obviously can't evaluate text that you haven't yet added, the kind of discussion currently at ABC2#Logo and branding history is insufficient. —Cryptic 04:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse provided that the logo is copyrighted. Historical logos may typically only appear in articles if there is sourced, critical discussion about the logo, so Network Ten#Logo and identity history should not contain any non-free logos. See WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, copyrighted logos cannot appear in galleries. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are we talking about a logo that meets the treshold of originality in the United States? {{PD-USonly}} is the marker one uses for logos which meet the TOO in their origin country but not in the United States.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe so, though an argument could be made that it isn't. It's very similar to File:ABC2 logo 2011.svg, in a different color and with the elements arranged differently. —Cryptic 23:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe you'll be looking at one of these, all of which appear to me to meet the rather low threshold of originality in the US. Wikipedia's practice of deleting copyrighted logos on grounds of failing to meet the NFCC is a clear example of our tendency to follow a rule off a cliff. It's not justifiable on any encyclopaedic grounds: corporations will always be delighted for us to host their logos. They're only concerned about trademark violations or passing off. The only benefit of deleting this material is to pacify the extremist libre-content faction of Wikipedians. In this case, since ABC Australia is a public service broadcaster from the Commonwealth, I expect we'll find the ABC's logos are actually subject to a special kind of copyright called Crown Copyright, which makes it even more weird and silly to delete the material, but from past experience I'm confident that the libre-content bunch will insist on a narrow interpretation of the rules here and they will get their way.—S Marshall T/C 23:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The actual image in question is the orange one labelled "2008–2011" on that page, if it helps. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
          • Thank you. I don't think any of our DRV closers use the one-word summaries in bold to assess a debate, but just in case this one is closed by someone who does, mine should not be read as endorse.—S Marshall T/C 15:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just chiming in that I agree with S Marshall on everything stated above. Hobit (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, unfortunately. That logo seems to be original enough to be copyrightable, and FFD has rarely endorsed keeping former copyrightable logos unless there is specific discussion of the logo in question. Now, while it isn't true that non-free images can't be used in galleries (as WP:NFG says, occasionally a very well justified exception can be made), I'm afraid that here such an exception would not be granted.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 January 2016[edit]

21 January 2016[edit]

  • start.me – No consensus. A majority of editors would endorse the speedy deletion. That's not enough for a consensus to endorse it, but enough to have the decision to deletion remain in place by default, for lack of a consensus to overturn it. While it is normal practice to send speedy deletions about which there is no consensus to AfD, that was specifically proposed here and did not obtain consensus, so it would be inappropriate as an outcome of the discussion. –  Sandstein  08:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
start.me (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Page was speedily deleted, but a deletion discussion would have been in place. Procedure was overly hasty, without any notification up front:

It looks as if this CSD somehow slipped through the net as I can't see a notification at User talk:Michieldewit or in its page history

— User:PamD

I discussed the matter with the deleting admin User:DGG and with User:Tokyogirl79. We don't agree on notability and the value of the provided references. The conflict of interest matter has been discussed as well. I myself failed to follow proper procedure regarding COI, which I am willing to correct. It should be noted that this conflict of interest has never intentionally been hidden. Michieldewit (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. I am very slow to interfere with deletion decisions of DGG as his bar for inclusion is set far lower than mine. I have also reviewed the deleted content and confirm that it does not contain any indication of why the site may be important or significant. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I have no problem with this going to AfC, but I'm concerned at the lack of (or rather, the poor quality) RS that has been provided. When it was deleted it was entirely sourced with primary sources, which lent to it being seen as a valid A7 candidate. As far as notifications of speedy deletions go, it's considered polite to notify the page creator, but it isn't mandatory. I did a run through of the sources he posted at DGG's talk page, which I'll repost here:
Sources
  1. This Forbes link only briefly mentions the service. This would make it a WP:TRIVIAL source on Wikipedia and could not show notability.
  2. N24 is something that would be seen as a reliable source. This isn't in English, which is why I mentioned that sourcing in other languages may exist that I didn't find. My main concern though is that the article is still fairly brief and it looks like it was heavily based on a press release, given the link's tone. (I viewed it via Google Translate.) If it is based on a press release this would make it a WP:PRIMARY source and would not be able to establish notability. Sources like this tend to be heavily scrutinized and it doesn't help that it doesn't identify who wrote it. This, along with the promotional tone, is usually a big sign that it's based on or is entirely taken from a press release.
  3. ProductHunt would not be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. First is because it's ultimately a self-published source, given that there appears to be little to no editorial oversight on the page and it appears to be a forum-esque site. I also note that you started the discussion yourself, so this would make it primary at best. Anything that is written by you, the company, or people affiliated with the service would be primary and unable to establish notability.
  4. The Denver Post can be a reliable source, however this is a question and answer column. These sort of things tend to be greatly depreciated as sources because they're usually the personal opinion/advice of the person who runs the column and it's rare that these would be the type of thing that would show notability. If this was taken to AfD, I can guarantee that this would likely be considered non-usable for notability giving purposes. The service is also fairly briefly mentioned, so that doesn't help much either.
  5. Buzzfeed is generally not seen as a reliable source per discussions like this one. The problem is that some of their articles tend to come across as advertising. However that is somewhat of a moot point since the article in question is just a list of various services and doesn't go into enough depth for this to be a notability-giving source.
  6. iGoogleAlternatives would not be seen as a RS on Wikipedia since it's a self-published source. They do list their criteria for picking things, but they don't actually have anything to show their editorial oversight. It is mentioned as good in a NYT advice column, but we'd need a lot of coverage to really show that they're seen as an authoritative source.
  7. Domain.me would be seen as a primary source because they host your website/service on their domain. It's well within their best interests to not only write about start.me, but to write about it in glowing terms. This would not establish notability on Wikipedia.
This is a Blogspot blog. Blogs are seen as self-published sources and per their nature, they almost never go through any sort of editorial oversight. Like sites with a lack of clear editorial oversight like iGoogleAlternatives, a blog can be seen as a RS if it's routinely mentioned as reliable in other RS, but this needs to be very heavily established. Offhand I don't see where this blog would be one of the exceptions.
  1. The ComputerIdee page looks to be a routine database-esque listing, especially as the content in the page is very brief and written like a press release. Most websites that offer free downloads do not write the material themselves and instead rely on the publisher to submit their own prose to accompany the download. Whether it could otherwise be used as a RS is up for debate - this would mostly rely on whether or not the magazine offers people the chance to get more coverage via marketing packages, which is common with many publications nowadays.
  2. The NYT is usually seen as a RS, however this runs the same issue as the Denver Post in that it is part of an opinion/advice column. As stated above, these are rarely seen as notability giving sources. I also note that the source only briefly mentions start.me. It does mention iGoogleAlternatives, which can help establish that the site may be reliable, but we'd need far more than one newspaper mention in order to really establish this.
  3. The last link you gave actually required that I download the page. Anything like this will raise red flags because you shouldn't have to download something to verify it. When I did open it in my browser, it didn't contain any information and as such, I cannot say that this would be seen as a RS. The only thing I could make out was something about e-mail in the background with some sparse details about the service like the website and owner/founder names, which lead me to believe that it might be a routine database listing. The default with unverifiable articles is that they are seen as non-notability giving, even if the publication is seen as a RS in most situations.
It could possibly go to AfD (and if some of these had been on the page there might have been some argument that it would pass the very low bar of speedy criteria), but I don't think that DGG's deletion of the page was incorrect and I share his concern that none of these sources are enough to establish notability. Given the current sourcing listed above, I think that it'd almost certainly be deleted at AfD. I think that AfC is the best outcome here and the editor has been pointed in that direction on his talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that sources are not required to be cited in the article itself to meet the WP:CCOS: "A claim of significance need not be supported by any cited sources, much less by inline citations to reliable sources". And this statement certainly applies as well: "Any statement which plausibly indicates that additional research (possibly offline, possibly in specialized sources) has a reasonable chance of demonstrating notability is a claim of significance". So A7 as a reason for speedy deletion does not apply (cf. Common A7 mistakes. Furthermore: it would have been more than polite to send a notification, as it would give opportunity to backup the page for later use. Michieldewit (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're not, but the problem here is that the article did not make any claim of significance. A look at the page showed only basic information about the service and company. The type of claim of significance referenced in the policies you're linking to would be things like it winning an award or receiving a large positive reception by notable outlets. All that the deleted article did was assert that the company and service exists, which is not considered to be a claim of significance on Wikipedia. As far as offline sourcing goes, the same issue applies. The article only showed that the company exists and didn't really suggest that there would be offline sourcing, nor does the sourcing you posted on DGG's page give off the impression that this exists either. That's the gist of A7: the article has to assert notability to pass a very low threshold or that it's likely that sourcing would exist to establish notability. While these two things are not automatically the same they do frequently tend to run hand in hand. The article as it was deleted did not assert anything that would establish that the service was notable or that there would be sourcing out there, so the deletion was valid. If you'd posted any of the above sourcing on the page that might have changed things, but you didn't and since the page has been deleted, it's well within DGG's right to express concern over the sourcing you did provide since it's not enough to establish notability on Wikipedia - and notability guidelines for companies and web related services are extremely difficult to meet. AfC is always an option here and you can view a cached version of the page here. However given the sourcing you've posted, I have to state that I'm not sure that it will pass NCORP or NWEB any time soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might well have posted any of the sources, if only I had the chance. I wrote the article before going to bed (I live in The Netherlands, time zone UTC+01). When I woke up, the article was gone already. No chance for me to reply. The admin was, in my humble opinion, too hasty. Now the article is deleted and I am told: "if the article were not deleted already...". Terms were too short and did not take into account time zone differences. Michieldewit (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why there's such a huge emphasis on using your draftspace rather than creating in the mainspace. As far as the sourcing goes, it wasn't on the article so it was a valid A7. However the thing is, even when we take the sourcing into consideration it's still incredibly weak and not enough to assert notability. Most of the sourcing isn't considered to be RS that would be able to establish notability and the few that are in RS only mention smart.me in passing. As far as AfD goes, we also have to take into consideration whether or not the article would even survive AfD. Offhand the sourcing here is extremely poor as far as asserting notability goes, so the chances of this surviving AfD are practically nonexistent. The reason I'm mentioning this is because DRV has to consider whether or not an article would have a reasonable chance of surviving deletion. To put it bluntly, they want to make sure that the AfD wouldn't just be a waste of time and procedure for procedure's sake. (Although again, there was nothing on the article that would assert that it would pass A7 and Alexa rankings do not count towards notability on Wikipedia per WP:POPULARITY.) I understand that you're frustrated, but this is why Wikipedia tends to discourage people making articles for things that they're personally related to - especially if they stand to have some sort of gain by having a page on Wikipedia. This might not have been the main reason you thought to come on Wikipedia, but I'm sure that it was one of the other reasons, which would be natural since this is your livelihood. (It doesn't necessarily make it right or advisable, but it's understandable.) It's just so incredibly easy for you to see more notability than there might otherwise be and to take things far more personally. AfC is really your best bet here, given the weak sourcing and your extremely strong conflict of interest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • <ec>List at AfD I can't see the article (and Google cache appears not to have it). But while the sources provided are really weak, there's enough there this isn't a clear A7. That places like Forbes have noted your existence is an assertion of notability IMO. iGoogleAlternatives ranking of them as the best-in-catagory is certainly an assertion of notability. Now that probably isn't a RS, but NYTs references it, so it's not so clearly bad that it isn't worth a discussion. I'll assume the article as written had none of these sources in them and so was a valid A7, but now we've got them so off to AfD we should go. Hobit (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to be honest I don't think this was a good A7 deletion, particularly since it was a unilateral one, without even the limited review that comes from having a separate nominator and deletor. I don't think it was a sufficiently obvious and unambiguous case, as shown by the sources mentioned in this discussion, some of which are vaguely plausible as indicators of notability. In my opinion that takes it out of A7 territory. I realize those sources may not have been in the article at the time of deletion, but I think an admin considering a unilateral deletion on A7 grounds probably ought to do a little Googling before pressing the button - not to establish notability, but to establish whether there ought to be a discussion about notability, which speedy deletion denies. I say all of this with the greatest respect to DGG whose work I have appreciated for years. I am not arguing to overturn the deletion because I do think the outcome at AfD would be "delete", and we are discussing it here now anyway. Thparkth (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thparkth: Actually, List at AfD would give me a fair chance to integrate the sources into the article and provide the admins in AfD a proper view of what the article would look like when properly sourced. Currently, the discussion is rather scattered. Michieldewit (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thparkth, it was not a unilateral afd. I do not normally do unilateral A7 deletions, and I am in general of the opinion that no admin should do that. It had been nominated for deletion by Mike Rosoftat 21.:42 of Jan20; I deleted in a 5:58 of Jan 21. The references in the article at the time consisted of.
  1. the Alexa site information.
  2. Their own blog
  3. The web page for the prototype version, Youris,
  4. The about.me for Youris.

Not a single third party source at all. Of the ones added subsequently:

