Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November

30 November 2016

Carrier Air Conditioner move to Mexico – Endorse, but userfy. It's hard to pull out an exact consensus from here, but I think a reasonable summation is that the original AfD close was fine (hence the endorse), but restoring the old text for the purpose of reuse (with proper attribution) is a reasonable thing to do. If the restored article ends up getting moved into mainspace with the history intact, that satisfies our attribution requirement. If it ends up getting cherry-picked into another article, please make sure you provide the proper attribution per Wikipedia:Merge_and_delete#Record_authorship_and_delete_history. User:Unscintillating's comment about the title is worth noting as well (now at User:E.M.Gregory/Carrier Air Conditioner move to Mexico).. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Carrier Air Conditioner move to Mexico (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) !.) Article deleted back in March. Issue, however, continued to be a campaign theme. Today it's making national headlines again as Trump/Pence announce that Carrier has been persuaded to reverse its decision. New York Times here: [1] Carrier's move to Mexico was the campaign's emblematic example on offshoring, the issue that seems to have won the rust belt for Trump. Insofar as I remember original article, which I wrote, it was objective and well-sourced. If it is brought back, I will edit/bring it up to date.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC) E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC) As closer, I suggested to E.M.Gregory that they gather consensus on an appropriate project or article talk page about whether this news changes Wikipedia's opinion about whether the topic should be covered in its own article as opposed to in existing articles (e.g., about the company, or about Trump). Might as well happen here, I guess. I myself have no opinion about that issue.  Sandstein  16:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Note that I did not dispute the close last March. My point now is that the situation has changed, dramatically, and I would like to recover the old article's text and edit history to start an update on what is now, again a major story that users will expect to be able to find on Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC) To get a sense of the significance of this idea to the Trump campaign/administration over the course of what is now almost a year, scroll down this search of WaPo articles. [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Just my opinion here, but this story is big enough to save Trump in the electoral college election on December 19.  Trump just announced a major press conference on December 15 to (IMO) subvert the constitutional legal challenge on emoluments in the electoral college.  Is Carrier encyclopedic?  I'm not a fan of guessing the future, but that doesn't ever seem to stop the newspaper writers around here.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Endorse. Perfectly reasonable call of a rough consensus to delete. Clear reasons to delete were articulated, without effectiveness counter arguments. Other statements were made, not sure what to do with them, there may be a way forward, but undeleting the article is not it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC) I am not questioning Sandstein's decision to delete. I am asking to have the article restored because the political conversation around that Carrier plant had changed so dramatically. The deleted article can be conveniently reduced to a good first section, and the article will be expanded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Wait... did I do this wrong? Should I be asking for a view of that page, so that I could condense, and use it as the first section of a new article???E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Restore/relist the AfD was eight months ago and not particularly well attended, the topic has moved on dramatically since then and it's very hard to argue that AfD should be at all binding now. Gregory: I'd be happy to email the content of the deleted article to you, just leave a note on my talk page. It is rather dated and will mostly need rewriting anyway. There isn't anything actually preventing you from starting a new article at this title as long as your version shows some kind of improvement over the deleted one, although I wouldn't recommend using the exact text of the deleted one (as it would be a copyright violation unless an admin restored the history). Hut 8.5 20:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC) I'd lean toward userfication and then restoration rather than immediate restoration and listing. But yeah, what Hut said. Hobit (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Agree. Perhaps WP:TNT applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Userfy  An ongoing news bubble continues in the central US, and I checked both site:.uk and site:.au where I can verify the presence of international coverage.  People have been wondering why Pence has not stepped down as governor of Indiana, and now we get one answer.  Another big name in this news story is Sanders.  I also find it interesting that the Republican-oriented news is reporting 2000 jobs saved...while the liberal-oriented news was initially reporting 1000 jobs, and now it is 800; with $7,000,000 shifted from Indiana tax payers to Carrier.  Here is an article published in Australia that cites a professor as saying it is "uncommon for extensive negotiations to take place prior to the president-elect taking office."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Yes. There is definitely a developing story. Not sure it is is ready for an article, but it could well be soon. Userfication is a way forward. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Move to draft space or userify/ DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Thank you, userspace would work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Looking at the name of the article, that could be an issue, too, as I believe that it was Carrier furnace that remained in Indiana.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 November 2016

Consortiumnews – Sent to AfD. Consensus is that this contested speedy deletion should be referred to the AfD process. –  Sandstein  16:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Consortiumnews (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) The fact that articles of this left news website have been cited or copied by many scholarly books, papers, Globalresearch.ca & Russia Insider means that it is notable hence should be kept instead of speedily deleted. RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC) overturn speedy, list at AfD [3] is probably enough to overcome an A7. Not sure if the article had it there at the time. Also has Annie Machon as a contributor. Not sure it would live through an AfD, but it probably isn't an A7. Hobit (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Send to AfD the article didn't include Hobit's link and didn't mention Annie Machon. It did assert that the subject's articles have been copied by Globalresearch.ca and Russia Insider but I don't think that's much of an assertion of significance (and certainly not notability). It did cite sources but virtually all of them are clearly not independent, the exceptions being two Russia Insider links. The article did assert that three people with articles are contributors: Norman Solomon, David Swanson and Martin A. Lee. I think the article as written was somewhat borderline but on the right side of the border. Hut 8.5 19:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Well, Consortiumnews is now considered to be a website spreading "Russian propaganda" by PropOrNot (cf. [4], it clearly says that the Washington Post have reported this website), meaning it is somewhat notable.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Yeah, just looking at it made me think of RT and the rest of Russia's propaganda machine. Hobit (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Send to AfD. Sounds worthy of a discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Send to AfD. I would have declined the CSD A7 as the article has assertions to four notable people in the first two sentences. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Meh. Tempundeleted for review. I'm usually a hard-liner about WP:CSD, but I honestly don't see how this indicate[s] why its subject is important or significant, so WP:A7 seems reasonable to me. Still, running it through AfD for a week won't do any harm. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Any editor* seeing a db-a7 tag posted can remove it, making it a7-proof meaning it must go to AfD. If there is any* a7 protest, just send to AfD. (*the incompetent article author not included) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC) I'd say that the notable people involved and the Park Foundation support are pretty solid reasons for this not to be an A7. But YMMV. Hobit (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC) No overturn - The 'author' of the article (in RekishiEJ) edit warred the article in as a WP:COATRACK as some form of subsidiary article in the Robert Parry article. When I finally cleared it out of there, the editor transferred the crud tossed out of the Parry article verbatim... so being a WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:SPA whose presence on Wikipedia is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is something to be rewarded? I'd also like to remind editors and admins of WP:INHERITORG: what does four notable people in the first sentence have to do with Consortiumnews being WP:N? Sorry, but a coatrack is a coatrack is a coatrack: and there are plenty of editors who'd latch onto this in the same manner as they've tried to embrace any kind of article to counter anti-communist articles, so there is harm in tossing it out there. While I may sympathise with an imbalance in literature and mainstream studies, referencing Globalresearch.ca and Russia Insider as anything other than biased sources is a good litmus test for how far you need to reach to scrape the bottom of the barrel for WP:RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC) I think we'll end up with a deleted article. But given the award and the notable people involved, it's probably best to do so at AfD rather than as a speedy. Also, the Park Foundation support is yet another reason why, IMO, this wasn't a good A7 candidate. Hobit (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Ultimately, if it remains, it'll hardly be unique in a long list of highly dubious Wikipedia newsorg articles. I guess they're just a pet peeve because there's so little in the way of RS regarding the integrity of the org, the reader is not presented anything of substance other than the fact that it exists, and some people think it's terrific while others don't. Call me an exclusionist, but some things really ought to be relegated to the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS pile. Ooh, goodness, how exciting! I might start shaking my fist at the monitor soon! Nah. I know that the cosmic order isn't contingent on trivia, but there's still occasionally stuff that gets up my nose. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Eatsa – "Keep" closure endorsed. –  Sandstein  14:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Eatsa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This was boldly closed with the sole "Keep" without actually acknowledging the fact there was 1 comment with actual cited policy (which is the basis of any challenging AfD, let alone advertising articles), while the others simply cited "it needs improvements, but it's WP:GNG" or "this isn't advertising", none of that takes away the meaning of actual hard policy such as WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, thus an unacceptable NAC close. It needed to either be reopened or relisted. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse. Had I participated in this AfD, I suspect I would have !voted IAR Delete, because I agree with Swister that this company is probably not notable. But, our policies talk about sources, and looking at the five good sources in the article, it's hard to argue that this doesn't meet WP:GNG. The NYT article is clearly a solid source. I'm usually kind of negative about TechCrunch, Investor's Business Daily, and CNET, but in combination with the NYT piece, they're more than enough. So, from the point of view of addressing the close itself, you've got the strength of numbers (5-2) arguing to keep, with good sources, and at least some of the keep !votes making cogent arguments which cite appropriate policies. I don't see how this could have been closed any other way. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC) PS, I suspect if the WP:NAC aspect didn't exist, we wouldn't even be here. I would be within my rights to reclose this (as keep) myself, eliminating the NAC-factor, but I'm not going to do that because I think it would send the wrong message. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Closer comment/Endorse - SwisterTwister it would've been nice if you bothered to notify me!, Anyway as I stated on my talkpage a few editors believed it met CORDEPTH as well as GNG and those arguements were stronger IMHO so like Roy I fail to see how this could've been closed any other way - Sure I could've reliste it but I don't believe that would've achieved any other outcome, RoySmith - If you want to reclose I honestly have no objections. –Davey2010Talk 03:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC) No, I don't want to reclose it. Reclosing it would make the WP:POINT that the close was no good. So, maybe by refusing to reclose it, I'm making a WP:ANTIPOINT? Suggest we all return to writing an encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC) True i suppose ... I was just being helpful that's all, Exactly no need for the unnecessary dramah. –Davey2010Talk 03:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse if someone is closing discussions like this as delete, there is a problem. Sources exist, those !voting to keep cite the sources, keeps have the majority. And they have WP:N. Hobit (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse the major argument for deleting this was lack of notability, which has been shown to be false. The other Delete argument was that the article is advertising, but the policy basis for deleting neutrally worded content on the grounds of advertising is slim to nonexistent and this opinion is outweighed by the others. Hut 8.5 07:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC) At least as it stands at the moment, I don't see how it could be considered promotional. Hobit (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse. Correctly closed. Decisions are made by those who turn up. I would have !voted to delete. CORPDEPTH ha?!? Are we talking about the same article? See Wikipedia:Renominating_for_deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC) That link is a trivial and snide-humored guideline, not a policy. No one here has cared to back acknowledge that not only is WP:NOT relevant and necessary to Wikipedia itself, but it's something that we use everyday. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC) OK, so my understanding is that you are claiming WP:NOT applies. Could you cite the part of NOT that you feel applies here? Reading the discussion and your comments, I really can't tell. Hobit (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Swister is not good with words. It does not violate WP:NOT, unless taken to be pure advertising, which it is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC) 'Endorse The result is probably correct: the NYT article is enough to show notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Disagree there, as the NYT article is about Automated restaurants generally, with Eastsa featuring as a mere example. Accordingly, I would !vote merge and redirect to Automated restaurant, not "delete", on further consideration. And so I observe that the AfD nominator failed WP:BEFORE, a failure that typically results in "keep" or "no consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Thw NYT article is primarily about Eatsa. That's the only company discussed. The article includes discusses general concerns, and background, as expected on a substantial article in a major paper, but it is almost entirely about this particular company. Anyone who doubts, should just read it. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC) The article. No, it is primarily about the concept of the automated restaurant. Eatsa serves as the single example. There is zero implication that Eatsa is in any way a special, in fact the implication is the opposite. It is the first outlet of the company Eatsa, but it is not the first automated restaurant, or the first quinoa automated restaurant, or at least the article doesn't say that. The Eatsa-specifics serve to highlight the banality; not a restaurant but "more like a food delivery system". I think it obviously begs for comparison with other automated restaurants, more breadth of coverage that what would be more narrow than coverage of a single McDonalds outlet. The NYT article would contribute to evidence of notability, the reporter chose this outlet over others, but no way does it alone meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I share Swister's exasperation, but the answer is not deletion, but expansion of the real topic, which is Automated restaurant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Endorse - This DRV is useless drama. The AFD was clearly closed correctly. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC) No, it is a typical "correct process, bad result" case. It is a flag providing evidence for a need for process refinement. Ignoring it because there is no simple answer ignores an important purpose of DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC) Endorse, could not have reasonably been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 November 2016

Corey Fogelmanis – Consensus is in favor of creating the requested redirect. –  Sandstein  09:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Corey Fogelmanis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Since a request at AFC/R, (Be sure that you look at the archives for this.) Should Corey Fogelmanis been redirected to Girl Meets World? It may be a plasbile search term. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 15:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse. Search terms should be allowed activate the Wikipedia search engine, which happens if the title is deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) This doesn't sound like an argument I've seen at WP:RFD.  Is there precedent, even an essay, for this being a deletion argument?  Unscintillating (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC) I guess it is a needed essay. Needed for many years. In the early days, the Wikipedia internal search engine was quite sad, and it was normal to create redirects from title typos, misconceptions, and other things based on Wikipedians' clairvoyant intuition for what the searcher really wanted. Strictly, these are only for searchers, no one else would jump to these titles. Many years ago, User:FT2 explained to me that the internal search engine had been improved. Redirects are now much more likely to cause astonishment that search results. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC) I'd support creating the redirect. The AfD for this noted that the little available coverage was brief mentions around the Girl Meets World series, and the only other mention of him on Wikipedia seems to be regarding Mostly Ghostly: One Night in Doom House, a direct to DVD sequel of dubious notability. Girl Meets World definitely looks like the primary target for this search term. Hut 8.5 15:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) Comment  Here is an archive with the decision to redirect.  Here is the refusal to create the redirect through the protection.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) Create redirect  No one asked for the protection to be changed, they asked for the redirect to be created.  So the ruling at RFPP cited an irrelevancy.  Since there were no content problems identified in the AfD, and this was a WP:DEL8, the edit history at least up to the AfD should be visible.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Upon further review, the request did include unsalting.  The administrator had to research AfC just like I did.  I suggest that User:KGirlTrucker81 needs to provide links to relevant discussion when making requests.  I don't at this point know why GirlTrucker81 requested unsalting at RFPP, but unsalting is not part of the request here.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC) But I'm in a xbox one editing here and can't copy-paste links. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 16:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC) I don't know if it helps, but these two templates produce the links I provided above: {{oldid2|751424174|Redirect_request:_Corey_Fogelmanis|}} {{oldid2|751494162}}, as follows: [5] [6] Unscintillating (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 November 2016

Darcy Isa – "No consensus" closure endorsed. But most agree the discussion was poor, so renominating remains possible. –  Sandstein  18:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Darcy Isa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Joyous! had closed this as keep however when I went to ask if they'd reopen it they said they'd change it to No Consensus however IMHO there was no consensus to Keep - 2 out of the 3 keeps were more or less "I've seen her on TV and want it kept" or atleast that's how I perceived it, Not one editor had provided any sources to back up their !vote nor did anyone even reply to me there inregards to the sources, The article at present is very poorly sourced as no one could find any sources I just don't see any consensus to keep, Personally I believe it should either be relisted for another week incase anyone can find sources or redirected to either Grange Hill or Waterloo Road (or just deleted as I know some admins believe redirecting is an editorial thing), Anyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse no consensus. It wouldn't have been a clear-cut "keep" even if the keep arguments had been guideline-based, which they were not. Delete would have been a brave close but one I would also have endorsed. However, WP:N is a guideline allowing for occasional exceptions and people are entitled to think this article is an exception. It would have been nice to know why people considered the guidelines unsatisfactory in this case as well as why they thought the subject was important enough to have an article. For articles like this it seems to me better to consider verifiability, WP:V, rather than notability because, especially with a living person, there is far less latitute. Why not edit the article (gently) with this in mind? Thincat (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Usually when it comes to sourcing I do try & get atleast 1 substantial source with the rest being mentions, Unfortunately with this BLP there's nothing substantial and I only count 3 mentions on Google (6 including those in the article), As I said I don't expect tons of substantial sources however for someone who's been acting since 2005 you'd expect better than just mentions, Anyway IMHO it's TOOSOON for them to have an article at the moment however I had hoped after a relist the consensus would've gone towards redirect which would've preserved the history so if more sources did come up the article redirect could be reverted. –Davey2010Talk 11:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Weak endorse as within discretion. A second relist would have been reasonable as well. That is the kind of AfD were it is hard to assess a consensus; there is participation, but no real discussion. Weakly, though, as Joyous! made a keep close without a statement in a case that is (to the least) not a clear-cut keep, and then changed the close without making a statement either, which is probably WP:TROUTable. Even if AfD viewers have the idea to go to their talk page, the discussion with the opener of this DRV is not exactly illuminating. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Comment I ruefully accept the Trout. I should have been more clear about why I was changing the close. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Joyous! | Talk 22:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Relist This is one AfD which is ripe for a relist (with perhaps a comment explaining the keep !voters to bring sources or explain their rationales). At present there seems to be very less discussion which makes it hard to judge the consensus. A relist and sorting it into additional lists would probably help. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse. Nomination: Delete because it should be redirected to page1 or page2. It is not the least bit surprising that the ensuing discuss was not productive consensus building and ended in "no consensus". The "Redirect per nom" !vote is particularly evident of this. See Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC) "It is not the least bit surprising that the ensuing discuss was not productive consensus building" - Exactly the discussion was crappy so why shouldn't of it been relisted like any other AFD that has poor discussions after the 1st relist ?, Perhaps I'm clearly missing something here but I'm just not seeing the consensus to do anything - If the AFD got relisted and discussion was crap then yes I would agree with the NC whole heartedly but as it stands it's way too early. –Davey2010Talk 14:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC) It was correct to not relist because there was no reason to think more discussion would lead to a consensus. The discussion was hopelessly unfocused due to your non-proposal. Your nomination fails to state a proposed action. Do you want to delete or not? If redirect, then to what? The posing of fuzzy question is not a good use of AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC) A) Please read WP:AGF - It wasn't "hopelessly unfocused" at all, and B) Had you bothered to read the AFD you will clearly see I stated and I quote "Has been in Grange Hill and Waterloo Road so redirecting to one of those would probably be best" so I clearly did state a proposed action, I obviously didn't expect it to be closed purely on one !vote however I didn't expect it to be closed so early neither. –Davey2010Talk 21:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Read contradiction. You made a proposal that is a contradiction. You asked for three things, all mutually incompatible. You can't redirect to two titles. Do you propose a DAB page? Read Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. The discussion needs a reboot, not a relist. The close was correct. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC) These were all suggestions but for clarity I only want this overturned and relisted (and if it gets closed as NC the next week then I'd be fine with that), I didn't say I could - I said "so redirecting to one of those would probably be best" - If I say this editors can then pick one if they choose to do so (some editors pick one and others just go with delete), Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 22:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC) If you can't make a leading proposal for a singular outcome, you should use the article talk page. AfD well used for solid proposals to delete, poorly used for unfocused discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC) In the AfD there is no hint of a budding consensus for redirect to one title over the other. Therefore a relist is not appropriate. It needs a fresh and better nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC) I don't see what's wrong with suggesting 2 targets - It's better than suggesting none at all and not only that when I didn't used to suggest targets I had editors saying "redirect to x" so me suggesting is rather helpful and saves articles being deleted. Exactly there's no consensus which is why a relist is appropriate and a second relist is always preferred over one relist, My nomination was sound however if you think "it was crappy" then that's your opinion, Thanks and Have a nice day. –Davey2010Talk 22:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Disagree that the first relist was appropriate. The longterm widespread excessive pointless relisting that goes in is just stupid. Suppose you made a firm clear statement proposing to redirect to Page1. Why not Page2? Without a good answer, there is no consensus. Is a dab appropriate?! A good metaphor for the nomination is "half baked". The nominator is supposed to complete WP:BEFORE, not every respondent. You can't have the contradiction as proposed, let it go at least a month, then come back with a better considered proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) I whole heartedly agree I'm sick to death of the constant relistings however atleast to me there was no problem doing it for a second time here (if this was already on the second relist then to be blunt we wouldn't be here now), I see where you're coming from but listing 2 targets gave editors options of where to redirect the article too (and in all fairness I wasn't sure myself - Could've gone to the tp but it would've been months even years before someone replied), Inregards to the BEFORE - I did state "Few mentions on Google but nothing substantial" - Editors are responsible for finding sources if they !vote keep otherwise with the greatest of respect their !vote is meaningless unless they're going by a policy which no one did here, I honestly don't believe there was anything wrong at all with my nomination - I've made over 30/40 AFDs like these and all have so far gone without any hitches, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 23:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse  AfD nomination states, "best to redirect", which is a form of keeping.  Now the same editor states that he can't understand a concensus to "keep"?  He is part of the consensus.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Yes I said "best too" but I never said it should - It was a mere suggestion however like with any AFD I prefer to let the community decide - I disagree I'm not part of the consensus because I'm not bothered whether this is redirected or deleted!, I really cannot understand the harm in relising for another weak which atleast to me is more productive than just firing up another AFD, As I said if this is relisted and then closed a week later under the exact same outcome then I would accept that and move on but to me the AFD was closed a little too soon. –Davey2010Talk 17:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC) How does it help the project to continue to coerce the AfD volunteers on an issue for which you have no personal opinion?  I don't mean this disrespectfully, rather I'm aghast at the idea that we shouldn't always default to NOT using AfD whenever possible.  As for your point about relist, I've argued both ways recently.  Both problems occur, closers I think close off discussion to their preference, when relisting is appropriate; and relists are the relisters way of opening the door to invite "more discussion" when consensus already exists.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Because to me I'd rather have it discussed (and if it goes towards redirect I'd rather have consensus for it instead of BOLDLY redirecting it and being reverted which happens quite alot with actors/actresses), I see where you're coming from that we shouldn't just default to AFD for everything however I see it as "If I take it to AFD I'm setting it in stone" if that makes sense, I couldn't agree with that statement but on the other hand some admins do close early and personally I do believe it was closed a tad early, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC) As per WP:Deletion policy#Content, the place for content discussion is on the talk page of the article, and possibly at RfC or dispute resolution.  The "consensus" from AfD is not binding...the redirect and merge outcomes were a late addition in 2009 to the process.  Thus a content contributor can boldly overturn a content decision from AfD at any time.  Yes, there are administrators who will jump into the breach and defend the AfD decision against the content contributor, and then the content dispute might get brought to DRV, which technically has no jurisdiction because the issue is a content dispute.  So an administrator has good reason not to get involved, both practical and policy reasons.  So that is your "stone" as I understand it.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Sorry I should've been more clear but those who revert tend to be either SPAs or newbies/one-edit accounts - Ofcourse if anyone does revert and improve I have absolutely no objections but when you get an SPA/Newbie just come along and revert without any consensus or discussion it doesn't help your case because you have no consensus either, As I said the problem with talkpages is that no one ever replies on them - To be honest If people did reply we wouldn't be here now, Usually admins don't ever get involved - If I got an article deleted via AFD then if recreated I would G4 it or if a redirect's reverted I would revert that - The former and latter are never taken to DRV infact other than AFD closures I don't believe I've ever been taken to DRV for anything else, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC) So what about what WP:Deletion policy#Content mentions, which is Template:RfC?   Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse close, but re-list. This was a bad discussion. The close was a proper summation of the discussion (hence the endorse), but we ended up in the wrong place because the comments were pointless. Normally, in a case like this, I go through the AfD and see if the policies people cited really do say what they claim they say. I couldn't do that in this case because nobody (on either side) cited any policies. So the whole discussion boiled down to WP:ILIKEIT vs. WP:IDONTLIKEIT and should be reargued from scratch. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC) So what about what WP:Deletion policy#Content mentions, which is Template:RfC?   Unscintillating (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 November 2016