  1. Forbes is a mere mention -- and not written by forbes , reprinted from the Daily Muse. The full relevant text was : "And for Safari, check out start.me." Ditto for the NYT.An article about the browser add-on in either would have been certainly enough to pass AY.
  2. N24 is a press release, no matter where published. and so on, as given above. I have no object to saying the same thing at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 14:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I was under a misapprehension about it being a unilateral deletion. Not much of my original comment still makes sense so I am going to strike it. I still think it was a marginal A7 but with two editors involved it is far less problematic. Thparkth (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: I feel to much emphasis is put on sources. The Credible Claim of Significance is not about sources, but about the described organization being credibly significant. The Alexa rank of 11,457 alone makes the organization significant. Other, bolder claims, such as the current number of users (600,000), the election as number 1 start page on iGoogleAlternatives.info or the partnership with Pale Moon were excluded, as they might be interpreted as too much of an advertisement, but would have been a clear claim of significance. So can we please return to the discussion of significance, rather than a discussion about reliable sources? Those are just not relevant in this discussion. The claims I just posted, however are. Michieldewit (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The question here is whether the original submission was properly deleted under A7, and I agree that it was. Michieldewit, you may feel that the deleting administrator should have taken time to research the company, but new articles are created at a rate of about one per minute, and the number of volunteer staff willing to do the tedious and repetitive work of screening them is limited; so the onus is on the submitter to give some hint as to why this is not just another person/band/startup business.
However, encourage resubmission of a draft via AfC, if you believe you can show the substantial independent comment about the company required by WP:Notability. You have done an excellent job of familiarising yourself with Wikipedia's many policies and guidance pages such as WP:CCOS, but I draw your attention to the good advice in the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. You have very properly made no secret of your connection with the business, but you undoubtedly have a COI, so that you should not be posting an article directly, but submit it for review by an uninvolved user. At this stage, discussion of what sources exist is not inappropriate, to avoid the danger of wasting your, and our, time. JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, and do not restore to mainspace at this time. No claim of significance at time of deletion, and no point undeleting until there's a nonzero chance of surviving afd. "Too much emphasis on sources" is flatly impossible; they are the only thing that matters, and none have been put forward that are even arguably usable. —Cryptic 21:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's actually untrue here. Having an assertion of notability doesn't require sources. And DRV doesn't need sources to overturn an A7 (though honestly, if there aren't _any_ it's unlikely that an A7 will get overturned). The creator could have just recreated the article with the sources and it would not be speedy eligible and would get an AfD. I don't see why DRV should give a different result then what could have been done without asking DRV just because the creator didn't realize that was an option. Hobit (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's plenty true. Without an ok source - not even a good one, just ok - the article's 100% likely to get deleted at AFD anyway. You know it. I know it. Even the users calling it a marginal A7, when company A7s don't get any less marginal than this, know it. The only person who doesn't know it is the article creator, who thinks that having an Alexa rank in the eleven thousands means that Wikipedia must cover this company. Undeleting now would be the worst possible way to eventually have an article on this company - it'll waste further volunteer resources on an afd when we've already spilled more than five times as many words on it as the average deletion discussion length, and it'll open up future articles to marginal G4s. —Cryptic 04:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's my opinion - if this was sent to AfD it'd be guaranteed to be deleted unless better sourcing becomes available. Given that I think that the OP's intent is to have this article survive past AfD, this is pretty much a disastrous choice. A deletion via AfD makes it more difficult for future versions of the article to survive without some pretty strong sourcing. The more an article is created and deleted (even via WP:G4) the harder it is to restore the article because not only do you have to provide RS, but you have to provide more because the idea is that the other sources were seen and judged as not sufficient to show notability. The OP was told at several times that AfC was an option prior to him bringing this to DRV and he's chosen to ignore that in favor of restoring it to the mainspace, again probably in the hopes that it would survive AfD. As far as the sourcing stuff goes, the reason why there's a focus on this is that there wasn't any good sourcing in the article and the sourcing provided after the fact didn't show where there was enough notability to where it'd survive even if it was restored. There's an assertion that it has a decent Alexa ranking, but that's not seen as a sign of notability on here nor is it really all that high in comparison to other sites. (For example, the award winning SF Signal only has a global Alexa ranking of 207,722, yet it's clearly notable per Wikipedia's guidelines for winning several Hugos.) I think that the most humane thing to do in this situation is to send a copy to AfC and let OP work on this there. We could send this to AfD, but we all know that it would be extremely unlikely to survive (it'd get eaten alive and maybe even close early) and would only make it more difficult to restore in the future. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AfD. This was a marginal A7 deletion, and by definition, there aren't meant to be any marginal A7 deletions. The addition of the sources identified in this discussion would have made it clearly exempt from A7. Several participants in this discussion have suggested that the article should only be recreated in draft space, but I'm not sure that there is any policy basis for that, since we are reviewing a speedy deletion, not an AfD outcome. G4 would not apply in this case. If it is to stay deleted, that can only happen on the basis of a consensus at AfD. And who knows, perhaps the community will take the view that it is notable after all. Thparkth (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the original A7 deletion was valid - the text consisted of a description of the functionality of the site and a discussion of a name change, and there wasn't anything I'd be prepared to call an assertion of significance. While significance can be asserted through the inclusion of source coverage, only one source in the article wasn't obviously primary and that was Alexa. It is true that assertions of significance don't need citations to be valid, but that doesn't mean the deleting admin has to go actively hunting for potential assertions of significance that could be added.
    Whether a completely different article could be written on this topic that does pass A7 (or would stand a reasonable chance at AfD) is a different question, and there isn't anything stopping you from recreating the article. If the revised version doesn't meet A7 then it won't be deleted under A7. If you'd like the content of the original article to be restored to your userspace so you can work on it (to expand it or add more sources) then I'm sure we could do that. Hut 8.5 22:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the OP has quite properly made no secret of the fact that he is one of the founders of the site concerned. Per WP:COI that means he should not post a new article directly, but may submit a draft for review via AfC. JohnCD (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, at the time it was deleted I believe this was a valid A7. That shouldn't preclude anyone from having another crack at starting an article on the same topic, provide they can provide credible indications of importance and better sourcing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse valid A7, and any potential further article attempts on this subject should be done by those with no conflict of interest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Draft:JTa Comics – deletion endorsed. The OP has evidently not read the discussion, where the word "stale" is not mentioned. – JohnCD (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:JTa Comics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

From the creator of Draftspace, If they're being deleted at MFD for only because stale, those MFDs are wrong. This deletion was wrong. 166.170.49.77 (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Assuming you're not just screwing around, it wasn't deleted because it was stale, it was deleted because it was a hoax and a webhost violation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes you think these were a hoax? Hobit (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those pages are for alleged YouTube videos that don't exist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm honestly not a fan of deleting these, but I _think_ policy is on their side. We even have a speedy criteria for stale drafts (G13). That said, I can't tell how long it had been since these have been edited. Hobit (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't deleted because they were stale. There were deleted because they were WP:WEBHOST with zero intent on making them into article and because they were pure hoaxes. He could have created them that day, it was still going to be deleted. For example, Draft:Cliques & Cliches (Web-Series) was created on September 18, 2015, and deleted on October 7th. No one called that stale. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, closure reflects the consensus of the discussion. I would be open to restoring on request of the original author any article which he intends to actively work on. Most were stale since June 2015. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. (1) Several reasons were given for deletion in the deletion discussion, none of which were that the drafts were "stale", so the reason given for this review is totally spurious. (2) Even if "stale" had been given as a reason for deletion in the discussion, it would not have been a valid reason for contesting the deletion: the view that it is "wrong" for a community discussion to decide to delete a draft because it is stale is just one editor's opinion, not supported by any policy, guideline, or consensus, as far as I know. (3) The IP address used to open this review is closely similar to one that was used in the deletion discussion and determined to be an IP sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor, so it is pretty certain that this review was started by the same blocked editor, evading his or her block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per above. While this might not seem like the most obvious hoax, a search for the name of this publisher under this tile or "Angelman Books" (supposedly its original name) brings up nothing except for Wikipedia mirrors. This makes it extremely likely that this is a hoax as well. A little snooping around for other info gives off the strong impression that this is all something created by someone who is likely very young and wanted to use Wikipedia as a bit of a webhost for things that they made up one day. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 January 2016[edit]

19 January 2016[edit]

  • BrowserStack – Endorse but restore. Strong consensus here that the original AfD close was fine, given the material available, but new sources presented here are worthy of restoring the article. There is some feeling that this should be relisted at AfD. I don't see enough people arguing for that to make it part of this DRV close, but nothing stands in the way of somebody doing that if they feel it's appropriate. – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
BrowserStack (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was deleted as being promotional, or not notable. An earlier version of the article did seem promotional (and subsequently deleted), but it had since been re-created. The last version of the article (before deletion) didn't seem particularly promotional to me. User:Bookish.krish also indicated this on the XfD page. The XfD mentioned notability and using as evidence the lack of third-party references, and that most references were based on press releases. However I'd like to dispute that claim. The article had no first-party references (only a minor citation to quote their response to the hacking incident). The article had one reference based on a press release (as citation for the in itself unnotable tech award). For awards we quite often use press releases as citation. Neither of these events (hacking incident, and tech award) is supporting notability of the subject. Though as coverage of the subject on Wikipedia, I think it made sense to mention those two events. Notability of the subject can be supported by the reference to TechRepublic, and by various other publications. Here are a few (all in search results from the "Find sources AFD" XfD page template):

  1. Tech industry review, TechRepublic, August 2013
  2. Tech industry workflow, Tutsplus, November 2013
  3. Notable mention (donation), Code Club, October 2015
  4. Notable collaboration with Microsoft, The Next Web, January 2013
  5. JavaScript Cookbook - Page 151, O'Reilly Media, 2015
  6. Programming the Mobile Web - Page 113, O'Reilly Media, 2013
  7. Selenium Essentials - Page 33, Packt Publishing, 2015
  8. Pro JavaScript Techniques, John Resig (Apress), 2015

I could list many more if I go beyond the first page of search results. Recommending undeletion. Subject is noteworthy, and deleted content seems larger than a good stub, to be further improved upon. –Krinkle 22:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Deleted Sigh. Things like this turn me off from participating in AfD. The discussion just went for almost three weeks and now that it's deleted the cry is "Wait! Wait! There's more to it! You all got it wrong!" Well, you certainly deserve kudos for coming to the rescue of something you firmly believe in. But having to dig long and deep to find passing references in highly technical publications suggests that this program may not quite meet WP:WEBCRIT. Blue Riband► 01:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Blue Riband: Sorry if this feels like a step backward after those weeks, I hadn't noticed it earlier. I feel you're being unfair though. The books are pretty technical indeed, but don't cherry-pick that. Links #1, #3 and #4 are simple and credible. I merely listed a few results from searches via "Find sources AFD". If one looks beyond pre-programmed searches and their top results, there are plenty of credible references that aren't technical in nature or merely passing mentions. As far as Sauce Labs goes, here are refs from the same sources as that article: CrunchBase, The Next Web, Mashable, and more. I'd also apply Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) instead of Wikipedia:Notability (web). Anyway, don't wanna argue. I'm just highlighting some missing details as the previous discussion seemed based on misinformation. –Krinkle 03:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says:

    Deletion Review may be used:

    3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;

    Since Krinkle has provided "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page", this is a proper DRV.

    Cunard (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn on the basis of new sources. The actual AfD close would be hard to criticize - a difficult one I suspect, despite the apparent near-unanimous !voting, because of low participation and some ambiguous arguments (it's marginally notable but delete it anyway?). But there is no doubt that the sources identified in this discussion are sufficient to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. I'm not impressed by arguments that these sources "don't count" in some way because they are "overly technical" or "overly specialist". That has never been a valid argument against the notability of a topic. Thparkth (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per the new sources. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore or Relist Lots of new sources, but I've doubts about a lot of them. Some seem like PR, others are passing mentions. Probably above the bar (especially with the coverage of security issues), but certainly no objection to a relist if anyone wants to. Hobit (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • History temporarily restored for discussion here DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, but restore per the sources provided above. Page restoration is justified per WP:DRVPURPOSE #3 relative to the sources presented above. The topic meets WP:WEBCRIT. Also, I don't view the article as particularly promotional in the state it was in when nominated for deletion (diff), and some very minor copy editing could correct any minor promotional tone. This version of the article provides some information about how many paid subscribers and registered developers the site has, and information about an award received, but this provides a credible claim of significance. If the article lacked such content, then it could very well be nominated for speedy deletion per WP:A7. Such assertions of significance are often mistaken as promotional, but without said assertions, A7 comes into play. That said, prior versions of the article have had issues with promotional content. North America1000 20:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per sources demonstrating obvious notability. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 January 2016[edit]

  • Perfumedly – No consensus. Opinions are roughly evenly divided, which means that the "no consensus" closure is upheld by default. This allows a renomination after a reasonable time. –  Sandstein  14:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Perfumedly (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In a somewhat unusual move, I'm requesting the wider community to scrutinise my own RfD closure by raising a DRV, after Legacypac discussed the matter with me.

The RfD concerns two redirects from obscure words to a common word from which they're derived: Perfumedly, Perfumingly → Perfume. A slight complication was that these redirects were created by Neelix, which is an area subject to much ANI discussion in recent months. The head count was 7:3 towards delete with solid arguments on both sides. I closed it as "no consensus, default to keep" as I don't think there's sufficient consensus to delete; Legacypac disagrees. I think the main arguments have already been threshed out and we agree that relisting at RfD again will likely generate a similar ratio of head count.