Cold winters theory – Non-admin closure undone in my capacity as an individual administrator. The incomplete attempt at closure by SwisterTwister was singularly inappropriate for many (hopefully evident) reasons. –  Sandstein  16:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cold winters theory (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Multiple reasons: non-admin closure three days early, unclear closing statement, redirect did not occur. Someone left a message at closer's talk page and did not receive a reply. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of Rozen Maiden characters – Strictly speaking the formal outcome of this discussion is no consensus to overturn. But so many of the editors who say "endorse" go on to opine that it would not be inappropriate for DragonZero to implement the redirect they propose, that despite the "no consensus" outcome, it would be reasonable to interpret this DRV as a licence for DragonZero to go ahead.—S Marshall T/C 16:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of Rozen Maiden characters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Hi. I have discussed with Joyous about the article's closing as no consensus. If I understood my discussion with them correctly, I think Joyous sees my suggestion as a possible outcome instead of no consensus, though I should take the proper procedure for this change instead of asking them. Thanks DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC) I think that DragonZero and I share the same belief that the article in question would be a great candidate for a merge/redirect. I closed the AfD as "no consensus" because I viewed the collection of opinions as simply that: no consensus. There are a selection of "keep"s, "delete"s, and "redirect/merge"s with roughly equal amounts of reasoning--I simply don't see any kind of consensus there. In my view, the "no consensus" close means that anyone is free to be bold and change/improve/merge/redirect the article. If I'm understanding DragonZero's comments on my talk page correctly, he interprets the close as a suggestion that the article should be removed. I am reluctant to change the closing of the AfD not because I disagree with how DragonZero wants to handle the article, but because I don't want to set a precedent of changing a decision after closing just because someone asked. Joyous! | Talk 03:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Thank you for summarizing this for me. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse because I think this was a reasonable reading of the discussion. A close of merge would have been a bit too creative for my taste but I wouldn't have thought to challenge redirect because some people thought that and it is something of a compromise between the other views. I think no consensus was best. Anyway, the close does not prevent you from editing towards merging or even redirecting though, given the rather strong feelings, there'll need to be more talk page discussion. I think Joyous was right not to change their close. Generally it is not good for a closer to change their close unless they have made a clear-cut error. It is not good to appear to be wilting under pressure although obviously in this case the discussion was an entirely amicable one. Thincat (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Overturn to redirect- The article was relisted to gain further opinions and opinion subsequently was unanimous that the article was unsuitable for mainspace. What is the point of relisting if no amount of subsequent discussion can affect the outcome? Reyk YO! 08:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse: There was definitely no consensus to delete, merge or keep as far as the eye can see, and there was enough participation as well. As such, due to the result, the subarticle has already been trimmed (by me) to address its issues following the closing of AFD 2. I wish we could hurry it up with this review so that I could take out the character list on the main article already. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Overturn to redirect- I originally was in the Keep camp, but changed my mind after seeing what a great job Dragon did. If someone wants to they can place the article in user-space and try to get it up to WP:FL standards. It is a stretch but if this isn't done then the list will just be a dumping ground for WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Procedural speedy close  Redirect-without-delete and merge are a part of WP:Editing policy and don't require administrators tools, so are content decisions.  As per WP:Deletion policy, a content discussion takes place on the talk page of the article, which allows content specialists, as opposed to deletion specialists, to make the decisions.  DRV has no role here.  One reason for this is that if closers got involved, it would bind the closer into administrating future content disputes.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Seconded. Basically, a "No Consensus" doesn't keep DragonZero from doing what he wants to do. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Overturn to redirect. I was in favor of deletion in the AfD. Looking at the opinions presented, there is a clear consensus to not continue to have a separate article, and the closure must reflect this, with a redirect as a minimum.  Sandstein  10:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 November 2016

MarketResearch.com – Snow endorse deletion and salt. According to the logs, this article has been deleted four times over the years. I'm going to salt the title to save us from having to waste time on this again – -- RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
MarketResearch.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I believe this page has been deleted unfairly and should be re-instated. According to Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement, “notable” means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." MarketResearch.com has attracted the notice of multiple independent sources that have large audiences. For examples, read on: - EContent Magazine is an independent source with a national audience. In 2007, MarketResearch.com made the EContent 100 List as one of the top 100 digital content companies, a recognition given to the leading 100 companies in the digital content industry. This is not simply a directory listing like the yellow pages. Being recognized as a top company by a credible source underscores MarketResearch.com’s notability. http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/Editorial/Feature/2007-EContent-100-List-40160.htm?PageNum=3 In 2008, MarketResearch.com made the SmartCEO Future 50 List as one of the 50 fastest growing companies in the Washington, DC area. Companies recognized by The Future 50 are “chosen based on a three-year average of employee and revenue growth.” Again, this source is not simply a directory listing given to every company like the yellow pages. This source points directly to MarketResearch.com’s notability. http://www.smartceo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/BCEO.F50.Past_.Winners.14.pdf From 2007 through 2010, MarketResearch.com made the Inc. 5000 list of fastest growing private companies in the US. This kind of recognition shows that MarketResearch.com has attracted notice from credible, independent national publications with broad reach. http://www.inc.com/profile/marketresearchcom Information Today published a full article about MarketResearch.com’s acquisition of Profound. Information Today is an independent source with a national audience within the library, information & knowledge management industry. Please note this article is not a press release. http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/nbReader.asp?ArticleId=36824 Research Information is a UK-based magazine with an international audience, which devoted a full article to news regarding MarketResearch.com. https://www.researchinformation.info/news/simba-information-and-education-market-research-merge?news_id=1312 MarketResearch.com was mentioned in multiple articles from outside sources regarding the acquisition of the Freedonia Group. - http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20160203/NEWS/160209935/marketresearch-com-acquires-freedonia-group - http://www.usglassmag.com/2016/02/marketresearch-com-acquires-the-freedonia-group/ - http://www.mrweb.com/drno/news22161.htm - http://www.quirks.com/articles/research-industry-news-april-2016\ - http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20160202/NEWS/160209944/marketresearch-com-acquires-the-freedonia-group Furthermore, Wikipedia’s notability definition states, “Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products. “ We understand that companies and individuals are not inherently notable. But we wonder what arbitrary standards you are adhering to when you decided to delete this page, considering the large range of independent sources that have deemed MarketResearch.com “worthy of being noted.” P A Ricketts (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC) keep deleted. User P A Ricketts declared their COI w.r.t. MarketResearch.com therefore they have no say about the fate of the article and they are strongly discouraged from efforts to recreate it in any form. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse deletion. The standards used here are not arbitrary. It's not enough that a few web sites of dubious reliability have mentioned this company, but what is needed is significant coverage in truly independent truly reliable sources. All I can see is that it sends out loads of press releases. I would suggest that this company would do better to concentrate on developing its business to the extent that such independent reliable sources start giving it unprompted coverage, rather than try to bypass that process by hyping itself in an encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Ask User:DGG for a re-open of the last AfD, on the basis that you have substantial input that you didn't get to add during the AfD. Have you done that already. As to the closes, AfD1 and AfD2, they could not have been closed any other way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Please don't excerpt words from our definitions: "worthy of being noted" is in fact a contradiction of all the rest of the guideline:, it has to have been noticed, and as the rest of the guideline goes on to explain, been noticed with substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources. Every word here is a peculiar WP term of art, and their exact meaning and current interpretation has to be seen from our actual practice. None of the sources mentioned are in my opinion usable for notability or , some of them, even worth mentioning: "fastest growing" is in practice almost always a synonym for "not yet notable". The "acquisition of the Freedonia Group." are , as you say, mentions, not substantial coverage. You need one source to establish the fact, but it doesn't show notability. Research information is not a magazine, but a trade newsletter; as do all such newsletters, it publishes press releases, which can be very useful for those in the industry, but do not belong in an encyclopedia. Information Today has been sometimes considered here as a magazine, and sometimes as a newsletter; however, this particular article seems true editorially responsible coverage in some detail, but most of the detail is about Profound and Newsedge, and only incidentally about marketresearch.com. I see no reason to reopen the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse and keep deleted per DGG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse and keep deleted per DGG. Until reliable, in-depth sources are found, all we have is low-level, niche, mostly paid-for press release-like and in passing mentions which do not suffice to make an entry of this in an encyclopedia. I'd encourage the nominator to help us find similar entries on the company's competitors that we should remove as well, to keep the playing field equal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse because deletion was the consensus after a sufficiently lengthy period for discussion. I see this article has had a difficult gestation, including AFC acceptance at one stage (I think). For a recreation to have any hope of success strong references will be required. Thincat (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse The new references do not seem to be reliable sources. Until such references are found, this should remain deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Hirohiko Kakegawa – Article has been deleted and contesting the removal of a CSD tag is outside DRV's remit anyway. – Hut 8.5 15:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Hirohiko Kakegawa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) User Ron Lucci has recreated a page that I've previously deleted, with barely any improvements (in fact, I'd argue that it was an even worse revision because the previous revision that got deleted at least had two [weak] references at the bottom). This revision has ZERO references. Looking at Ron's talk page, it would appear that Ron has not bothered to peer review his articles before publication. While not an offense, a poorly structured article that is recreated without addressing its previous issues lay the grounds for speedy deletion. I placed the WP:G4 tag at the very top of the recreated article, hoping that it gets speedy deleted by an admin. However, Ron has removed the tag by himself, even though he's not allowed to. Quoting the G4 notice: "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." Ron has blatantly violated the directions on the notice (since he is the article creator), hence I request that the page be speedy deleted, and that Ron be disallowed to recreate the same article until it has been peer reviewed and expanded enough to meet WP:WHYN. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC) First step should be on that user's talk page. I'm not seeing anything there. If that doesn't do anything and a re-adding of the tag again gets removed, it probably should go to ANI. I don't know that this is a DRV thing (yet). Hobit (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Page deleted. Requesting admin for closure for this discussion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 November 2016