So my question for the DRV community is, that at what level of majority or argument strength do we move from no consensus to action? Deryck C. 22:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support delete aka Overturn and delete in my observations processing literally thousands of Neelix redirects we delete with a simple majority, absent one side having vastly stronger arguments or compelling new info need the end of the RfD. Neelix created thousands of useless redirects (and others) from obscuringly or inventedadly wordingishly (there is overlap between these groups because more then one person is likely to invent the same fake word by adding valid suffixes to valid regular words), including in old books. In these two cases the words get under 400 google hits each including all the Wikipedia mirrors, and sites that scrap content from here for anagrams, online dictionaries etc. Wikipedia is so powerful that if we create a redirect from duckinglyish => Swanidly within a few months searchs will show several hundred results of my new words defined as I wrote them. Therefore we do a big disservice to allow fake words here. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - I believe that your close was reasonable and well within discretion, which it was necessary and appropriate to exercise in an unusual case such as this. The "because Neelix" argument really doesn't count for much in the face of any opposition. That leaves similar numeric support on each side, and really not much in the way of conclusive policy argument anywhere to be found. I would (hypothetically) have closed this in the same way (though I would have !voted to delete). Thparkth (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might have closed Delete. The first keep was essentially saying that this is a valid, though archaic word, and the second Keep was a per-x. Seems to me that being a valid word is more of an inclusion criteria for Wiktionary and not Wikipedia. Redirects are cheap, of course, and this one does no harm even if hardly useful, but policy-wise the arguments for delete in this case (discounting "because Neelix") were more convincing. (IANAA, btw). CrowCaw 23:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete or alternatively relist. Until reading this discussion I would have tended to "meh, no consensus is defensible, what difference does it make?", but Legacypac makes a concerning point that the very existence of redirects from non-words or obscure words may tend to propagate them. This is a well-known effect when Wikipedia contains errors (inadvertent or otherwise) and I can see how it would be a problem in this context as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as well within administrative closing discretion. NYB's point might have some validity, but a GBooks search shows that this is not a "non-word", but a relatively archaic usage. I don't see what the problem is with Wikipedia propagating "obscure" information would be; an encyclopedia limited only to the commonly known is pretty useless. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse though I'd have endorsed deletion (though with less enthusiasm) also. I think policy-wise this leans toward keeping due to the redirect being old (2009) (which is important at RfD) and the word being an actual (if old) word. And honestly, I don't think this hurts anything. Plus some of the !votes to delete were fairly weak. Eh, within admin discretion and I think the right call. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse In the real world I would feel 7:3 or 2:1 isn't a rough consensus - it's a lack of it. But maybe wikiworld is different. Two of the deletes merely name-dropped and were of slight value. But then I wouldn't have complained about a delete close - it was only a redirect after all. Thincat (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the debate. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. There was consensus at the discussion to do so. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - Deryck could not have read this more correctly; "because Neelix" is indeed not a deletion rationale. We created a temporary exception to G6-delete any redirect created by Neelix which was clearly unacceptable by admin discretion, but these were clearly not that as soon as one user endorsed them; the closer acknowledged this. Subsequently, any !vote which amounted to "because Neelix" is equivalent to WP:IDLI and must be discounted. That knocks the straw tally down to 4:3 favouring delete, but throw mine out too because it's admittedly pointy gibberish, and the remaining keep !votes are much stronger (though I disagree entirely). If we learn anything from this discussion, it's to give proper arguments in deletion discussions. For future cases like this (let's hope there aren't many left) perhaps we can recommend that a discussion closing this way be relisted one more time, with a note reminding commenters that "because Neelix" is invalid; there are much better policy-based reasons that we should delete these (see Newyorkbrad's comment). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn to delete. normally its not worth debating a non-consensus close, because one can always bring another XfD to try to obtain better consensus, but in this case a appropriate question has been asked about deletion policy in closing, which is specifically the job of Deletion Review . My repsonse to that question is:
It is not a matter of head count, Relying primarily on head count is in most situations the wrong way to close XfDs. There are times to take it into account: for example, when one closes in favor of a clear minority position, for then one needs to explain why. Or when one closes on the basis of it is clear what most people think when it is a matter of judgment (such as whether a key reference is sufficiently independent) rather than policy. In this case there were two proposed contrasting guidelines: whether he make redirects from every documented word to the closest WP article, or whether we only make them for plausible searches. The guideline we actually follow is I think well established: it's to plausible searches, and almost all RfDs have been closed on that basis. (in contrast, the question of whether something is sufficiently plausible is a matter of judgment, & the apparent level of plausibility required at RfD has often varied.) There can of course be exceptions,but for an exception there needs to be clear consensus to use it. There was not such clear consensus here, so the usual guideline applies.
Furthermore, in a matter where we would decide by vote count, if we were to do so 7-3 is greater than 2/3, and for almost everything, including RfCs, 2/3 is sufficient (when one does use vote count every authorized voter counts, even if their reason is wrong). RfAs have a discretionary range, not an absolute count, The only matter I know of where a precise higher figure is given is for changing Arbitration policy, which--in my opinion absurdly--requires 80%. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since I usually agree with DGG, I'll add a slight caution on this occasion. He says "There was not such clear consensus here [to keep], so the usual [well established] guideline applies [that the redirect should be plausible]." My understanding is that we need a consensus to delete. If there is no such consensus we do not delete, even if there is not a consensus to keep. Of course, the opinions are considered in the light of whether they are policy or guideline based but people should have their opinions respected if they give a cogent justification, even if they are going against a guideline. However, the root problem at this RFD was that some people gave wholly or partially irrelevant or flippant arguments (probably because they regarded the result as self-evident). It is obvious that they could have given reasoned arguments but they did not. I also would have voted "delete" but I did not take part at all so my opinion was also rightly disregarded. Thincat (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it rather as a question that "There is so such guideline here [to use the general policy for redirects],... ". Using a different guideline is what requires a clear consensus. It's also the case that a decision to delete requires a consensus (less than a clear consensus, which is a stronger term in an undefined way). These are 2 different ways of looking at it, which give the same result. DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not always the case that explicit consensus to delete is required to delete redirects. There was a discussion recently where several users opined that a certain redirect wasn't correct, but could not agree on what action would improve the situation; the result was that the redirect was deleted even though nobody had suggested deletion in the discussion. It's also stated in a guideline somewhere that redirect discussions which don't have any comments routinely result in deletion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too familiar with RFD specifically so I don't know about deletion policies and practices that are specific to redirects. I do agree, however, that deleting a redirect if in some doubt could sometimes be a reasonable thing to do. Thincat (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it was established that this word is or was actually used, so the argument that this is purely a word invented by Neelix has no validity. At that point it becomes a matter of judgement over whether the word is a plausible search term, and opinion was divided on the subject. Yes, there were seven delete !votes to three keep !votes, but four of those delete !votes merely asserted that the word was nonsense or only exists as a Neelix invention, which is demonstrably untrue. Only three of them argued that it was an implausible search term. To answer DGG, strength of argument becomes less important the more people participate in a discussion. RfAs routinely get over 100 people taking part, few deletion discussions get anything like that many. Hut 8.5 20:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hut 8.5 I think you need to look again. In my nomination I said "Very rare or non words set up by Neelix" This was part of a string of such nominations of exactly that. I specify Neelix as the creator because that makes them G6 Housekeeping eligible, not because him creating them is a reason to delete on its own (no one has advanced this as a reason to delete anything, in spite of what some editors claim).
Before I nominate words from [[3]] I search the meanings and evaluate the usefulness. Here I found a few hits - notability one in a poem quoted a few times in various books and websites which I chalked up to poetic license with words, [4] When reviewing redirects my rule of thumb is to RfD any word or phrase like this with under 400 Google hits, barring some other good reason to keep.
The sequence of the votes is important too. The first two keeps were the second and third votes. Then 5 users voted Delete even after reading the Keep rational. Everyone in the discussion including my nomination agreed the words are "very rare". It is frustrating to have votes tossed because of a faulty assessment of the reason for the nomination.
Following Hut's logic (to pick on the last vote here out of connivance), his vote is based on "the argument that this is purely a word invented by Neelix has no validity" which was never part of the nomination and is "demonstrably untrue", so his Endorse here can be completely ignored. (sorry to pick on you Hut, just making a point, nothing personal). Most of the delete voters are used to dealing with Neelix created redirects like these that use very rare or invented words and should not be expected to provide a completely explained rational yet again for deleting something that just another exceedingly rare unnecessary redirect. If that is the standard we will never get to the bottom of 50,000 redirects. Legacypac (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The result of an RfD (or any other XfD) doesn't stand or fall with the wording of the nomination. People can cite whatever rationale they like, and the close must take those rationales into account. Here two of the comments said "Neelix gibberish" and "Neelix nonsense", and another likened the term to a long list of obviously made up words. There wasn't any other rationale offered in those comments, that was the only reason given, and Notecardforfree demonstrated that this is not true - the word does exist and it has been used, so whatever it is it is not nonsense. If someone gives a rationale in a deletion discussion which is convincingly rebutted then it is entirely proper - indeed expected - for the closing admin to discard it or give it reduced weight. See the example given in WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS about lack of sources. It doesn't matter whether it was rebutted before or after they made that comment, either way it is rebutted. Discounting these comments we are left with a pretty even split on the main question, and so it was right for the closer to go for No Consensus.
I'm afraid I am going to have to ask that people who want a page to be deleted articulate and demonstrate some valid reason why that page should be deleted, or "provide a completely explained rational" as you put it. That is kind of the point of having deletion discussions. Hut 8.5 22:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rubbish computer:, could you clarify? -- Tavix (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hallward's Ghost: @Tavix: Sorry, I can't even remember what I was thinking when I wrote that. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete as although I voted Keep, the Delete arguments appear stronger. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. I may be biased since I !voted "delete", but even discounting the "because Neelix" votes, I feel the !delete arguments to be stronger. It comes down to WP:NOTDIC (and now that I think about it, WP:R#D8), since we are not a dictionary, we shouldn't have redirects for every possible obscure form of a word. Common and plausible variations are fine (per WP:POFR). On the "keep" side, there was WP:CHEAP (which I always feel is a "cheap" argument, no pun intended) and a couple valid arguments discussing that they felt it to be a plausible search term. -- Tavix (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. First of all, whomever closes this discussion should keep in mind that that WP:DRV is not a forum to re-litigate the underlying reasons for why this redirect should or should not be deleted ("Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question"). Rather, we are here to talk about whether the individual who closed the RfD followed proper procedures. Here, Deryck C. found that there was not sufficient consensus to dismiss, but now asks whether the numeric disparity among votes compels a different result. However, WP:CON states that consensus should never be judged based on a vote (see also WP:VOTE); consensus is determined by taking all perspectives into account. In this RfD, the keep votes cited legitimate, policy-based concerns, which Deryck C. found to be not substantially weaker arguments than the delete votes. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Both sides have made valid arguments. Clearly there is no consensus to delete. sst✈ 02:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, because one you take out the arguments that are not based in policy, it's pretty much 50-50 with no wholly convincing argument that knocks the thing out of the ground. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Korean eyes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
I originally had created an article on myths on eyelids. It got deleted. I feel incensed. My article was legitimately referenced, it talked about notable topics that are existing covered topics, the arguments for deletion were lies. But since you keep on insisting your bullshits anyway, forget the myth part but focus on the Korean eyes part. I had created a new article on Korean eyes without the myth part, but it got deleted because I had talked about Korean eyes while talking about the myths (which got deleted). How is this fair? https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Korean_eyes

Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the content.

Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a claim that the term Mongoloid refers to only Mongolian, Eskimo Siberian, etc. (Such that "Chinese isn't Mongoloid".) Unlike such claim, the definition differs. The term refers to the yellow people in general. Also, Uralic, Turkic, Altaic blood is little in Mongolian. That blood (Y-haplogroup N) is genetically different from Eskimo Siberian (Y-haplogroup C). Quoting from "The Earth and Its Inhabitants" by Elisee Reclus, "The national type seems to have been best preserved amongst the Khalkhas, who also claim a certain superiority over the other branches on the ground that amongst them are the families of the Taitsi, descendants of Jenghiz Khan. Yet the Khalkha least resembles the typical Mongol type, as described by most ethnologists. He is rather brown than yellow, with open eyes, not inclined obliquely, like those of the Chinese or Ostiaks." [1] One of the Mongoloid traits is small mono-eyelids like Chinese, Ostiaks, Eskimo Siberians, but Khalkhas differ from such types.
Korea historically has been perceived as the mixture of the East Asian aboriginals & Altaic nomads (like Khalkhas) from Central Asia. This nomadic group is recorded to have settled in North Korea which included Southern Manchuria in the ancient Kochosun time but not South Korea. North Korea is perceived to be closer to the cold northern nomads than South Korea. Quoting from "Korea and the Sacred White Mountain" by Alfred Edward John Cavendish, "the Northern Koreans are not the same race, I am certain, as the Southern, for they are not the same idle, good-for-nothing set, but, on the contrary, are as hard-working and industrious as possible. Besides this, from Kap-san to the northern border the natives have long features, with aquiline noses, and the almond-shaped eye and high cheek-bone so noticeable in Korea farther south, are almost entirely absent; as might be expected, the dialect differs also in a marked degree." [2] Aquiline nose means Roman nose; it refers to Southern Europe & the Middle East.
Korea's folded double-eyelids have been described numerously by several 19th century references. Quoting from Corea by Arnold Henry Savage, "If you take the royal family of Corea, for instance, you will find that king and queen, and all the royal princes, especially on the queen's side (the Min family), are as white as any Caucasian, and that their eyes are hardly slanting at all, and in some cases are quite as straight as ours [Caucasians]. Members of some of the nobler families also might be taken for Europeans. Of course the middle classes are of the Mongolian type." [3] A particular famous Royal member is prince Wu Lee who made portraits & photos with clearly folded double-eyelids on both eyes.
The term straight or open has been used many times for folded double-eyelids. Quoting from "The Earth and Its Inhabitants" by Elisee Reclus, "others group the Ainos with the Kamchadales, Koriaks, Aleutians, and some other northern peoples in a separate division of mankind, while they are by others regarded as a branch of the Eskimo or of the Polynesians, or even of the Western "Caucasic" stock. Certainly the ordinary Aino type differs greatly from the Japanese. The complexion is lighter, the forehead broader and higher, the cranial capacity vastly superior, the nose more prominent, the eyes larger, more open and perfectly straight, like those of Europeans." [4]
Here is another example of the ethnologic usage of that word from the same book by Elisee Reclus, "the inhabitants of the Lu-chu Archipelago form a transition between the "Polynesian" type of Japan and the almost Malay features of the Formosans. The eyes are nearly straight, the complexion of a somewhat olive tint, the beard fuller than either of the Japanese or Chinese".[5]

Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Elisee Reclus's "The Earth and Its Inhabitants" on Khalkhas
  2. ^ Northern Korean & Southern Korean facial differences
  3. ^ Korean double-eyelids
  4. ^ the term straight for double-eyelids 1
  5. ^ the term straight for double-eyelids 2
It is an existing covered topic (obviously because many books talk about it); it is properly referenced (used like 5 Google books on Ethnology); all I did was stating the quotes pretty much. This article should be posted back up. The myth part should also be reviewed again because it was not properly deleted (false claims were made in notability & references), but get the Korean eyes part straight first.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I most recently deleted the article, but as a G4 ( a recreation of a previously deleted article). I don't have an opinion on whether the prior deletion was proper, simply that the latest version appears substantially similar to the deleted version.

Original AfD--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this still not processed? Can we have a discussion or something going on?Wikibreaking (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying 2 separate things here. 1. That previously deleted article on the myths was wrongfully deleted. 2. Irrelevant of that previously deleted article, whether this content was *also* mentioned in that previously deleted article or not, it should be irrelevant. For example, if an article on US presidency got deleted while including the mention of Obama, then should an article on Obama himself be also deleted just because it was mentioned in that deleted article? I see no logic in this. So, I am trying to set straight how this article (specifically on Korean eyes) is legitimate & shouldn't be deleted. Then, I am going to resubmit petition on the previously deleted article (I am separating that article into 2) because it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How come this is still not being processed? A later petition was processed, but this is still not touched.Wikibreaking (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 January 2016[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
East Asian myths about the evolution of folded eyelids (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
This article was originally deleted because of the title. Your excuse was about the title. Your excuse for deletion was that the title was wrong. That the content was about the myths while the title was about evolution. Hence, your nonsense doesn't apply when the title is set as myths. There is nothing to change in the article. It is properly referenced. How does your excuse for removal apply when the title is different?
When you deleted the previous "The evolution of folded eyelids", your excuse was that it didn't say anything about evolution specifically whilst the content was about the existing myths in the topic. So, I recreated using the different article title. I named the title "myths" & the content was about "myths". Why did you delete this time? If you are claiming it is not referenced *because you can't read Korean* despite me having already summarized the quoted newspaper, that's your problem. That doesn't make it not referenced. If you are claiming that a reference in foreign language can't be used, I would like to see that rule as I've seen plenty of foreign references. It's a specifically existing topic of significant facts (as in being notable).
The article specifically mentioned "here are existing claims". That's very concrete for going over the "existing claims & myths". How much more concrete can you get for introducing existing myths than "here are the myths". Also, it was properly referenced. Also, the relevant scientific facts & historical records were very related to the myths because they were the opposite.

Wikibreaking (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How come this is still not touched? This isn't complicated. Some administrators made false claims & closed this article. We just have to go over their specific claims & how they don't apply if having a different title. Referenced notable facts are being banned right now.

Wikibreaking (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is still not touched, so I am following up. Basically, I introduced "here are the existing myths in this topic of evolution." Then, I linked the related relevant scientific & ethnological facts in East Asia. Then, the article was deleted because "virtually nothing in this article is validly sourced" (which is false claim because I linked research institutes & newspapers) & "you are wrong in considering that "worthy of interest" means "notable"." (which is false because the article was notable by being an existing topic of significant facts) & "The topic of how folded eyelids evolved could be interesting, but this article sheds no light on the subject. It states right up front that there is no scientific information on the subject" (which is irrelevant as I was introducing myths instead of talking about the actual evolution). So, 2 of them are false claims, and the last one doesn't apply if the title is not on the evolution but on the myths. https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evolution_of_folded_eyelids

Wikibreaking (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the ban on the myths is reviewed, as for the later part on Korean eyes, I made a separate article for that part only. https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Korean_eyes Now, just have to finish this talk on the first part (the myths being introduced). Are you claiming that the myths don't exist? I provided a newspaper reference introducing the myths. Are you claiming that the reference is fake? That makes you a liar & you are not even qualified if you can't verify the newspaper article. Or are you claiming that the related scientific facts quoted from the research institutes shouldn't be included? They are related facts speaking against the myths; they should be included; they are within the topic & they are properly referenced.

Wikibreaking (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since notability is being used as an excuse, let's specifically quote the rule. Quoting on notability, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" & "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable". https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Notability

Wikibreaking (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be very specific in your claims. Which part is wrong why? Wikibreaking (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. The arguments for deletion were, in fact, unusually well-reasoned and definitely based on policy (and the participants explained those policies in some detail as well.) This is not a new deletion discussion for the article, it is an evaluation of whether the previous discussion followed Wikipedia policy, which it did. There was only one possible way to close the discussion: as "delete". --bonadea contributions talk 09:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closure was in line with the consensus. Will User:Wikibreaking please place his/her signature on the same line rather than a new line, as this is breaking formatting. Will Wikibreaking also note that the question is on whether the administrator has followed deletion process properly. Deletion review is not a venue to advance new arguments (or repeat old ones) about the article nor to assert that the consensus was wrong. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Amending my comment to speedy close per WP:DRVPURPOSE items 5 and 8 under "deletion review should not be used". Stifle (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I feel incensed. My article was legitimately referenced, it talked about notable topics that are existing covered topics, the arguments for deletion were lies. But since you keep on insisting your bullshits anyway, forget the myth part but focus on the Korean eyes part. I had created a new article on Korean eyes without the myth part, but it got deleted because I had talked about Korean eyes while talking about the myths. How is this fair? You know what? I am going to create a new petition for this.Wikibreaking (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I created a separate petition for the Korean eyes part. After setting that straight, I am going to resubmit this petition again because you administrators made false claims (be very specific in logic instead of lying) in notability (it's an existing covered topic) & the legitimacy (all those sources are legitimate) of references.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are not processing this nowhere near properly at all. For now, I am splitting the content (about the myths on eyelids) into 2 separate parts. I am uploading an article specifically on Korean eyes first. That new article is being deleted because it was a part of this article. Look into this please. If you are not doing anything by tomorrow, I am resubmitting the petition since you are not looking at this post or something.Wikibreaking (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Korean eyes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
I originally had created an article on myths on eyelids. It got deleted. I feel incensed. My article was legitimately referenced, it talked about notable topics that are existing covered topics, the arguments for deletion were lies. But since you keep on insisting your bullshits anyway, forget the myth part but focus on the Korean eyes part. I had created a new article on Korean eyes without the myth part, but it got deleted because I had talked about Korean eyes while talking about the myths (which got deleted). How is this fair? https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Korean_eyes

Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the content.

Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a claim that the term Mongoloid refers to only Mongolian, Eskimo Siberian, etc. (Such that "Chinese isn't Mongoloid".) Unlike such claim, the definition differs. The term refers to the yellow people in general. Also, Uralic, Turkic, Altaic blood is little in Mongolian. That blood (Y-haplogroup N) is genetically different from Eskimo Siberian (Y-haplogroup C). Quoting from "The Earth and Its Inhabitants" by Elisee Reclus, "The national type seems to have been best preserved amongst the Khalkhas, who also claim a certain superiority over the other branches on the ground that amongst them are the families of the Taitsi, descendants of Jenghiz Khan. Yet the Khalkha least resembles the typical Mongol type, as described by most ethnologists. He is rather brown than yellow, with open eyes, not inclined obliquely, like those of the Chinese or Ostiaks." [1] One of the Mongoloid traits is small mono-eyelids like Chinese, Ostiaks, Eskimo Siberians, but Khalkhas differ from such types.
Korea historically has been perceived as the mixture of the East Asian aboriginals & Altaic nomads (like Khalkhas) from Central Asia. This nomadic group is recorded to have settled in North Korea which included Southern Manchuria in the ancient Kochosun time but not South Korea. North Korea is perceived to be closer to the cold northern nomads than South Korea. Quoting from "Korea and the Sacred White Mountain" by Alfred Edward John Cavendish, "the Northern Koreans are not the same race, I am certain, as the Southern, for they are not the same idle, good-for-nothing set, but, on the contrary, are as hard-working and industrious as possible. Besides this, from Kap-san to the northern border the natives have long features, with aquiline noses, and the almond-shaped eye and high cheek-bone so noticeable in Korea farther south, are almost entirely absent; as might be expected, the dialect differs also in a marked degree." [2] Aquiline nose means Roman nose; it refers to Southern Europe & the Middle East.
Korea's folded double-eyelids have been described numerously by several 19th century references. Quoting from Corea by Arnold Henry Savage, "If you take the royal family of Corea, for instance, you will find that king and queen, and all the royal princes, especially on the queen's side (the Min family), are as white as any Caucasian, and that their eyes are hardly slanting at all, and in some cases are quite as straight as ours [Caucasians]. Members of some of the nobler families also might be taken for Europeans. Of course the middle classes are of the Mongolian type." [3] A particular famous Royal member is prince Wu Lee who made portraits & photos with clearly folded double-eyelids on both eyes.
The term straight or open has been used many times for folded double-eyelids. Quoting from "The Earth and Its Inhabitants" by Elisee Reclus, "others group the Ainos with the Kamchadales, Koriaks, Aleutians, and some other northern peoples in a separate division of mankind, while they are by others regarded as a branch of the Eskimo or of the Polynesians, or even of the Western "Caucasic" stock. Certainly the ordinary Aino type differs greatly from the Japanese. The complexion is lighter, the forehead broader and higher, the cranial capacity vastly superior, the nose more prominent, the eyes larger, more open and perfectly straight, like those of Europeans." [4]
Here is another example of the ethnologic usage of that word from the same book by Elisee Reclus, "the inhabitants of the Lu-chu Archipelago form a transition between the "Polynesian" type of Japan and the almost Malay features of the Formosans. The eyes are nearly straight, the complexion of a somewhat olive tint, the beard fuller than either of the Japanese or Chinese".[5]

Wikibreaking (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Elisee Reclus's "The Earth and Its Inhabitants" on Khalkhas
  2. ^ Northern Korean & Southern Korean facial differences
  3. ^ Korean double-eyelids
  4. ^ the term straight for double-eyelids 1
  5. ^ the term straight for double-eyelids 2
It is an existing covered topic (obviously because many books talk about it); it is properly referenced (used like 5 Google books on Ethnology); all I did was stating the quotes pretty much. This article should be posted back up. The myth part should also be reviewed again because it was not properly deleted (false claims were made in notability & references), but get the Korean eyes part straight first.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I most recently deleted the article, but as a G4 ( a recreation of a previously deleted article). I don't have an opinion on whether the prior deletion was proper, simply that the latest version appears substantially similar to the deleted version.

Original AfD--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this still not processed? Can we have a discussion or something going on?Wikibreaking (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying 2 separate things here. 1. That previously deleted article on the myths was wrongfully deleted. 2. Irrelevant of that previously deleted article, whether this content was *also* mentioned in that previously deleted article or not, it should be irrelevant. For example, if an article on US presidency got deleted while including the mention of Obama, then should an article on Obama himself be also deleted just because it was mentioned in that deleted article? I see no logic in this. So, I am trying to set straight how this article (specifically on Korean eyes) is legitimate & shouldn't be deleted. Then, I am going to resubmit petition on the previously deleted article (I am separating that article into 2) because it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How come this is still not being processed? A later petition was processed, but this is still not touched.Wikibreaking (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After this Korean eyes part is set straight, I am resubmitting the petition for the myth part (which was referenced in Korean language while the scientific facts were referenced by English via legitimate research institutes, which you administrators LIED to be illegitimate source) as well. For now, I am just splitting the article into 2 separate parts & getting separate approvals. This is an existing (covered) topic. That makes it notable. Quoting on notability, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" & "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable". https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Notability You administrators LIED that this was not notable. So, you either claimed that the topic is not verifiable (which is a lie as it was referenced) or that the topic was not covered (which is a lie as there are references on the topic).
But, for now, focus on the Korean eyes part. I will resubmit the petition for the other half of the original article later. Also, there is a difference between being racial & being racist. If talking "being nice in language", that is not a requirement especially when the authors didn't care for such in the 19th century. Wikibreaking (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR. The definition of notability on Wiki is having been covered as an existing topic & being able to be verified. I provided links for each point. That's why I was saying that false claims were made on notability & the legitimacy of the sources. My article was wrongfully deleted. Appeal to Popularity is a logical fallacy. Whether many people wish the article to be deleted or not, that doesn't mean any Wiki rule is actually violated. Many people can be wrong while 1 person against them is right. Also, because of some annoying unqualified people claiming "a reference in Korean language doesn't count as a reference", I split the article into 2 separate parts to get approval for each part separately.Wikibreaking (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR. 1. Just because people believe it not to be notable doesn't make it so. Wiki defines notability as "having had a coverage" & "being able to be verified", which I proved by providing references. 2. Also, it is a different topic from Epicanthic fold. Peanut shouldn't be included in the topic walnut. 3. Participants believing or not believing the sources is irrelevant how the sources are legitimate, especially if the participants are not even qualified to judge what the source (such as a newspaper) is. 4. I split the article into 2 separate parts. The first part is on the myths of double-eyelids. The second part is on Korean eyes. I made it into a separate article, but it got deleted because it was mentioned in the previous article that got deleted. I am trying to get approval for each part separately. Put my article back on please.Wikibreaking (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR. Focus separately on the topic Korean eyes & on the topic myths about double-eyelids. As for the topic on Korean eyes, I quoted 5 Google books on Ethnology. So, this should be posted. Just get this done for now. Wikibreaking (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR. As for the myth part, the one I used as reference is a Korean newspaper Hankyore http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/science/kistiscience/95532.html which the English version is here. http://english.hani.co.kr/ You can clearly see that it's a newspaper website. As for the contents in the newspaper, I gave you a summary in the article. After introducing the myth (the general perception), the related scientific facts speaking against the myth are a legitimate related topics, which I included after introducing the myths. The sources were UCHealth, weather.com, livescience, all scientific channels quoting research institutes. A bunch of nobodies deciding the scientific channels & their quoted research institutes is just ridiculous. It's not up to them to decide. Wikibreaking (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Wikibreaking is counselled to read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:TLDR, to stop submitting new "petitions" for substantially the same content with substantially the same text, and to understand that deletion reviews normally stay listed for seven days to ensure that anyone who wishes to contribute an opinion has the option to do so. Repeatedly posting increasingly strident and angry demands for your listing to be skipped ahead is going to backfire. You need to get people on your side as deletions will only be reversed if you gather a consensus in your favour, and getting angry at people will turn them against you. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like kissing ass; I don't like appeasing & manipulating to get what I want. If I wanted to manipulate, then I could have pulled it off very well. That is against my character. I do not want to do such & I still want what I am entitled to. I don't want favors; I want fair entitled services justly. Also, I feel incensed & rightfully so. I shouldn't have to refrain myself from it. Wikibreaking (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not entitled to anything, just so you know. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about legal issue, that can be sorted out in the civil court. (Infringement of privilege & entitlement unjustly.) If you are talking about the actual laws, that's for the judge & the written laws to decide. If you are talking about the Wiki rules, that's what I meant. When my article does not violate any rule, it should not be removed just by what you want. If you were saying that there is no Wiki rule against admin abuse & that you are allowed to such, that's a separate matter from my article being entitled to an entry by following Wiki rules. Not to mention being stupid. Wikibreaking (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close of the AFD because it reflected the consensus at a discussion where the deletion opinions were not obviously erroneous. The nomination here at DRV does come across as a request (demand, frankly) for a second AFD and that should be rejected. Are we effectively being asked to agree that Draft:East Asian myths about the evolution of folded eyelids can be moved to main space? To judge that I'd want to see the history to see how the versions differ and I'd like less noise so that I could think better. Thincat (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. From reading the guidelines, DRV was never intended to "relitigate" the XFD, just to determine if some sort of error was made by the closing admin. No such error was made here. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deletion Review is apparently being used as a form of therapy here.—S Marshall T/C 15:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I would have closed it the same way assessing the rough consensus and policy based arguments. Verbosity does not have a direct correlation to validity in arguments. Mkdwtalk 18:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How was the deletion opinions not obviously erroneous? Be specific instead of stating only the conclusion which I obviously reject. You lied about not being notable, which I proved. I provided references instead of verbosity. You lied about the legitimacy of the references. I separated my article into 2 separate parts (if you don't understand what I mean, you didn't read that part, you are not qualified to endorse) to show how the other half has only English Google books as references, which should be uploaded. As for the other half on the myths, I also made the argument for it.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "lie" about anything. Lying and disagreement are two very different things in the English language. I strongly remind you to adhere to no personal attacks or you will be blocked. Mkdwtalk 19:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It fits the definition of lie completely when you claim a topic to be not notable (which Wiki defines as having a coverage & being able to be verified) when I provided links covering the topic. It is completely a lie when you claim a source to be not legitimate when it is a genuinely accepted type of source by MLA, APA or Wiki. All the sources I used at all were Google books (legit), newspapers (legit), scientific channels quoting research institutes (legit). What else did I use really? Also, even if there was 1 sentence problematic at all, what's up with deleting the entire article? You see the injustice in this?Wikibreaking (talk)
I made the claim the topic is not notable? Wikibreaking perhaps you could point out where I made that claim. I said I would have closed the discussion the same way assessing the rough consensus. Perhaps you should be reminded that it's not the duty of the closer (which is what DRV is here to review) to determine notability. It's their responsibility to read the discussion and close the discussion based upon the determination of the other participants. You've mistaken this to mean the people endorsing the close are making a notability judgement when clearly in my case I never even remotely made a statement. You may want to adhere to your own advice about qualifications of reading the discussion. Mkdwtalk 23:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that "false claims were made against my article to delete the article". And you are just not admitting that you accepted false claims to close the article.Wikibreaking (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the deletion. I was able to read the article and the factual claims were unsourced or were irrelevant to the article subject. Liz Read! Talk! 00:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nominator has been blocked indefinitely and there are no others supportive of undeletion, I think this can now be closed to avoid further drama. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 January 2016[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Love & Devotion (Michael Bow song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Song was popular in the 1980s but artist has no article of his own. Is this a requirement for his or her songs or works to be listed on WP? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not, but if the performer has no article, the song's article has to provide some indication that the song is important or significant. When deleted, it consisted entirely of "Love & Devotion is a dance music song by singer Michael Bow. It was released in 1988 by Vendetta records.", a link to a google search, and an infobox. Endorse. Nothing's stopping you from rewriting it with such an assertion. —Cryptic 04:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please Email-me the text of the article so I can start with that and rewrite it? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The entire text of the article was just quoted by Cryptic immediately above. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Valid A9 speedy deletion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but it would be nice if someone created a worthwhile article. Thincat (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse even if a worthwhile article can be created for this song I don't belive that there is anything in the deleted one that needs to be restored.--174.91.186.114 (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid use of WP:A9. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as well. If the nominator can provide sources that indicate it's importance, it can be restored and recreated. Basically we need to know something more than that it existed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 January 2016[edit]

  • Toby 'TobiWan' Dawson – "Delete" closure overturned. No consensus as to whether the correct outcome should have been "keep" or "no consensus", but either way the article is retained. –  Sandstein  11:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Toby 'TobiWan' Dawson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted by User:Spartaz. I participated in, and was surprised at the outcome of the discussion. It was relisted once, garnered two further keep !votes, and then was deleted. I asked for clarification at User_talk:Spartaz/Archive21#Toby_.27TobiWan.27_Dawson, where Spartaz justifies his dismissal of all keep arguments referencing interviews. He states that interviews, despite being published in reliable sources, cannot be used to justify notability, following his interpretation of the essay Wikipedia:Interviews. I think that his interpretation is wrong, and that there is no consensus to delete the article.