Beryl Irving – Procedural closure. The user who was supposed to fill out this blank nomination has not done so. –  Sandstein  08:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Beryl Irving (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I am starting this blank DRV for a new user who is unsure of the proper procedures. I am instructing them on IRC to replace my message with their own; if no message is added within a few days please feel free to close early. Primefac (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC) @Primefac:? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Jo-Jo Eumerus, they never gave me their username, and they said they would edit this DRV to include reasons why the page should be undeleted. I suppose I could have saved you the ping and waited until after they did that before notifying you (since it looks like this is going to be a non-starter). Sorry. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Jax 0677/Candyland (musician) – Restore previous history at the article location. Partial restore, mind you, because only the pre-redirect revisions are useful and the later ones have WP:PARALLELHISTORIES problems if restored. There does not appear to be any particular concern with preserving/restoring the old history, either here or in the previous AfDs and the WP:CWW claim appears to check out, so going for Cunard's proposal here. – Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Jax 0677/Candyland (musician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) All of the histories of Candyland (musician) should be merged, as WP:TNT was not agreed to at the first AFD. Though the new page is shorter, the old pages should be a part of the history. Also, the page in my user space was deleted without WP:MFD. Jax 0677 (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Note: I closed the previous DRV. Merging the histories seems reasonable, but did you contact the admin who closed the AfD before coming here? Generally, talking to the closing admin is a faster and lighter-weight process than dragging things through DRV for a week. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Reply - @RoySmith:, please see User_talk:Jax_0677#User:Jax_0677.2FCandyland_.28musician.29. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Permanent link of the discussion. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Overturn and restore old article's history. The speedy deletion rationale for User:Jax 0677/Candyland (musician) was "G6: "Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: article has been re-created in main article space". Since Jax 0677 contested the deletion of a page in Jax 0677's userspace, this is not a "non-controversial" speedy deletion. Once Jax 0677 wanted the page restored, it should have been restored immediately. The deleting admin wrote, "This was deleted per WP:TNT after an AfD and only restored temporarily to enable you to create an acceptable article. That has happened, so the AfD decision applies. Feel free to take it to DRV." However, that Jax 0677 used the old history "to enable you to create an acceptable article" indicates that the old history is needed for attribution purposes per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright. I also disagree that there was a consensus for a WP:TNT per my comments in the previous DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 7#Candyland (musician). Cunard (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 November 2016

GunDB – Deletion endorsed – Stifle (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
GunDB (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) WP:GNG sources were ignored Tmobii (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Allow Recreation or Overturn. Deletion closure was based on vote, not a review of sources, which goes against WP:MAJORITY and WP:IDLI, when the decision should be based on WP:GNG policy. I brought this up with the closing admin but he said that I could not be taken seriously (I expressed concern of being WP:BITE by this) but he said he would not respond further to my concerns of policy being ignored (see here) which is why I am asking for review. The original page had sources from UCLA, WSJ, Forbes, AllThingsD, Kauffman Foundation, Billionaires Tim Draper and Marc Benioff of Salesforce, and others, the deletion discussion page explained how they complied with WP:GNG independent, secondary, significant, reliable, and presumed requirements. No other editor replied to these points in the deletion discussion, which seems unfair to then close based off of vote and delete. Tmobii (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse deletion. Contrary to the statement above many editors in the discussion replied to those points and explained how they did not consider the sources offered to be sufficient to meet notability guidelines. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Only Forbes was addressed as not WP:GNG because it uses a "contributor model", and I am okay with throwing that source out if necessary but that does not warrant discrediting all the other sources (the fact that there are so many is a sign of multiple "secondary sources" that can verify each other). Tmobii (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC) @Tmobii:. I notice that your account has only been active for about a month, and your very first edit shows a depth of understanding of wikipedia processes and policies which is surprising in a new user. Is this the only account you have used? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC) User:RoySmith I've read wikipedia for about a decade (although never the talk pages) and started editing for the first time when User:D3x0r notified me a month or two ago, first without an account. I was traveling through Europe at the time and others got upset because my IP addresses changed so I created an account and they introduced me very quickly to all the policies I needed to know. I've done debate/forensics my entire life so it was fairly straight forward (compliments to Wikipedia!) on what I needed to learn. So no, other than the last 2 months-ish, this account, and some IPs I'm new. Any advice or feedback on anything I am doing wrong or things I could approve on? Thank you for taking your time to participate and I appreciate the compliment! Tmobii (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC) d3x0r I initially found Gun on wikipedia. It was months before it was deleted arbitrarily as 'not a graph database'. I spent some time digging into the history of that page to see that I wasn't... I originally dug the archived version out and reapplied it; it was subsequently deleted as I dunno no Secondary or no Primary; or no teritary or some other reason. I provided an inline personal review; it was deleted. I didn't think wikipedia allowed links to external things; so I didn't reference the gun homepage or any of the articles that are published such as 'a weekend with Gun' or something like that. After seeing it on the list as a singular example of a native javascript graph database that didn't even require a server, I did a search for 'gun database' the first thing I got was National Gun Registraiton Database. Ya, terrible name... after digging some more (think I went specifically to npm and 'gun database')... I found it, examples, and that it might more practically be tagged as GunDB; it even had stack overflow answers. I didn't really think that knowledge of things that exist and still develop should be blocked... ya some things like https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Allegro_(software) can exist, and it has no real notability; and is hard to find unless you know it's there. The other entries in the list had merely their own wikipedia reference as their justification for entry... I didn't really see any notable sources that provided any useful information about them. Blocking it having it's own page is really low. Yes, it's mark, yes it's a new account, yes, mine has just as many edits - but a longer life... I find wikipedia policy absurd in many degrees, and see this blocking being on the par of blocking articles about the bosnian pyramids... I understand there's guidelines and rules in place so this can be self-moderated... but then there's moderator who have deemed themselves gatekeepers to entry. The list previosuly had many abandoned projects; which also should deserve to be listed for historoical reference if nothing else.... Strangely wikipedia has no mention of MMURTL - which si a micro operating system published in a book even, should dserve a menton on some list somewhere..... https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Operating_System_Projects (nope not here). Just because we don't have acedemic channels to publish papers and books doesn't mean our knowledge contribution is any less valuable. — Preceding ::On On further consideration.. I would think such regulations are to protect against abuse of space. All of this discussion plus all of the discussion on the Graph Database page (over a single line in a table) Are much more of an abuse. And now with all versions are certainly more space than this space itself would have been; and it could grow with the products... 1) not everything dead is listed, 2) not everything alive is listed 3) It's not like it's spamming for marketing, at the time it was 1 in a list of like 40; they've all been edited out, and I'm sure they have their own merits and deserve their own studies. I tend think if wikipedia as actually pretty accurate, and it irks me when I hear 'PSH like you can trust wikipedia'. So when I corrected it, surely it was deleted because noone was acitvely avaiable to defend it and someone thought it should be deleted; so I tend to think that if people find inaccurate information they would correct it.... and I would challenge anyone to give me 10 inaccurate points; and I would learn it's probably like Water Car - Stanely meyers. Something you can learn about anywhere else... (searches...)https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Water-fuelled_car nope; no idea. But I find an inaccuracy ,a dn the fixing of it is immediately rubuked (repeatedly!). Even when compliances were applied. unsigned comment added by D3x0r (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC) First of all, please please slow down on the walls of text. It does you no favors. Secondly, can you provide the three best sources (no more please) that you feel meet WP:RS and help with meeting WP:N. Per the AfD, there don't appear to be any that help at all, but I honestly can't tell for sure given all the text. Hobit (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse. Couldn't have been closed any other way. Clear arguments of lack of quality sourced material discussing the subject specifically. Clear association with WP:Promotion. The nominator appears to have not taken any time to digest anything said to him so far. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC Endorse. I went through every single source with Tmobii on the AfD but Tmobii (who has a WP:COI as he works there) ignores what has been said especially if it disagrees with his opinion and tendiciously pushes alternative angles and/or cherry-picks text from policy/guidelines as reasons why the sources establish notability. This all started because Tmobii wanted to list GunDB in a list within the Graph database article. We examined the sources there and pointed out it wasn't notable. Tmobii then decided to create the GunDB article to continue pushing to establish notability. Tmobii then opened RfC on Talk:Graph database (still open) and repeated many of the same arguments. And this attempt at Deletion Review is just an excuse to redo the entire thing again. -- HighKing++ 12:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse. The AfD couldn't have been closed any other way. Given the number of different conversations that have been started in different places (WP:ANI, Talk:Graph_database#Disputed_Gun_graph_database_entry, User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather, plus the AfD), suggest this be closed as WP:FORUMSHOPPING by a WP:SPA. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC) AfDs can only be closed with ad hominems.  Endorse, which is quite obvious. Maybe the closing statement was lacking, but consensus was clear. It is not based on the head count, but neither on the length of the arguments or their concentration in Wikipedia acronyms. Strong advice to Tmobii to WP:DROPTHESTICK. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Relist to allow a better consensus  Disclosure: I !voted to delete.  The theory of deletion is explained in the close as what one side of the argument "wants", which is not a policy-based closing.  The comment about "walls of text" implies that the closer has not read the discussion.  The closing only gave me 25 minutes to respond to the post to me, so discussion was cut short.  Premature closing is a problem IMO with at least one other recent Sandstein closing.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse : WP:NOT, WP:N and as of the endless repetition "arguments" including "sources" which do not mention GUNDb : WP:DENY. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse deletion based on the analysis of the sources presented in the AfD. We require reliable third party and secondary sources so that we can write an NPOV article per WP:WHYN. The quality of the sources left much to be desired here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC) WP:WHYN was rejected a almost a decade ago as a part of the WP:N guideline proper.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC) WP:WHYN is still a part of WP:N --Kgfleischmann (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC) That is a non sequitur in the sense that an irrelevancy is showing up in the assertion.  Just within the last week the community has again rejected having a WP:DEL-REASON for, "Insufficient sources to write an article that meets the core content policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV."  Unscintillating (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 November 2016

Murders of Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudla – Relisted I've backed out the WP:NAC and relisted it for further debate, so closing this review as moot – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Murders of Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudla (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The discussion was closed by a non-administrator, Zppix, in circumstances that did not meet WP:NACD. According to that guideline, "close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins." Because opinions were divided, the discussion was indeed a close call, and I see no indication that the closer attempted to weigh the strength of the arguments that were made. I ask an administrator to reclose (or, perhaps preferably, relist) the discussion.  Sandstein  10:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC) As I now see, at User Talk:Zppix/2016/November#AfD relisting, BU Rob13 wrote: "You've been repeatedly warned about moving into new areas long before you've gained the knowledge and clue necessary to be successful in them. At some point, this does become a competence issue, and I'd prefer not to see you return to ANI for that. Please stick to the areas where you've been successful or other basic areas rather than more advanced administrative tasks." This indicates that there is a pattern of inappropriate administrative actions by Zppix.  Sandstein  10:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Overturn. Various types of close, and relist, might have been within discretion and that is why a non-admin close was unsuitable here. Thincat (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Nanaho Katsuragi – Endorse, allow relist after two months. This discussion got kind of wild and emotional, so I suspect there's no close that's going to make everybody happy. But, the gist seems to be that the speedy close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanaho Katsuragi (3rd nomination) was OK, and the best thing to do at this point is wait a couple of months before bringing this back to AfD again. The important thing to figure out is whether the article meets our requirements. For better or worse, if we re-start that discussion again, it's likely to get bogged down in side-arguments about process. If we come back in two months, we'll skip the process arguments and can concentrate on evaluating the article. There was an extensive side-thread about whether WP:NPASR is an effective policy; that's worth talking about, but DRV is the wrong forum. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Deletion process would be a more useful place to continue that discussion (and feel free to pursue that immediately if you want). – -- RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC) A discussion about WP:NPASR was started at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Revising WP:NPASR and renominations by the same nominator. Cunard (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Nanaho Katsuragi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Relist AFD: No reason to speedy keep the article nor wait a couple of months "so that people could search for more (non-existent) sources" if it's due for deletion. Admin Joe has found no reliable sources regarding the subject to assert her notability, and knowing that the research was done by an administrator, it is plausible to assume most, if not all the editors at the second and third AFDs are just delaying the inevitable outcome. While I admit that it would have been the best to post the article here for review after the closure of AFD 2 (which I believe was closed improperly), I assert that I was not informed of a such a forum until AFTER the end of the 3rd AFD. AFD 1 was closed as no consensus with WP:NPASR. It was applied for AFD 2, only to be speedy kept due to me "not following procedures". I do not appreciate that an admin (Joe) and a couple of other members, being Knowledge and Sephy are blatantly ignoring WP:NPASR. It is not wrong for me to renom an article with that guideline in place. It is completely unnecessary to wait a couple of months before renomination due to so called "procedural" reasons. I strongly disagree that "no consensus" is seen as a rejection to my nom. It is not. It's only a rejection if an article was closed as kept. I also contest claims about me being "disruptive", when it is should be known those that are delaying the inevitable outcome (in this case, it's deletion) are the ones that are truly disruptive. Again, I admit that I should have brought the article to the Deletion Review sooner. This is something I could have done at the beginning. But I contest the closing of AFD 2, as an admin has very clearly ignored a guideline that grants me the right for speedy renom. Hence I request that the AFD be relisted in an attempt in reach a clear consensus. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Overturn with fire, and a whale-sized trout to the closer. There's definite disruption going on in the second and third afds, and admonition to be dished out, but none of it is due to the nominator. The vague threat made on Nihonjoe's talk page is especially out of line. —Cryptic 01:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC) I don't think you know the back-round here, Nihonjoe already had tried to go with a neutral approach before the article was re-nominated for a 3rd time. [7][8] Had Prince discussed the issue on the article's talk-page we wouldn't be in this mess. Further, during the 2nd deletion's close Nihonjoe suggested that he wait a "couple months". So by the time of the third nomination Nihonjoe had every right to be more stern having already shown plenty of restraint. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Yeah, cool story. WP:NPASR means that I don't need to ask for permission to renom. AFD 2 was listed following procedures to the letter. It doesn't matter what you or Admin Joe thinks. It is what it is. A guideline. And neither of you followed it. Fact. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC) I don't really want to express an opinion on the main issue here, but I still feel strongly that it was out of process to start the third AFD rather than taking the second AFD to deletion review. Cryptic, please don't encourage people to just ignore AFD closures they disagree with. Calathan (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC) I would take AFD 2 here, in the Deletion Review if I knew that this place existed. It sounds like the perfect place to file disputes of this nature. It's a shame that I didn't know better. But now I do, so it's all good. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Allow renomination after two months after the close of this DRV discussion. The excitement is out of proportion. Be sure to make a comprehensive nomination next time. The one thing worrying me is the number of mainspace incoming links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse closure Let the dust settle, and then have a neutral party re-nominate the article at a later date. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Renominate in two months , as the practical solution. The speedy keep was really out of our usual process, but it perhaps could be defended as IAR, and I'm not going to second guess an experienced WPedian who used it that way. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Unfortunately as soon as the second afd was started this was arguably about the nominator's now recurring renominations as soon as the old ones close. Despite objections over the timeframe involved, they are forcing them very pointedly instead of giving them time. At which point it starts becoming about principles and not the articles in question. I won't claim to have covered myself in glory over my response to this but the nominator knows damm well he is causing a scene and thats how he likes it. I don't object to articles being relisted but if no consensus is reached due to a lack of response after three weeks maybe a instant relist is not in anyones interest. That the nominator is unwilling to accept no consensus as a closure, despite it being a perfectly valid outcome and still insists on trying to force these articles suggests that there should be a delay in relisting in order to prevent either side becoming agitated. Allowing two-three months minimum fora new afd is perfectly reasonable and there won't be any complaints, but nominator is testing the patience of others in AFD despite several criticisms and requests to back down over several months. Not showing any concessions to his own attitude and forcefulness is what has caused the wider situation. The third afd demonstrates just how obsessed the user is over forcing things through, it is not a sign of someone understanding their situation or being neutral. This is by no means restricted to this one article. I also suggest this period between follow up afd's be applied generally to this user as they are the only person in the topic area that chooses to do so this quickly. Generally people wait upwards of 6months, which never attracts criticism in itself because this is clearly a reasonable period of time.