Here's one of the interviews referenced - http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/26/9208657/valve-dota-2-commentator-toby-dawson-interview That's The Verge, a professional publication with no connection to the subject. TobiWan is the focus of the article, he is not a talking head passerby. That The Verge would profile TobiWan is a reliable secondary source saying "TobiWan is notable". Whether or not TobiWan's statements can be taken as reliable in the interview is irrelevant at AFD, that he is the subject of reliable independent coverage is not. - hahnchen 23:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to NC although I'd say keep would also have been a fine reading. The Verge article and the article from Die_Zeit are plenty in the way of sources. First I don't agree with the essay WP:Interview and it certainly isn't binding on the community. Secondly, these weren't interviews. The Verge source doesn't even quote him until the 4th paragraph and by my count only 15% of the article is quotes from him. Rather, it is a discussion with a person backed up by other sources. Just as the article that discusses his apology for using a racial slur. The Zeit coverage might be 20% quotes from the subject, but otherwise it's just coverage of the topic. And while those are the two best sources, there are others, including ones that discuss a controversy (use of a racial slur) and others. In summary we've got two extremely solid sources and a split AfD. There is no way this should have been deleted. Hobit (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear, the !vote (including the nom) was 4 to 4. So there would need to be a policy-based reason to justify deletion. Given that the keep side has sources and the delete side has very little other than thoughts on how interviews should be treated, I think keep had the stronger arguments and equal numbers. Thus my sense is that keep would have been a fine close. Hobit (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC A weak article (cache) with weakish sources but to dismiss Verge and Zeit as "interviews" is not a strong argument. If you choose to agree with WP:INTERVIEWS then "But whatever the interviewer brought to the table, all of their own thoughts and analysis, is secondary and independent and if there's enough of it, the source can contribute to notability" will suggest you accept such material. So we have a mixture of reasonable opinions at AFD with no reason to overrule anyone. Thincat (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep. Delete !votes were primarily based on a lack of coverage in reliable sources, but keep !voters identified several. There is no policy-based argument to discount interviews in reliable sources for notability purposes (only an essay that flatly contradicts WP:GNG) , and the closer was wrong to act as if that opinion was established consensus. The only argument made for deletion was lack of notability, yet notability was demonstrated, so "keep" was the correct outcome. Thparkth (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Interviews vary. Sometimes an interview is just the framework for PR, where the subject has a chance to say whatever they like, and it's no better in terms of reliability than if the subject had posted it on a blog. There is no automatic formula for judging-- you need to actually evaluate the material with a critical eye. WP:GNG is not a formula--each of the terms needs to be intereted by common sense and by knowledgeof the type of sources and the material involved. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An interview published by a reliable source is critically different from a self-published blog posting, in that a reliable source has made an editorially-independent decision to publish it on the grounds that they presumably consider it notable. Thparkth (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are a tough area, as you say to one degree or another they are prima facie evidence that someone in the real world believes there is interest in the subject of the interview (assuming the interview is about the person rather than them being interviewed about another topic), which is precisely what our notability guidelines are trying to divine. Though in the internet age there is a lot less meat on the bone, in print media where space is to one degree or another constrained and concern about attracting advertisers makes use of space tilted very heavily to genuinely "interesting" interviews. On the internet where the constraints are far less, then padding out with interviews (which can be pretty cheap content) is more likely (including the use of interviews as a PR tool). I do think there is a degree of judgement which has to be applied, I don't think generally interviews on their own stand to indicate notability (would probably be a WP:V problem for a decent article anyway), but nor do I think they can be blanketly excluded. --86.30.174.23 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw, I basically agree with this expansion of my comment. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Justkeeponeditig (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep. I agree that interviews may often not be considered independent sources because by nature they often consist of things the subject said, just as we would dismiss an article written by the subject as evidence of notability. However I fail to see how this (for instance) can be dismissed on those grounds, as it does mostly consist of content written by the interviewer with the odd quote from the subject tossed in. Wikipedia:Interviews, which is an essay, does recognise that (although it seems to think that secondary sources and third-party sources are the same thing, which isn't true). Since the mere fact that the sources are interviews was the only argument offered against the sources presented in the AfD, I think there was a Keep consensus. Hut 8.5 16:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. In general, I agree that interviews by themselves aren't enough, but looking at the two cited sources (The Verge, and Zeit Online), I think classifying them as "interviews" isn't a fair description. So, I think what we've got is one person calling them interviews, then other participants picking up and repeating that mantra. The close was largely based on ignoring those two sources because they were interviews, but I think that premise doesn't stand up. The process is supposed to be the participants in the AfD evaluate the sources, and then the closer summaries the arguments presented. If the participants mis-categorize the sources, then we end up in the wrong place, through no fault of the closer. I suggest re-opening the current debate, with a relisting comment asking people to specifically evaluate those two sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my previous comment, as stated above by others, there's interviews and there's interviews. The kind of interview where you prime the moderator with talking points and then field the softballs lobbed at you is really just a glorified press release. Those carry no weight. I don't see the two sources cited here as being that at all. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep. WP:Interviews is not policy, and there was no policy-based reason to discount the keep votes or the sources identified by the people voting to keep the article. Furthermore, in my opinion, if multiple reliable, professional, journalistic sources not associated with a person decide to interview that person, that is clearly an indication that they are notable, and any interpretation of the notability guidelines that would call that person non-notable would not be in agreement with the instruction at the top of all the notability guidelines that they are "best treated with common sense". Calathan (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Occasionally in these discussions I read an argument and think "I wish I had written that". This was one of those times. Thparkth (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep as summarised by Thparkth. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The place to discuss the quality of the interviews is another AfD, not here. The closer was wrong in saying they are always primary--in my opinion interviews of entreprenurs usually are, but I would need to examine them and I'm not going to do so here. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
ACE & Company (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I see ACE & Company's page was deleted while I was making updates. I actually don't get the reason why. Indeed, all of the statements were totally objectives, stating true facts like the year of creation, the founders, assets under management, the type of activity, investments made, etc. I just added close to 15 new sources from Techcrunch, KPMG, Private Equity Wire, Tech In Asia, Deal Street Asia, Irish Times as well as renowned swiss newspapers and magazines such as Le Temps, Bilan and AGEFI to make the article more consistent but I wouldn't even have the time to share my point of view on the subject. In the meantime, this page had been reviewed and was online for nearly 3 months before the speedy deletion nomination was made. Wish I could get a proper explanation. Waiting to hear from you. Sincerely, Angelina Kramer (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACE & Company. The previous deletion was due to it being an obvious advertisement. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The AfD was pretty straightforward and the article didn't appear to have independent RSes that discussed the company in any kind of meaningful way. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI: I used the Google cache to see the article. I can't be sure that was the version that was deleted... Hobit (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The version that was eventually deleted at AFD wasn't all that different from the one that User:DGG tagged {{db-spam}} and that User:Ponyo speedied in October. If I'd seen the AFD'd version in CAT:CSD, I'd have pushed the button too. Writing a hagiography with ostensibly neutral diction doesn't make it any less of a hagiography. —Cryptic 03:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - unopposed AfD, reasonable participation, policy-based arguments for deletion, and one participant even noted they had looked for further sources independently without success. No outcome other than "delete" was possible. Thparkth (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Meets none of the requirements at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The AfD decision was inevitable: there were insufficient sources for notability. If there are better , a new try can be made in Draft space. But based on what has been presented, I strongly doubt it will yield an acceptable article. (I did the original speedy on this). I think that the editor also needs to be made aware of our policy on WP:Conflict of Interest, and our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 January 2016[edit]

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

It's being argued at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_German_supercentenarians&diff=699827145&oldid=699680549#People because no one put a notice at the German supercentenarians page that the discussion was going on. GreatGreen is the manager of the German page and is a major contributor who should have known about the discussion. The German page has her biography now so it should be restored and the text moved back. 107.72.99.57 (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse- there was a well-argued nomination and two solid delete votes, with no opposition, so there is no way the discussion could have been closed any other way. Reyk YO! 21:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If some people were unaware of the AfD and those people have information which could have resulted in a different closure had the information been presented at AfD, then this could be a reason for relisting the article at AfD. However, I'm not convinced that the information presented at Talk:List of German supercentenarians would have changed the outcome of the discussion, so endorse the AfD closure. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom was reasonable (though the copyright issue of a source was irrelevant), but the delete !votes were all basically "I don't like it" in the sense that they didn't address sourcing and instead focused on if the reason for coverage for things they think are important--not a policy-based reason for deletion. So we have a policy-based nomination with two non-policy-based supporting delete !votes. That said, the nom is correct, there don't appear to be multiple significant RSes, and so deletion appears to be the right outcome. If someone has more RSes about this person, _that_ would be a reason to have a DRV. But as it stands, endorse Hobit (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 January 2016[edit]

12 January 2016[edit]

11 January 2016[edit]

10 January 2016[edit]

9 January 2016[edit]

8 January 2016[edit]

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

My article "Isleños in Louisiana" was removed with the excuse of that it appears to be a direct copy from http://america.pink/islenos-louisiana_2120190.html However, the article was not a copy of any web page. I will write here what I put on my talk page, because according to her it is here where I should put.

The administrator who removed the article might have realized that through the article references. The "source" that she indicate was a copy from Wikipedia (indeed, this "source" only includes copied information of free web pages. All the information of this online encyclopedia is a copy of such pages. This indicates the page in question). For that reason my article had the references from where came its information since its first edition, while the page that, according to she, was copied by me, have no reference. She might have seen it for herself if she had see the first editions of my article, with their references, and had compared with the page that according your opinion was copied by me.

The article was written slowly. A portion of the article (Texas, Louisiana and Florida) was originally written in the article of "Isleños" (it was written by others). In this article I added more information for months, based on many sources. Eventually, I decided that maybe I could already do an article with the information of the Canarians of United States, that was in the article and was wrote by different users (part of this information was written by others; part was written by me). I asked for advice on the talk page and users agreed. So I published the article "Canarian American". After publication, over time, I added more information based on more sources and creating different sections (for example, in the article of the "Isleños" was spoke about the Canarians from Texas, Louisiana and Florida, but I incorporated to article of "Canarian Americans" the sections "Culture", based on a book that I have in my house). Later, I posted the article "Isleños in Louisiana" based in the "Isleños in Louisiana" section of the "Canarian American" article. Some information of the article you can find on several page back in the "Isleños" Article History (Historial del acticulo). Obviously I deleted the most of information of the "Isleño" article about the Canarians in United States to post it in the article of the "Canarian American" and after in the article of "Isleños in Louisiana". I did Not copy from any source. In the article "Isleños in Louisiana" you could check the sources from which the information comes. The source that she think I copied simply have no references, and its content is based on other websites, as it was indicated in the page "about" of this source. The removal of an article with the false excuse that is a copy of a web page is totally unfair, because that is not true.--Isinbill (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I believe the page is a copyright violation is because the quality of the prose is far superior to what this editor has produced elsewhere. Most of his other contributions are practically unintelligible. If it's not from the page cited upon deletion, perhaps copied from somewhere else. -- — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I can't see the deleted article, but "too well written" is not a speedy deletion criteria. I'd urge the deleting admin to restore the article and, if felt necessary, take it to AfD. But this certainly isn't an unambiguous case, and unamiguous is required for a copyright speedy deletion. Hobit (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. It is extremely likely that "america.pink" copied the material from Wikipedia rather the other way around.
  • For a start, the site is unashamedly intended for SEO link farming - it clearly says so in the sidebar.
  • Secondly, their "about" page says they are "based on material from free Internet sourses" (sic).
  • Thirdly, and I think most compellingly, there is clear evidence that they have bulk-copied other material from Wikipedia. For example, lets take one of my favourite subjects, Lager. Have a quick skim of the History section of our Lager article. Notice the table? Now have a look at america.pink's article on Lager. Looks familiar, doesn't it? But despite the fact that their second paragraph ends with "as shown in the following table:", they don't actually have a table. But we do. So it's pretty clear who copied from whom in that case.
Another example just for fun; compare Scouting in Alabama to Scouting in Alabama]. Count how many non-clickable random occurrences of the phrase "scouting portal" appear in their article, coincidentally in the same place (source-wise) that the same functional and nicely formatted link appears in our article.
This appears to be consistent throughout the site - they have programmed their software to take large random parts of random Wikipedia articles, butcher the infoboxes, tables, and general formatting, slap some random pictures in (what WERE those pictures in the scouting article about?), pretty the whole thing up, and use it to gain search hits and eventually PageRank. It's actually quite cleverly done - they have build an article taxonomy, presumably based largely on our categorization scheme.
Anyway, it seems pretty unlikely that Isinbill committed a copyright infringement in this case. On the other hand we know for sure that america.pink is committing a violation by re-using Wikipedia content without attribution.
Thparkth (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, my English is bad still. But in this case it is obvious that the article and the website of "Isleños in Louisiana" should also not be very well written. In fact, Carlstak had indicated that the section of ""Galveztown", in my article, was very poorly written (he always made me feel I was the worst writing in wikipedia in English, but apparently there are others who are quite bad too, because most of that section was written by another user when the article "Isleños in Louisiana" was only part of the article "Isleños") and this section appear en the website (obvioulsy having the same words that in the article of Wikipedia, so it is poorly wrote also). Thus, the excuse of that I misspelled on wikipedia, is a false excuse to try to explain the removal of my article. If my English is bad, unfortunately my article was poorly written and the website also is.--Isinbill (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn. I spot-checked another article from the supposed source (Constitution of Louisiana [5]) and it's clearly copied from the English Wikipedia article. Then I checked an entirely unrelated article (Gabriel Garcia Marquez [6]) and it's clearly copied from the en-wiki article. Fortunately, there are only a few articles here which use America.pink as a source, and our priority should be to clean those up, not to remove articles that the license-violating external site has mirrored. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave deleted as a copyright violation per Cryptic, and a content fork. No prejudice against an honest re-creation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content fork isn't a reason for a speedy deletion and the copyright issue is trivial to address (just create a blank edit that says where the article came from). Not being able to see the article, is it a word-for-word copy or have changes been made? Hobit (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • A better fix for the failure to attribute is to start again and do it properly. The extensive content forking is generally a bad idea, the sort of thing that can do great disservice to the project going forward. Because of the extensive content forking, I recommend that the page not be fixed, but that if desired it may be restarted properly. Properly as in having read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and in minimizing content forking. Yes, it was a dodgy speedy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave deleted verbatim copying of the linked source throughout starting in the lead which has long unquoted verbatim copying of the "abstract" section of the source. Anyone who has access to both should do a quick compare and search for a few passages in the deleted article and you'll find verbatim matches in the linked source. As best I understand copyright rules, lots of verbatim copying cannot be "cured" by changing the order of a few sentences and substituting synonyms here and there. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you referring to the external "source" which appears to by copied from Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia article from which this is spun out? Or something else? Hobit (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This either belongs at the talk page of the article, ANI, or I suppose AfD as a WP:TNT case. But it's not a reason for a speedy. If this editor is a problem, hiding it under a speedy deletion isn't helpful. If they aren't, this isn't a venue they can reasonably defend themselves in. Hobit (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn From the evidence presented here I think there may well not be a copyright infringement at all and certainly not an unambiguous one. I am unhappy that the writing is being criticised because it is suspiciously good, copying a mirror, following a source too closely and not following it closely enough. To speedy this has been inappropriate, as Hobit says. Thincat (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, Hobit, but is it too late to remove those previous remarks, now that Thincat has referred to them? I would much rather be editing or creating articles than navigating Wikipedia's byzantine procedures. I had done some editing on the article before it was deleted, but obviously I can't access its history for diffs. I have done quite a bit of editing on the Canarian American article, which contains some of the same text, mainly to fix Isinbill's edits. The "Canarian American" article contained much disinformation, usually in the form of misinterpretation of cited texts, and the English was very bad in the parts that hadn't been fixed. I fixed some of the English, only to discover when I obtained the source material, that I had made wildly distorted and completely incorrect information look respectable. And that was still a problem with some of the rest of the "Isleños in Louisiana" article, but I can't remember how much was left to be done when the article was deleted. I believe it will still be present if it is restored, in which case, it would be nice if some of the editors who are commenting here would assist me in fixing it. Just remember that it is not simply a matter of correcting poorly written text, but of checking the cited sources to see if they agree with information presented in the article. They all too often do not. Carlstak (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thinking Hobit must have removed your earlier commentary here, I was about to support your complaint about the removal. However, I now see you removed your comments yourself. I agree that DRV can be very arcane! Here is a link to the discussion as it was. This discussion is, I think, useful and the only problem is that it is in the wrong place and, because of that, we are not allowed to see the article being discussed. Thincat (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was confused. It was a bad speedy. The opening line of WP:CSD is quite clear. If sent to AfD, I think this should be deleted and restarted. It is not good to start an article with extensive content forking. Doing this will make for a cleaner history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, Thincat. I removed them accidentally (that happens sometimes when you have two tabs of the same editing page open). I agree with SmokeyJoe that the article should be deleted, for multiple reasons, including the forking. I would be willing to rewrite the article, as I'm familiar with the subject, can read Spanish fairly well, and have a lot of experience fixing articles by the creator. There is much potentially good material in the article as it stood, but the content forking needs to be reworked or removed, errors of fact (there are many) removed, the English fixed, and the refs checked out for discrepancies. I'm all for taking it to AfD, but my stomach gets queasy thinking about doing it myself. Carlstak (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and repair insufficient attribution. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement (WP:G12) says:

    This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases which do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio|url=insert URL here}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Please consult Wikipedia:Copyright violations for other instructions. Public-domain and other free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion. For images and media, see the equivalent criterion in the "Files" section here, which has more specific instructions.

    Cryptic wrote above: "The article's (completely unattributed) source was our article on Canarian Americans, from sometimee around this revision." The deleted content likely was the "Louisiana communities of Isleños" section.

    The WP:G12 policy quoted above specifically notes:

    Public-domain and other free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion.

    Since the deleted content is "free content" and "mere lack of attribution of such works" is not "a reason for speedy deletion", Isleños in Louisiana "do[es] not fall under this criterion".

    The guideline Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution says:

    While technically licensing violations are copyright violations, pages that contain unattributed text do not normally need to be deleted. Attribution can be belatedly supplied by the methods above, using dummy edits to record new edit summaries and via talk page attribution using the {{copied}} template. Such belated attribution should make clear when the relevant text entered the page. You can also identify problem articles, in particular complex cases that you cannot fix right away, by tagging the article itself with the templates {{CWW}} (for a single origin) and {{CWW-multi}} (for articles with multiple origins).

    The insufficient attribution can be easily repaired through a dummy edit and through talk page attribution using the {{copied}} template.

    Cunard (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn speedy deletion, correct missing attribution. It's clear that this is not a copyvio of the america.pink article (if anything, the other way around). If, as it appears, this is a copy of one of our own articles, then we need to provide the appropriate attribution. Beyond that, if anybody feels that this should be deleted as a content fork, bring it to AfD. I have not compared the two articles in detail, but at first glance, I'm not convinced they can't both exist. IN any case, AfD is the place to sort that out. PS, I've also done a tempundelte. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, the "Nursery rhymes and riddles" subsections of the two articles are identical, and the "Languages and culture" subsections are almost identical. I corrected the misinformation in the "Songs and popular poems" subsection of the "Canarian Americans" article, but it remains uncorrected in the "Isleños in Louisiana" article. They are still almost identical. I removed the "Galveztown" subsection in the "Isleños in Louisiana" article, which was written in bad English and full of misinformation. Also removed the "Louisiana communities of Isleños" subsection of the "Canarian Americans" article. This material was hopelessly confused and garbled the information taken from Armistead's "The Spanish Tradition in Louisiana". If the article is restored, it can be fixed, but the duplicate text should either be removed or rewritten in one of the articles. Carlstak (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 January 2016[edit]

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

The page in question is of a notable subject as per Wikipedia policy.From my studying of the AFD the editors who participated in the AFD did not do a proper scrutiny of the reliable sources that clearly established the notability of the subject as per WP:RS.I would like to request an undelete so that any other editor including me are given an opportunity to reason with the other editors why the article should be on Wikipedia. While at it, the necessary improvements shall be made to the article if needed. If after that the article still fails WP:GNG or WP:BIO then the process of deletion can follow afterwards. Thanks you in anticipation. Aha... (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be much simpler to post your sources. If there are any good you don't need to reason with anyone. Spartaz Humbug! 19:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Overturn — It seems like the discussion was closed without wider input from editors across Wikipedia. Sources, such as Entrepreneur and Inc provide in depth coverage of Gorny. These sources are major publications and cannot simply be tossed aside. Other works, such as Business Journal do the same.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 13:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Renzoy16: Even though you've put yourself down as "endorse" it doesn't sound like you endorse the close and actually seem to argue to "overturn" the closure. See WP:DELREVD about participation at DRV. Mkdw talk 23:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I was on my mobile device and was in a hurry. :) --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 01:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It probably would have been helpful if Kwisha had read WP:DRVPURPOSE at the top. The editor is essentially saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT to the way the argument points or the consensus reached in the discussion which is not the purpose of WP:DRV. No new evidence has been brought up, the consensus pointed to nothing even remotely other than "delete", and there were no procedural errors. Mkdwtalk 23:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse by default, requestor has not presented evidence other than simple disagreement with the close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - The subject of the article is indeed notable since there is in depth coverage on Bloomberg as seen here. Additionally, azcentral.com another reliable source has coverage about Tomas Gorny as seen here and high beam reasearch has an aggregation of newspaper articles covering Tomas Gorny. These are not just references but reliable references that indeed establish notability. These sources should have been considered at AFD. Aha... (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination already counts as your !vote. Mkdwtalk 02:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Outcome of the AFD was clear, and accurately assessed. OP should simply write an appropriately sourced, guideline-compliant article in lieu of arguing here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Obviously correct reading of consensus in this case, and the !votes are well grounded in policy.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - clear consensus to delete, firmly based in policy, and discussion closed properly. Sources identified here in this discussion in no way establish notability or suggest the AfD outcome is unsafe. Thparkth (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Mkdw's comment above: clear consensus, no errors by closer, no new evidence of notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Ramil Garifullin – No consensus to overturn deletion. Opinions are divided between endorse and overturn/relist. Under these circumstances, I could relist, but I do not do so because (a) that was discussed in the review but without gaining consensus, (b) it's already been relisted once, and (c) the wall of text gives me a headache that I don't wish on anybody else. As usual, this can be recreated if the AfD issues are addressed, i.e., as a neutral stub that clearly shows notability. –  Sandstein  12:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ramil Garifullin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Formal majority of !votes was without rationale arguments. One with incorrect statements, and two not arguemented ("I agree"). Akim Dubrow`s arguements are wrong if consider other language sources 

 :Рамиль Гарифуллин (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

So deletion was unclear and very formal--Rad8 (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The nomination and followup commenters touched on the lack of availability of reliable references. The only other input to the discussion was a tremendous wall of text that touched on everything from Google hits to some TV appearances, but didn't actually explain how any of this would contribute toward notability, and didn't really mention any references about the individual. Admittedly, the long wall-of-text style did make that argument very hard to parse, but I didn't see anything in it that substantially addressed the issues raised. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the consensus. Walls of text will tend to lower rather than increase the chance of comments being taken into consideration. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. The only pertinent argument for deletion was that the subject was not notable - the "he is dishonest" argument doesn't carry any weight in a deletion discussion. Numerically the "he is not notable" argument had the most support.
However, the wall of text !vote, while very difficult to follow, did include a number of links to what appear (via machine translation) to be credible evidence of notability in apparently reliable sources. Here are a few that I found somewhat useable:
So on the one hand we have a few weak delete !votes with "notability" being the only concern, and on the other hand we have multiple plausible sources describing the subject as "renowned" and "famous".
Given my difficulties in assessing the reliability of those sources, I wouldn't go as far as to say "overturn to keep" but I do consider that in terms of argument from policy, "keep" actually had the stronger case. It would have been more reasonable to close this as "no consensus", or perhaps even better relist it and solicit input from Russian-speaking editors.
Thparkth (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist, preferably with that useless wall of text hatted. Poorly argued discussion of a BLP where the rationale for deletion (subject is a notorious fraud) may well indicate notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- A sensible nomination and two well-argued delete votes, against one immense rambling incoherent wall-of-text keep sounds like rough consensus to delete to me. Reyk YO! 15:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources look like enough to form the basis for a WP:N claim. The nom and one supporting !vote to delete aren't enough to overcome that. Overturn to NC, no objection to a relist Hobit (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this looks like a debate where one side attempted to drown out the other with an enormous rambling wall of text, which is never a good way to "win" an AFD. Strength of argument is analysed by the closer rather than gross word count. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramil Garifullin (2nd nomination). I reviewed the AfD's history. Before the detailed commentary by Irek Minnullin (talk · contribs), two editors already had supported the nominator's deletion nomination. Neither the AfD nominator nor the two "delete" participants returned to the AfD after Irek Minnullin's post. Subsequent edits were made by Rad8, a single-purpose account that supported retention, Northamerica1000, who made cleanup edits, and Seraphimblade, who closed the AfD.

    Other than the single-purpose account, no one but the closing admin reviewed the commentary and sources provided by Irek Minnullin. The AfD closer wrote above, "I didn't see anything in it that substantially addressed the issues raised." But since Thparkth has explained how Irek Minnullin's sources provide credible evidence of notability and since no one in the AfD discussed Irek Minnullin's sources and arguments, the AfD should be relisted for further discussion.

    I recommend relisting to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramil Garifullin (2nd nomination) and not reopening Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramil Garifullin so that Irek Minnullin's sources and arguments remain visible but won't prejudice editors to support deletion. See for example Stifle's comment: "Walls of text will tend to lower rather than increase the chance of comments being taken into consideration." And Reyk's comment about "one immense rambling incoherent wall-of-text keep". And Andrew Lenahan's comment: "this looks like a debate where one side attempted to drown out the other with an enormous rambling wall of text".

    Cunard (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 January 2016[edit]

  • Robin Haley – Endorse. The AfD closer is requested to update their closing statement to include some of their thoughts on how they came to that decision. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Robin Haley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Consensus was not reached and discussion was closed with no rationale stated by closing admin, though was later provided upon request on closing admin's talk page here. However, the rationale provided doesn't reflect the discussion/consensus. Hmlarson (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't agree with you. The challenge was: "This person is not notable". Such a challenge is easily refuted by providing evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. But it cannot be refuted by unsupported opinion statements. The AfD was correctly closed. However, if you can provide evidence of significant coverage in more than one independent, reliable source, then we at DRV will almost certainly overturn its outcome.—S Marshall T/C 18:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are entitled to your opinion, however WP:DP policy states:
1) If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
2) If an article on a notable topic severely fails (emphasis added) the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD.
3) The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate.
Essays were not the only arguments provided and consensus was not reached. In all of the AFDs I've seen and been involved in, rationale is clearly stated by the closing editor or admin. Strange to not include one here - is that procedure? Hmlarson (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's up to you, Hmlarson, but if you do intend to provide any additional sources, I'd suggest that listing them here should be an early priority.—S Marshall T/C 20:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice edit summary. Actually not old...but again your opinion. Hmlarson (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not entirely certain how the close is said to "not fit the discussion". Those editors who discussed referencing clearly indicated that they did not find the available reference material suitable to sustain an article. Those who argued to keep did not in any way show that to be wrong, but made references to a Wikiproject essay (not policy or guideline), and did not provide any reason to believe that there was more material out there. Of course, if more references do turn up or are written in the future, then as S Marshall says, we can always reconsider in light of that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closer correctly read consensus. Lister is misconceived as to policy. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Every keep was an argument to avoid in deletion discussions: one the was definition of WP:PERNOM, another WP:PERX with WP:JUSTAPOLICY, and one claiming WP:SURMOUNTABLE but failing to even address how or why the subject is notable in the first place. MurderByDeadcopy and CrazyAces489's comment outlined how the individual debatably met WP:MANOTE, but if Hmlarson actually read MANOTE, an essay, all it does is provide guidance (not even a guideline) for notability which requires significant coverage. The burden of proof was not able to be addressed which fundamentally makes all the other keep !votes WP:JNN; claiming notability but not being able to demonstrate so using WP:GNG. Mkdwtalk 01:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - consensus was to delete. However, I think it would be worthwhile for the closer to write a brief closing statement explaining their thinking in cases like this, where the numeric support is so evenly divided. It is human nature to be more accepting of an unfavorable outcome if we know that our concerns and opinions have at least been read and acknowledged. Thparkth (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (as participant) given the closer's explanation here. However I do think it would be helpful in this case for the closer to amend the discussion to add their rationale, as it's not an obvious conclusion from a quick glance at the article. Without delving into the details, it does look like there are equally weighted arguments on both sides; it takes the interpretation of MANOTE as an essay to draw the conclusion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The close was amply supported by several well reasoned "delete" discussion points. Quite frankly, WP:MMA's captive notability "guideline" (i.e. essay) is only the most egregious of a number of the sports WikiProjects' in-house standards that confuse the concept of Wikipedia notability with their perceived importance of the subjects. They also routinely accept trivial and WP:ROUTINE coverage of subjects as being "significant". All of the NSPORTS specific notability guidelines are supposed to be indicators of the likelihood that subjects that satisfy the criteria will also satisfy a full-blown critical GNG analysis with significant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources. WP:MMA's in-house notability essay clearly fails in that regard, and any "keep" !votes based on it may be rightly discounted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 January 2016[edit]

4 January 2016[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

unclear if there is consensus, would like the page relisted, if possible ReneeNal (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jreferee, is Bookwormroom reliable? It looks like a one-man blog to me. The Jackson Sun one could be good, but I can only see the first sentence. I'm just not seeing those links as reliable sources. That said, I really can't imagine this book doesn't have reliable reviews (both positive and negative). Hobit (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bookwormroom is in my opinion a totally unreliable source for notability and I too have my doubts about the others. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources came from a database that includes screened sources and normally provides reliable source materials. I posted some what I found rather than further screen it. Bookwormroom is biased to the right, which is probably why the reviewed the right leaning book "The Enemies Within". Of course, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective (see WP:BIASED). It's doubtful that Bookwormroom has an editorial board or a written editorial policy. As for whether using in-text attribution from the work itself is appropriate in this case, I see several facts I could pull out as being reliable. When you look at the publisher, Bookwormroom, they probably engage in fact-checking, but the down side is they likely attach those facts to biased opinion. Then it would be a matter of separating the two so that its use may be reliable in the specific context. The original article didn't go hog wild with endless text or endless opinions, had edits that tried to move the article towards NPOV, and the AfD seemed to misapplied WP:BIASED to the right leaning American Thinker source without addressing the counter arguments. The article by new user ReneeNal was rushed to AfD only about one hour after the article was created. I think notability is on the low end, but an article could be put together that could, on the right day, receive at least a 51% keep consensus at AfD. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jreferee:The AFD was not rushed and was based on the book's notability rather than the article as it stood at the time. I have been following Loudon's work for a long time and was already aware of the book; and I searched some databases for reliable sources before starting the AFD. I wasn't familiar with the Spectrum, but found its article so widly inaccurate I assumed it wasn't an RS. -- haminoon (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • By rush, I meant from the time the article was created. I didn't mean to imply that you did not give enough thought to posting the AfD. Given it's debatable notability, the AfD was fine. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think it was closed correctly and I'm not seeing sources that make me think there was a flaw in the close. I just don't see an independent reliable source that's on-point though I strongly suspect they exist. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 January 2016[edit]

2 January 2016[edit]

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

This should not have been speedy deleted 3 days into the AFD. Stated reasons for speedy deletion do not apply. {{Db-g5}} states that if "you intend to fix it, please remove this notice," I intend to fix it, and was attempting to do so when the article was deleted. G10 does not apply because the article was extensively sourced. I can make the article NPOV before the AFD would have ended. I attempted to discuss this with the deleting admin. I am in good standing to create this deletion review,[10] but I have to ask that someone else be the one to notify Ricky.[11] HoorayForAmerica (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC) I have been cleared by CU.[12] HoorayForAmerica (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request  If this article is restored for deletion review, I request that it be restored in Draft:-space rather than mainspace as it somehow ended up in and might still be in Google news.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of supercentenarians who died in 2012 ‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed by a !supervote based on one person's argument of copyright, that a list of dates of objective birth and death dates can be copyrighted when devoid of commentary, contrary to Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. and Wikipedia outcomes for other lists. This is not a list of "best supercentenarians" or "most awesome supercentenarians" which would be pure subjective commentary. Closer is a lawyer, but not a copyright lawyer, and even if was a copyright lawyer, not a copyright lawyer ruling for the Wikimedia Foundation. As a reminder we have List of films considered the best which we use under the pretext of fair use. Any best-of list is commentary, unlike BoxOfficeMojo which uses ticket sale data to rank films. Ranking people by the number of days lived is not commentary, it is objective. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin's comment: I maintain the view expressed in the closure. As has been argued in the AfD, the circumstances distinguishing this content from the one at issue in Feist are that the selection of these supercentenarians and the determination of their birthdates (which are apparently often contentious, requiring assessment of contradictory sources) are the result of historical research, i.e., a creative process, which satisfies the requirement of a "minimal degree" of creativity according to Feist. Even if one disagrees with my view that the deleted content was a copyright violation, there was a policy-based consensus for deletion, which the user requesting review (who hasn't made a serious attempt at discussing this with me) doesn't address.  Sandstein  20:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse While I don't think it was a copyright violation (since there was a single reference to another source), and it could be recreated with other sources I guess, I agree with the close that while numerical equal, you have an issue with numerous SPAs (a problem for this topic area) with some very odd views on notability who don't discuss the policy concerns. For example, one comment (which I would consider a keep) believed deletion would only be proper if there was "a list on wikipedia with all verified dead supercentenarians in a sortable table, sortable to gender, to year of death, to place of death which I don't think is even possible given the numerous disputes about the correctness of these alleged birth dates (absent dumping all sourcing policy in favor of one organization). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn with extreme prejudice This is supervoting at its worst. The role of the administrator is to interpret consensus, not impose his farcically incorrect personal opinions. Alansohn (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Due to the argument describing these pages as the hard work of several editors over a lot of years, I made some experiments by myself in order to measure how much work was required to produce the set of pages containing the List_of_supercentenarians_who_died_in_2012. Result: not a lot of years, nor months, nor days. Only several hours, all together. Since these pages are only a robotic copyvio, without any editorial work, it suffices to import http://www.grg.org/Adams/A.HTM into a mySQL database and to export the required views. The most time consuming part of the process is to understand the meaning of the columns R and Y in the original file. The column R describes how the GRG database has been constructed, by merging several other databases (obviously, a key point to understand the sourcing). The column Y gives access to some pictures, and individual references. I can only reiterate my previous comment: once the apparatus has been stripped to mask the copyvio, what remains is mostly useless. Pldx1 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The many policy based deletion arguments advanced by various editors contrasted against (historically proven through ArbComm case) off-wiki coordinated MEAT puppet votes with little substance is enough but the Copy-vio argument is a fantastic argument I wish I had thought of. This page, as defined in it's own lead, is an exact copy of names, dates, and locations in the exact same order as (presumably) carefully selected and assembled by GRG. The addition of one or more sources as refs that mention a name on this list does not alter that 100% of the content is exactly copy-vio. Leaving off columns like race does not make it a unique contribution as required by WP. We are lucky to have such a knowledge admin to tackle this close in an area subject to ArbComm DS on Longevity. Thank-you. Legacypac (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) The filer added another point after all the comments above this one [13] which is pretty bad form. In response, anyone with experience in Longevity knows that 'verified' is code for 'GRG verified' and that GRG keeps changing these lists as they add or delete names based on an unknown to the public set of criteria. Any attempt too add any name to such a list that is not GRG verified is strongly objected to. Therefore this list is not Objective because it is a Selection of GRG Verified people who died within an Arbitrary time period from an Arbitrary subset of Countries in the world (the GRG does not endorse claims from about 20 of the 25 most populated countries for example). This is very different then all names and phone numbers in x city which involves no selection. Legacypac (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show us some edit differences where the GRG exerted editorial control over the Wikipedia list? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
not clear how anyone would exercise editorial control over Wikipedia but in this case we have the ArbComm Longeevity case showing GRG connected editors, the fact the table is by definition copied from GRG (that insist on it) and that every single name added is because the GRG updated their table. That is about as much control as an outside organization can get over a topic. Legacypac (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "Any attempt too add any name to such a list that is not GRG verified is strongly objected to", and that is GRG exerting editorial control over the article and implying their consent to posting it. If GRG people posted the information and are exercising editorial control, then how is it a violation of their implied copyright? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The long term answer is and always has been to start a separate wiki about longevity and to migrate or transwiki all this content over to it, or else re-create it in a copyright-compliant way in cases like this one. We keep seeing longevity-related articles at AfD and DRV, all the time, again and again. There's a vocal subset of editors who like them and show up to defend them, but by and large the rest of the community is uncomfortable with them. On a personal note, I think extreme longevity is a much better claim to have a Wikipedia article than, to take an example completely at random, having taken part in one high-level cricket game in Sri Lanka in 1991... but the only way to get a reliable and consistently-enforced set of criteria for longevity-related biographies is to start another project. Wikia should be able to help.—S Marshall T/C 00:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be Gerontology Wiki but there's been little interest here in porting contents over there. No one even cared when this giant table of claims was deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Sandstein's application of Feist v. Rural seems to stick to a generous interpretation of Sweat of the brow, which Feist rejected. The mere research of facts doesn't convey originality. Assuming the original list is "all we could find", any person searching worldwide archives would arrive to a substantially similar list, just like anyone calling every possible 10-digits combination in sequence and listing the names of people who answer would be able to recreate a phone book. Without the flawed argument about copyright poisoning the well, a new XfD should determine whether there is really any encyclopedic value at all in a verbatim copy of a third party web list. While I have my opinion, DRV is not AfD round #2, so this should be sent back to where the discussion needs to be held. MLauba (Talk) 02:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the 'facts' this list is not exhaustive of all super old people that died in a given year (unlike say phone numbers) it is a hand crafted GRG Verified list of what everyone agrees is only Some of the 110+ people who died in a year. There are also pending, rejected, unverified, and never crossed the computer screen of GRG deaths. You might be able to find sources for the info but outside the GRG you could never figure out if many of the names and dates you found are GRG verified or not or if you had the complete or up to date list. A distinct element of the list is the GRG verification stamp of approval that GRG advocates are so insistent on. Legacypac (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're still arguing Sweat of the Brow, which doesn't convey creativity. The copyright angle is a no-go here (and the GRG advocates' point of view is not germane to this discussion). MLauba (Talk) 01:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point isn't that lots of effort went into creating the list. It's that the GRG decided which entries to include in the list based on an application of some kind of verification standard, and they could claim copyright over this decision making process. It doesn't matter what that standard is or whether it is any good, all that matters is that it exists and that it isn't some kind of dumb mechanical process. Given that it isn't possible to know whether a court will decide whether the list has copyright protection. Hut 8.5 22:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- seems a fair reading of the debate. SPAs and non-policy based votes were correctly not given as much weight. Reyk YO! 14:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. About the lack of redactional independence (aka robotic copyvio). Here are some facts relative to the List_of_supercentenarians_who_died_in_2010 (but this applies as well to the other pages):
    1. GRG-table A (dated 2014-01) lists 73 people deceased in 2010.
    2. GRG-table 2010 (dated 2014-09) lists 75 people deceased in 2010.
    3. the WP robotic copy contains 75 names (without mention of an independent date of validity).
    How this appearence of two more persons is described/accounted/sourced in the WP-copyvio page ? Not at all. Where is the attribution of the 'confirmation' to authors Filipe Prista Lucas, Anson Davis, Jimmy Lindberg working at GRG ? Gone with the wind. Where is the duty of care concerning the due attribution of materials robotically copied? Robots don't care. Pldx1 (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as I think this is probably a copyvio, and even if it isn't then we won't be in a position to verify that. We have an essay on the topic which was compiled with the assistance of the WMF. This makes it clear that if there was any element of judgement in deciding whether to include an entry from some list of facts than the list could easily be copyrighted. For instance although phone directories aren't copyrighted a phone directory which excluded businesses the compiler thought were likely to go out of business soon was considered to be copyrighted. A WMF counsel is quoted as saying: Unless you know the criteria involved in creating the list, it is impossible to even gauge the potential of a court finding that it warrants copyright protection. And unfortunately, even if you do know the criteria, it is very hard to predict what a court will say (especially because the courts vary in their opinions in different circuits on this matter) when there is a degree of creativity involved. You are really only safe if the list is purely formulaic. It's not clear what the criteria used in compiling this list were, but the compilers could certainly have excluded cases where they judged that the documentation for some person wasn't sufficient to confirm that they were a supercentenarian. If that's true then the list is likely copyrighted.
    Having said that I'm not terribly impressed with the quality of the non-copyright arguments for deleting the list, many of which had no basis in policies or guidelines or which didn't require deletion. The copyright issue wouldn't prevent the page from being recreated with different content. Hut 8.5 19:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Hut 8.5. The criteria for inclusion in the GRG list of certified supercentenarians are rather clear and well documented at the GRG website. The GRG is the certifying authority about the GRG-certified people, and the certification process includes the fact that the GRG detains actually a given set of documents, and accepts them as authoritative. Having a Wikipedia team walking across China and asking "how old are you" to each Chinese human being would be interesting (but slightly OR, maybe). Pldx1 (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure sounds like this list is a creative work involving effort and decisions, not a mere compilation of facts that can be easily (or at all) replicated. (So very not a phone book) Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed: the more judgement and skill involved in compiling the list the more likely it is to be copyrighted, and we shouldn't be taking chances when it comes to copyright. If someone wanted to create a list like this without violating copyright then I would suggest listing supercentenarians with Wikipedia articles who died in that year (with reliable sources). Hut 8.5 20:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for now Someone can feel free to bring this up to the WMF and see what their take is on the copyright claim. If they don't feel there is a copyright issue here then I'd say restore or relist. But within my rather limited knowledge in the area, I'd say there is probably a valid copyright problem here and the closer was correct in being conservative on the issue. Hobit (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, copyright trumps local consensus. Closer is a lawyer and is better placed to judge this than most users. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as it is better to play it safe when it comes to copyright on Wikipedia. Closer also provided a rationale for closing as delete outside of the copyright issue that I feel is an accurate representation of the discussion. Canadian Paul 19:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closer analyzed the various rationales for deletion and specifically provided alterative grounds for deletion other than copyright. Far from a supervote, let alone "supervoting at its worst", the closer weighed policy arguments rather than !votes and came to the correct conclusion. Bringing this matter to deletion review is fine, but the scornful language accompanying the requested review, and the vitriol in some subsequent comments is wholly unwonted. The only true marker of adulthood is an ability to disagree without being disagreeable. It's a character attribute that's less and less in evidence in the longevity suite of articles. C'mon y'all. Life is too short. David in DC (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is part of the perennial discussion of whether to use a maximal or minimal interpretation of copyright. The consensus for illustrations is clearly to interpret it rigorously, but for text, the general consensus seems to be otherwise--possibly because it is usually possible to make some modifications in the material. Previous decisions about lists have varied, but usually have been settled as not copyvio. If we should change this, it needs to be a general discussion not tied to he merits of one particular list. I did not comment at the afd, and I am not at all sure I would say to keep based on other factors,but though they were mentioned in the close, a close that is primarily an expression of a particular admins views about copyright should not stand. No individual admin can or should have that power. They can determine consensus,but not what our policy ought to be, and this went to far intn the latter direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 06:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the outcome on grounds of notability, but don't endorse the copyright claim. Feist is very clear that simple facts can't be copyrighted, no matter how hard one works to get to those facts. Even if finding out a fact requires a multibillion dollar particle collider or telescope, the fact can't be copyrighted, so requiring a little historical research doesn't make it so either. That's "sweat of the brow" reasoning, and Feist explicitly rejected that. However, the argument that this fails notability anyway is correct, and on those grounds the article should remain deleted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the point is not that the data are copyrighted because historical research is hard work – that would be the "sweat of the brow" argument rejected in Feist. The argument is that the data are copyrighted because historical research is a creative act (that's why we call it "original" research around here), as opposed to the non-creative, mechanical act of compiling a list of all telephone customers, as in the case at issue in Feist.  Sandstein  19:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not just a list of facts, it is a selection of verified names and other info, which excludes many people based on criteria known best to the creators. GRG also claims copyright on their website to these lists, so who are we to say otherwise. Legacypac (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The closer has erroneously applied European copyright law on a matter where American copyright law is quite different. American copyright law turns as much as the mode of expression as on content, and there was no substantive argument here on that point. Decisions on whether to maintain lists are mostly matters of editorial discretion, not policy and guideline, and there was no well-founded argument here that the list breached relevant policy. While the expressed consensus leaned toward retention of the article, the discussion was poorly argued on both sides, and had far to many elements of a jihad on a particular subject, reminiscent of the old fictional characters mess, which briefly led to a spuriously argued consensus that there was no significant body of criticism of the works of auhors like Shakespeare and Orwell. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Donald Trump and Fascism – Speedily closed. The AfD was full of apparent socks, which makes this nomination by an IP with almost no editing history very suspect. Any established editor is free to to make another review request. –  Sandstein  20:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

AFD was only for two days, no check user so no one even knows if it was a sock, multiple keep votes means it should run the course plus it was on the front page of Google news so it was a current event that people cared about. 166.176.57.11 (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Draft:Carathéodory rank – The full text of the page, created by the nominator, was "Carathéodory rank of a set is". It was left abandoned in draftspace for just short of 9 months before being deleted as a test page (or abandoned draft, or lacking context). It is crazy bureaucracy on stilts to have a week-long discussion here. If the nominator wants to recreate the draft with more content, he/she is welcome to do so. – Stifle (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Carathéodory rank (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The speedy deletion criterion doesn't apply; it was not a test page. Taku (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recreation permitted |The page just said "Carathéodory rank of a set is" not even a complete sentence. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn but eh Assuming Graeme Bartlett is correct, this wasn't a test page, but it's also not a huge deal to start what is effectively a 4 word draft over. As a note, the topic does appear to be notable. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on a different page.
You're missing the point of the nomination: it was not a test page and accordingly, the deletion was unwarranted. I will interpret the outcome as the overturn and accordingly, I will restore the page. -- Taku (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have recreated the page, but that got deleted again (it's not a test page!). Can we record that the recreation is permitted, as discussed? -- Taku (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the "with more content" bit. Recreating the same five words is not useful. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stifle: It seems that that part does not reflect the actual discussion but reflects the personal opinion of the closer which we must discount. All I see in the actual discussion is one "recreation permission" and "overturn". How do they turn into "endorse"? -- Taku (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to your talk page to avoid further fragmentation of discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 January 2016[edit]

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

Majority of !votes were delete, and were policy-compliant. Keep !voters confused the "Male Escort Awards" (given out c.2000 by the non notable "Male Escort Review" with the "International Escort Awards" (given out c.2006 and later by the notable Rentboy). Redirecting the name of one award to an entirely different one is simply introducing an error. If we're going to to mention these two pseudo-honors (a separate debate) we ought to, at the very minimum, be accurate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - no consensus close redirecting Male Escort Awards to List of gay pornography awards. The redirect has been around since 25 November 2009‎ and has been nominated for deletion twice (RfD1). World Public Library[14] indicates that the following awards are Male Escort Awards: GayVN Awards, Grabby Awards, Hard Choice Awards, and The "Dave" Awards. Each of these are listed in List of gay pornography awards. The Redirect for Discussion challenged redirecting Male Escort Awards to List of gay pornography awards. BDDs closed the discussion as no consensus. As of this post, Male Escort Awards redirects to "List of gay pornography awards#International Escort Awards." International Escort Awards is included in the List of gay pornography awards along with GayVN Awards, Grabby Awards, Hard Choice Awards, and The "Dave" Awards. Reviewing the RfD discussion, there was no consensus to delete and there was no consensus to redirect to "List of gay pornography awards#International Escort Awards." I endorse the no consensus close redirecting Male Escort Awards to List of gay pornography awards. Comment It's an alternative name for the list and a possible name under which the list might be sought. It should not be directed to a particular section of the list and none of the reasons in WP:R#DELETE seem to apply. -- Jreferee (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That "World Library Association" source is just a mirror of the Wikipedia article with the redirect heading incorporated in an odd format. It has no substantive value whatever. The phrase "Male Escort Award", apart from the redirect page, is never used in Wikipedia to refer to any award listed on the target page. It refers only to an award not listed on that page (which apparently was not given out to gay pornography). It is the simplest and most basic standard for an encyclopedia that it should not deliberately include factual errors, and this redirect breaches that standard. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Praise and veneration of Muhammad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the closure broke WP policy which states: Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". The discussion clearly failed to reach consensus, with roughly half of the respondents supporting each position. The closing admin chose to focus on only one of the arguments given for keeping the article, ignoring the others: that the subject is notable and there are scholarly monographs devoted to it and that the article contains encyclopedic content and should be improved rather than deleted. I've brought up the issue with the closing admin who referred me here. Eperoton (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse even if it is true that the discussion had "roughly half of the respondents supporting each position" (there was a lot of sockpuppetry) that makes no difference. When determining rough consensus the closing admin has to consider the weight of arguments put forward to advance each position, how strong they are and whether they are reflected in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Here the weight of argument was heavily in favour of deletion, and so the article was deleted. The Keep argument discussed in the closing statement was by far the most popular, and to bring up notability is irrelevant. That a topic is notable does not mean Wikipedia has to have an article on it, it only means that the article can't be deleted because the subject is non-notable. There are plenty of other valid reasons for deleting articles, including those brought up here. Hut 8.5 16:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin's comment: I remain of the view, expressed in the closing statement, that the "keep" opinions must be given less weight because most of them did not address the policy-based opinions for deletion, and that we therefore have a consensus for deletion after considering the opinions expressed based on the strength of their argument.  Sandstein  16:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse based on the understanding that this was a WP:TNT deletion -- that while the underlying subject may be notable, the deleted article failed key policies so badly as to be unsalvageable, and the option to blank-and-stub would result in an essentially meaningless/useless article. No prejudice against recreation of a policy-compliant article under this or a similar title. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The weight of policy-based argument was on the "delete" side and there was no attempt to counter those arguments by those wishing to keep the article. I base this conclusion on my analysis of the AfD, which together with my hypothetical closing statement can be found here. Thparkth (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly endorse, but allow for recreation if someone can write a good article There was consensus of policy-based comments that _this_ article was problematic. But the closer seemed to hint at the fact that there shouldn't be an article of this title at all, and I don't think there was anything near consensus on that. I felt this was more of a WP:TNT situation. Hobit (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't rule that out completely, but such a rewritten article would need to very convincingly dispose of the argument, also made in the AfD, that it can't be anything but a content fork of Muhammad in Islam – which covers his role in the religion and therefore also his position as an object of praise and veneration. Perhaps it could be a subarticle (per WP:SS) of that article, if the subtopic of "praise" can be usefully distinguished from Muhammad's other religious significance, and expanded upon in a non-hagiographical manner – but I know too little about the topic to be able to determine this.  Sandstein  22:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Religious scholarship is nothing if not detail-oriented. I would strongly suppose that the topic "praise and veneration of muhammad" has been given substantial treatment by both partisan and neutral scholars over the years. It will have a history, and controversies, and different views and practices prevailing among different groups in the present day. It will have inspired art and poetry. For this reason I believe that it is hypothetically possible that a neutral, verifiable, and useful article on this specific topic might someday be written. I also believe that the decision as to whether a particular subtopic is large enough to merit a separate article is a decision best left to the editors working in that topic space. See for comparison our rather good article on Veneration of Mary in Roman Catholicism which is usefully separate from our Mary (mother of Jesus) article. But I did not !vote "endorse without prejudice to recreation" because anyone proposing to start this new article ought to write a draft and obtain consensus for its recreation in mainspace first - the odds of a recreation just being another hagiography are rather high. Thparkth (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the analogy is apt, and an article similar to Veneration of Mary in Roman Catholicism could work, but I agree that it would need to be drafted in userspace first.  Sandstein  15:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that there was some sense of the discussion that no such article could exist, but it didn't have consensus IMO. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request temporary courtesy restoration of article history - I can certainly understand and anticipate the NPOV problems inherent in this topic, as well as those arising from contributions from self-selected contributors who do not understand NPOV and our other relevant policies. That said, would an uninvolved administrator temporarily please restore the article history so non-admin DRV participants can make intelligent comments informed by an understanding of the deleted article's content? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really an involved administrator would be just as good. Any chance @Sandstein:? Thparkth (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not, I'm opposed to the practice of temporarily restoring articles. What this is supposed to review is the discussion, not the article.  Sandstein  09:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: Would you be willing to temporarily restore the history so that interested editors can salvage the encyclopedic content contained in the article for the purposes of creating an improved version? Eperoton (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not, if they're serious about creating an article that addresses the AfD's concerns, and show that they are indeed able to to that – but I suspect that would need an editor who is versed in Islamic studies, or we'd just get a slightly rearranged version of the deleted content.  Sandstein  15:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there's need for knowledge of the secondary literature, and good grasp or better interactive enforcement of policies, but that's not specific to the article in question. I think the priority would be to review the deleted text and see if it contains content that should be added to the relevant sections in other articles. More generally, isn't there a mechanism for archiving deleted articles? Making the history of an article unavailable might make sense in some cases, but here it doesn't seem justified. Eperoton (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no such mechanism, because the point of the deletion process is to, well, delete inappropriate content. Some content can be restored to userspace on a case-by-case-basis, see WP:USERFY.  Sandstein  17:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for the clarification. Since I seem to be the main (only?) advocate for attempting a salvaging operation in this discussion, could you userfy the deleted version under my user space and leave a link to it on this page? Eperoton (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's first wait for this review to conclude.  Sandstein  18:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a horribly difficult discussion to close, and one that raises all sorts of very complicated issues. Wikipedia is very poor indeed at covering anything related to religion and theology; the majority of our Christianity-related articles in the topic area consist of copypasta from far outdated sources such as the 1913 Catholic Encyclopaedia, and the articles which aren't Christianity-related are in a truly woeful state. Wikipedians tend to be secular and uneducated in theology, particularly the non-Christian variety. So we get plenty of Dunning-Kruger effect, wherein people who know absolutely nothing at all about theology or Islam give their opinions in the emphatic declarative, even though they don't know what they don't know. This is not a good way to reach an intelligent conclusion. I see without surprise that Wikiproject Theology is defunct and inactive, and never had more than a couple of members anyway. We're way out of our depth here, and I would suggest opening a structured, multi-stage community RfC about how we can better organise and balance our coverage related to Islam.—S Marshall T/C 01:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's customary to restore the contested material during the DRV, on request from a good faith editor, unless it's unrestorable owing to copyvios, BLP issues etc. Sandstein's refusal to do this is perplexing and rather obstructive.—S Marshall T/C 17:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If another admin wants to temporarily restore this for the DRV, they can go ahead, but I won't do it myself because I think it's a misguided practice: DRV is supposed to review the AfD and its closure, not the deleted article itself. Restoring the article all but invites editors to comment on the merits of the article, initiating the "second round of AfD" that a DRV is not supposed to be.  Sandstein  18:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that that view belongs on WT:DRV. In the meantime other sysops are encouraged not to allow Sandstein's unorthodox refusal to prevent them following our normal custom and practice.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting Permission to view article history I would like to recreate the article, perhaps the closing admin User:Sandstein can incubate the article for me? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again: Let's first wait for this review to conclude.  Sandstein  12:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as an accurate reading of consensus, with leave to userfy. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I felt the closer's reasoning as a good demonstration of a broad understanding of site policies and how to balance the reaching of consensus beyond a simple tally of votes. Even though I participated in the discussion, Sandstein mentioned something even I hadn't noticed (as I wasn't invested in the discussion beyond my own vote): that the keep voters didn't directly respond to the basis for deletion in a sufficient manner, and that seems rather significant for the closer who must make a tough decision. The AfD discussion got heated so there might be acrimony over that, but ultimately it seemed like a well thought out and well explained action. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you specify "which part of the basis for deletion" the keep voters didn't respond in a sufficient manner!--94.58.148.217 (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the person you were replying to, but in the deletion discussion arguments were made that the article failed the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines: WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:SYNTH, WP:QUOTEFARM, and WP:NOR. No one on the "other side" addressed those arguments. Thparkth (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you or someone else said "blah.. blah.. blah" doesn't mean that "blah... blah... blah" is correct. Please remember to backup your claims with evidence. You and the delete voters didn't provide any evidence to support your claims that the article failed the policies and guidelines you mentioned. On the other hand, the keep voters provided evidence beside their claims.
Firstly, WP:NOR says the following: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Given that the material of the article was covered by reliable published sources (such as: this book, this book, this book, this book, and many other books), then the claim that it failed this policy of WP:NOR is ridiculous.--94.58.148.217 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". The article certainly didn't fail this policy at all as its material was a direct representation of its sources.--94.58.148.217 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whether the article failed those policies or not - I haven't seen it. What I do know is that in the AfD, the claim was made (by multiple editors) that the article did fail those policies, and no one even attempted to argue otherwise. Thparkth (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Veto deleting the article: As I explained previously on the talkpage of the deletion discussion, the closing admin seems to be an advocate of double-standard policy. He read the discussion with one eye opened and one eye closed. All the points raised by the delete voters were addressed and refuted by the keep voters. Deleting Praise and veneration of Muhammad while keeping Slandering of Muhammad shows clearly that the content of the English wiki is not neutral. While articles slandering Islam and Prophet Muhammad recieve continuous protection by the admins of the English wiki, articles like this article get deleted as quickly as possible. This problem comes from the fact that the majority of wiki's editors are either Christian or atheists and a systemic bias against Muslims is always inevitable.--94.58.148.217 (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: the article slandering of Muhammad was blocked in UAE few years ago, but it seems that the blocking is not working now. Perhaps we Arabs should follow China and block the entire website.--94.58.148.217 (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A systemic bias against Muslims based on editor background seems out of the question, seeing that there are numerous criticism articles such as Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of atheism, Criticism of Jesus, and so on... The point of most delete-!voters was that positive views are/should be covered in Muhammad in Islam, since veneration of Muhammad is one of the basic tenets for (most) Muslims. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article: "Muhammad in Islam" is comparable with the articles: "Medieval Christian views on Muhammad" & "Judaism's views on Muhammad" and similar articles, while the article: "Praise and veneration of Muhammad" is the one comparable with the article: "Slandering of Muhammad". If you think that the article "Praise and veneration of Muhammad" should get deleted because the article: "Muhammad in Islam" exists, then the article "Slandering of Muhammad" should also get deleted because "Medieval Christian views on Muhammad" and "Judaism's views on Muhammad" and similar articles exist. That was point one.
Point two is that the topic "Muhammad in Islam" is a very vast topic . It deals with a great variety of subtopics and it is impossible to cover one single subtopic such as "Praise and veneration of Muhammad" under that topic. In addition, "praising Muhammad" is not exclusively related to Muslims. Many non-Muslims throughout the history praised Muhammad and showed their admiration of his character without converting to Islam such as Alphonse de Lamartine who said in his book "Histoire de la Turquie" (1854): "If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad?" and many other non-Muslims.--94.58.148.217 (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This point was raised during the deletion discussion. We don't cover differing views on some topic by creating two articles with one espousing each point of view. That's a WP:POVFORK. If you don't like the existence of Criticism of Muhammad then nominate it for deletion - its existence stand on its own and has nothing to do with the existence of this article. The existence of "Criticism of X" articles is in any case controversial. Note that you keep referring to "Criticism of Muhammad" as "Slander of Muhammad". Criticism can be valid or not, but slander is by definition false. I wonder where the real systematic bias is here. Hut 8.5 19:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Criticism of Muhammad has been nominated for deletion a few days ago. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The continued use of the word "Slander" (False and damaging statements) in place of "Criticism" (Expressions of disapproval) is inaccurate and seems to indicate a strong POV, and for me at least detracts from the credence of the arguments presented alongside it, as many of them seem to be based upon this conflation.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the right term for epithets like "devil and first-born child of Satan" would be, but in this case "criticism" seems to be a bit off the mark. Eperoton (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This IP (94.58.148.217) is probably a sock who knows how wikipedia works and he is overtly sympathetic to the creator of this article. I would say that final decision regarding this review should really ignore comments made by this IP. Read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Xtremedood. Capitals00 (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent point; there are a few signs in the language being used by this IP. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and confine accusations to the investigation discussion until there is a verdict. Eperoton (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion on the AfD close itself, but I do want to make a meta-comment about the temp undelete issue. I agree that we are here to discuss the AfD closure. And, that restoring the article text shouldn't be necessary for that discussion. And, that it does encourage people to head off into the AfD-round-two weeds. That being said, temp undelete is established practice, if not actual policy. If you don't agree with the policy, you should argue to change it in an appropriate forum. Admins shouldn't be picking and choosing which policies to enforce based on what they agree with (insert picture of woman holding a mop and wearing a blindfold). -- RoySmith (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the text just says "admins are routinely requested" - and not that they must accede to such requests, which I never have and never anticipate doing, much like most admins choose not to participate in one admin task or another. If others want to make such restorations, though, that's their call. As the admin whose deletion is being reviewed, it's better if I don't do admin-type stuff to the article during the review, anyway.  Sandstein  23:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that an admin should stand back from a review of their own work. In my personal opinion, a better response to the original request directed at you would have been, As the subject of this review, it's not appropriate for me to do that. But, your response took a stance against the action. While another admin could have stepped in and done it anyway, I think most admins are (for better or worse) reluctant to reverse another admin on a decision. So, while you say that it's better that you don't do admin stuff when you're the subject of a review, in reality, you have, by offering an opinion and setting a bar which some other admin must overrule. I also agree that an admin doesn't need to get involved in everything, but if you choose not to do something, it's best to also not queer the pitch for everybody else. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_January&oldid=697510722"