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Noise The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I was going to shut up and let you guys discuss in this deletion review, but I'm done holding my tongue with you, Sephy. You are blatantly standing in my way by ignoring WP:NPASR. You are also delaying the inevitable outcome, which is ultimately deletion. You are complaining how fast I am with relisting articles, yet you have done nothing to improve the article yourself. Not during the 3 weeks of the entire AFD process, and certainly not now. Absolutely nothing. 3 weeks is more than enough time to gather any sources that might have helped with asserting notability. But bear this in mind - if good sources don't exist, they don't. It doesn't matter if we waited for 2 more months. The outcome will still be the same. That's why I'm saying that I really do not appreciate obstructers that are getting in my way of applying proper procedures. In this case, it would be getting rid of articles that don't have any encyclopedic value. It has become apparent to me that editors like Knowledge and Sephy seem to have a problem with that. That is unacceptable. That, and an AFD that barely had any participation that was closed with no consensus with WP:NPASR attached means I could renom it without having to run through a discussion, first. Since when is a closed AFD that barely even had any participation in the first place an acceptable outcome (even more so with WP:NPASR attached)? You're just making junk up by stating that such an outcome is an "objection/rejection" to my nom, which is not. I think you seem to be forgetting that this AFD ever existed, in which your words have practically been torn apart due to your blatant lack of knowledge of existing guidelines. It's a fact that you paid no mind to said existing guideline, WP:NPASR. What makes you above that guideline, huh? I'm not making my own guidelines up, I'm just following them to the letter. And that's supposed to be a problem? Since when? Just because you don't like me? That's biased to the core. In other words, you have zero grounds to criticize my methods, as I still have WP:NPASR to use as valid reasoning to renom. Ignore that guideline all you want, but you're just getting offended over nothing just because you don't like how I deal with things on a much higher efficiency level. You're also encouraging that articles that obviously fail the notability guidelines be kept just because I was the one that nomed them. Again, you're better not participating in my AFDs if you can't prove to be helpful, but instead act as a major obstacle. I have no objections with relisting the article after two months at this stage, but I'm 99% confident that there's absolutely nothing any of you could have done to save the article, given that even Admin Joe himself has failed to find any sources to assert the subject's notability. 2 months later, this article will see to its ultimate deletion, and if it does, it will prove true to what I've said - you're intentionally obstructing my path and my objectives instead of focusing on the actual notability on the subject herself. You're not doing anyone any favors; you are, again, just delaying the entire process. Please. Stop getting in my way if an article was closed with WP:NPASR. You could try and get good ol' Joe to gang up on me again, but I know now better on how to handle with obstructers like you. The right way. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC) I agree with you on policy, but rants like this just aren't helpful to anything. You're _really_ mad, and frankly this article existing for 2 more months isn't something worth getting that mad about. When I get that mad about something here (and I have) I know it's time for a break. Hobit (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC) The main concern here isn't a credits dump that pretends to be an article existing for two more months, it's more so about particular editors that intentionally obstruct my path just because they don't agree with my methods, rather than analyzing the actual notability of the subject. All I see as of this moment are repeated usage of WP:MUSTBESOURCES (repeatedly claiming that I should be giving them time to look for sources, when it is as clear as day that such a task cannot possibly be achieved because said sources are non-existent) and WP:PPOV (it's clear that those users don't like me, and they use it as a reason to disrupt my AFDs). In other words, those users (Knowledge and Sephy) have violated another guideline - WP:NPOV. And frankly, I couldn't care less whether or not I have their approval. How dare they have the audacity to call me disruptive when they themselves are ignoring existing policies and guidelines in the first place. I find that to be extremely outrageous. I don't think it's a lot to ask for them to stay off of my AFDs if they can't be bothered to present a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Otherwise, I see it as a serious violation of that guideline, since it is very obvious that the aforementioned users have a beef with the way I conduct things. It doesn't matter what I do, or whether or not I follow the guidelines. If I'm the one nomming the article, I automatically get flaked for it. That is the impression I'm getting, and I'm displeased. Luckily, Wikipedia does not consist solely of only those users, so I am still able to erase unneeded articles off of our encyclopedia thanks to much more diligent and helpful wikipals. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Maybe you should realise that perhaps not all of your nominations are made in the most neutral approach possible. You can do it, but there are just as many, if not more examples of AFD's that fail basic tests or where you become antagonistic for no reason. I can accept that perhaps my reactions are not always ideal and have said as much, but there has been no such attempts to back down from you. I'm more than happy to start again, but it won't work unless you can see that there are reasons why some of us react and to adapt. You need to leave your opinions about the article at the nomination, not continue to tell us that you are forcing through a decision. You can see that these instant renominations attract controversy, policy or not. Policy should not be used as an excuse to chase after desired outcomes, they are to assist not as an ends to a means. I'll be very happy to engage in an afd for this article if some time has passed and it can be presented without stigma or negative connotations. As it stands you have proven why the time is needed. Again, I'll work with you if you can work with the rest of us. It needs both "sides" to accept this.SephyTheThird (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC) The opening statements of my noms have always been constructed with info I've found about the subject, before proceeding to explain why I think they are not notable. Instant renoms are perfectly applicable when WP:NPASR is in place. It is a policy, and none of your opinions are above that guideline. Simple as that. I'm here to erase articles using existing guidelines, as opposed to arguing whether or not I need your approval. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Sk8erPrince is skating towards an XfD nominations topic ban. Being right is not a justification of disruption. If another editor asks you to stop or slow down, you don't get to ignore that based on your conclusion that they are wrong. This is a collaborative project, and if he cannot work collaboratively .... --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC) AFD 2 is done with the correct procedures. What you think doesn't matter. You're not above that guideline, WP:NPASR. None of us are. The end. Nothing more, nothing less. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC) This is where WP:IAR comes in, and that is a wikipedia policy. Every case is different, the WP:NPASR guideline can easily apply to a neutral nominator, and not the same one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Nowhere does it say that WP:NPASR cannot be applied by the same nominator. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC) relist I'm sure I'm missing something somewhere, as Nihonjoe is probably one of the most reasonable folks around here. But we don't seem to have any independent reliable sources for a BLP and I just don't understand the closing of the 2nd AfD (the 3rd one I fully get). SmokeyJoe's concerns make sense to me, but that's not a basis for keeping an article, especially a BLP. Normally I'd assume this could be a language problem, but if Nihonjoe can't find anything... Seems like NPASR applies and the second nomination was policy compliant. Hobit (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Hobit, I checked sources, they exist. The material is verified. There are no BLP issues, it is only a WP:BIO notability issue. "Merge and redirect" remains an unexplored WP:BEFORE option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC) If a subject is non-notable, then their article should be nominated for deletion. It doesn't have to be any more difficult than that. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC) There is more to WP:BEFORE than you seem to think. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Not WP:BEFORE if proper and thorough research has been done. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC) knock off the ad homs/more noise The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. It's not surprising you feel you are missing something, there is a long history here that has contributed to the whole situation. This article is really becoming the focus point for something that is not necessarily the fault of this article by itself. This policy is being used to justify the demands of an editor who has repeatedly shown questionable judgement in AFD, and is unable to take a step back and accept that they are getting peoples backs up. When a policy is being used by an editor to force through their desired outcome it starts to look bad on both the nominator and the process. When an AFD has a cloud over it due to concerns about a nominator's bias, attitude or any other negative impact outside of a healthy debate, isn't it best to leave it be for the time being and come back to it with a clean state of mind? SephyTheThird (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC) I have been able to delete 28 articles off of our encyclopedia using the exact same method as I did from when I first started (and I am improving as I delete more articles). That alone is proof that my noms are not done questionably. Policies are there to be enforced to achieve progress. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. It doesn't matter if you agree or not. If it's there, then it can be used. The end. Nothing more, nothing less. If an article was closed with WP:NPASR, then I can use it to speedy renom. Your opinion on the matter is weightless in the face of an existing policy. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Comment: I'm fine with whatever is decided here. As others have mentioned, Sk8erPrince has a long (or at least it feels really long) history of nominating tons of articles all within one topic area, basically overwhelming anyone with knowledge of the subject area. This is only one of many issues people in the Japan-related topic area have with him. Yes, some of his nominations are good, and we appreciate that. However, he is very belligerent if anyone disagrees with him, and he is very hard to work with. Some of that likely spilled over here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC) I knock down fallacies in AFDs. After all, the full term for AFD is "Articles for Deletion DEBATES". If you present a point or two that I believe to be inapplicable in the face of existing guidelines, then I'll cut them down to size (also applies to decisions made by admins; though in that case, I'll have to bring the discussion here in the Deletion Review). That's how debates work. Your opinion only matters if you're following the guidelines. Also, I don't think there is any way to deny that you used WP:IAR as an excuse to ignore WP:NPASR. There is absolutely nothing wrong with renoming an article that was closed with that guideline, as I've stated quite a number of times. Like it or not, I've managed to successfully delete 29 articles off of this encyclopedia (not counting the ones that I've assisted in deleting). That's gotta be some proof of my ability to make valid noms, right? Should be undeniable at this point. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC) "Redirects" don't count as deletion as the article's history is kept, the only thing undoing the redirect is the "undo" button. As for the articles you have deleted, what point are you trying to make? As far as contributions go at times you attack other editors, I have seen you do it and can provide the differences. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC) They are, though. Same thing. An independent article is gone in place of a redirect. Definitely the same as complete deletion. On top of that, I believe only admins can undo a redirect. Also, I didn't "attack" other editors. I merely falsified their points if I didn't agree. Stop getting so offended over it. If you can't handle the heat in an AFD, it's best not to participate. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Comment- If this is endorsed, I suggest deprecating and removing all mention WP:NPASR from Wikipedia entirely because there objectively is prejudice against speedy renomination and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise. Reyk YO! 10:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC) .Interesting observation, yes. Actually, yes, User:Natg_19's close of AfD1 was evidently faulty. Subsequent events demonstrate that speedy denomination was not welcome. Speedy renomination after two fruitless relists does not seem productive, does it? I agree with removing NPASR from policy, but not to expunge all records of it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Then ultimately, the faulty policy we come to know as WP:NPASR is to blame as opposed to me, seeing as I follow policies to delete articles off of Wikipedia. I absolutely have no objections with removing WP:NPASR completely, as Reyk has mentioned. At least then, I could avoid getting into so many conflicts like this just because I'm following an existing policy. So am I to interpret that if WP:NPASR ultimately gets removed at the end of this discussion, I am to only renom articles that were closed as no consensus after a month has passed? If that's the case, I am ok with that. Also, what about AFDs that are closed that barely had any participation in the first place? Am I to renom it after a week has passed? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC) If the AfD has gain no other's participation, you night consider Wikipedia:Publicising discussions. However, soliciting otherwise uninterested others' opinions on very narrow interest articles that don't deserve to be articles, may not lead to much joy. If closed as "no consensus", Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion suggests one month. Your nominations seem comprehensive and solid, I would expect that they would be deleted in the absence of opposition, the only thing I can suggest to you is that you don't explain why there is no plausible redirect target. Why can't you merge the voice actors into the article 81 Produce? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Thank you Smokey, for being insightful. However, the page you linked regarding guidelines in renoming has not mentioned how one should approach in the case of an AFD being closed with no consensus attached with WP:NPASR. By that logic, given speedy renoming is precisely like other speedy guidelines, then I should be allowed to renom articles immediately regardless of how it might look to other editors? That's what a speedy command is all about, isn't it? Also, to answer your other question: Why can't you merge the voice actors into the article 81 Produce? Because voice actor redirections are usually applied to whatever role they are best known as, given if the work is notable. See Yukari Kokubun, Naru Kawamoto, and Tomosa Murata. Perhaps redirect to Setsuka of the Soulcalibur games, since she is a recurring character in the series, or delete. Either way, it is still undeniable that there aren't any secondary news sources to assert the subject's notability. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC) I don't think the policy needs to be completely nuked, but it does need clarification. I would add "Common options include, but are not limited to:.... closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination by someone other than the original nominator (NPASR)...". This gives a neutral approach, and has fresh eyes looking at it as a result. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC) If that particular policy is elaborated to that extent, I would have no objections against it. In fact, I'd be glad if it was expanded to be more precise so that conflicts like these could be avoided. I concur with Knowledge's suggestion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Bahram Tavakoli – Endorse speedy, but allow recreation. Minimal discussion here, but what there is says the WP:G5 was correct. However, there's no bar to any established user creating a new article at this title, as long as it complies with our other requirements (copyright, notability, etc). – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bahram Tavakoli (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I don't understand the deletion. He is an Iranian director who won besides others several times at Fajr International Film Festival, the most important festival in Iran, he made movies with many of the most famous Iranian actors, including Leila Hatami, Taraneh Alidoosti, Shahab Hosseini, Saber Abar, Negar Javaherian, Fatemeh Motamed-Arya. His movies (especially but not only Here Without Me) have been shown on festivals around the world (Montréal World Film Festival, Filmfest Hamburg, Cleveland International Film Festival, Films from the South, Gijón International Film Festival and I don't know how many else). 92.73.29.215 (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC) (The article was under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahram Tavakoli at the time it was speedied.) —Cryptic 01:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC) The page was deleted because it was created by a copyright violating sockpuppeteer (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/پارسا آملی/Archive); the deletion does not reflect in any way on Tavakoli's notability. I don't object to a recreation, but the content should not be restored. MER-C 01:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 November 2016

Paul Horner – Relist at AfD. Ugh, this is a mess. Had somebody not gone ahead and made the WP:BOLD move to recreate this article while this DRV was running, I would have probably closed this as endorse. But,that's where we are now, and it's hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube. The most logical way forward is to just bring this to AfD again, so we can get a clean read on the article, without trying to dis-entanble arguments about process from arguments about the article itself. – -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Paul Horner (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) (Posting here first since this was a non-admin close for merge) This BLP was merged into National Report in 2014. Since then, this person has received more press coverage. For example, his work during the recent election is getting widespread media attention now.[9] -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Allow recreation but in draft space or user space if you are feeling cautious. At first I was tempted to say to expand his section in National Report but I see that some significant aspects of his life would not be appropriate there. Thincat (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Oppose userfication or draftification. To justify a spinout, there needs to be at least than wp:stub-worthy material present in the parent article, National Report. Which there currently is not. A draft or userspace verion would amount to content forking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC) During this DRV the article has been spun out again by third parties and most of the current article relates to the time after Horner had left National Report - that is if we can believe anything (which we probably can not). Thincat (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Not a DRV question based on the information given. Endorse the November 2014 AfD. To reverse that decision, seek consensus for the spinout on the talk page of the merge target. Bold spinouts, and bold reverse merges are not to be encouraged, they make the attribution history really messy, and other reasons. Discussion at the merge target talk page is important because that is where the broad expertise is expected to be watching. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 November 2016

Cardiak – Endorse, but Relist. It's clear that the AfD close was correct given the existing discussion. There is, however, some feeling that the discussants didn't properly cover the notability issues, so it seems like this is worth another look (new AfD here). The worst that happens is we spend another week talking about it and end up deleting it again, but at least then we'll have a more definitive statement. BTW, this was a very confusing discussion to read. Edits like this one make it look like the wrong person made that comment; I needed to grovel over the history to understand what was going on. I suspect the intent there was to direct the comment at a particular editor. The best way to do that is with template:ping. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC) – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cardiak (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Carl 'Cardiak' McCormick is a known and accredited producer for high-profile artists. This wiki should not have been deleted. I reached out to the admin User:Nakon who originally deleted the post and was informed by User:JJMC89 to request a deletion review in restoring the page. Carl 'Cardiak' McCormick's name can be seen accredited in the production of song "With You" of artist Drake's album credits. I am challenging this deletion as his verified work is listed on "Genius" as a notable producer within the entertainment industry. tav 19:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC) tav 19:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvirgil (talk • contribs) Endorse deletion - the result of the discussion was clearly delete; there is not an error in admin judgement here. However if you have new information and think you can recreate an article which satisfies our notability criteria, you can ask at WP:REFUND for the article to be restored so you can work on it. From the link you provided it seems to me like you have a way to go. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC) You'll need to be able to show that the subject meets WP:NMUSIC, ideally by presenting significant coverage of the subject in third-party reliable sources. Merely being credited on a notable album isn't likely to cut it. Hut 8.5 19:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse deletion – Tvirgil has not demonstrated that the close was incorrect or that significant new information has come to light since deletion that would justify recreating the article (meeting WP:MUSICBIO/WP:GNG). — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC) The subject meets WP:NMUSIC, as they are Grammy Nominated on multiple albums "2013 Grammy Awards: Rap Song, Album Nominations" "2013 Grammy Awards: Rap Song, Album Nominations". With multiple RIAA gold and platinum album credits User:JJMC89.tav (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC) That is not new information. Those are from 2013, and the deletion discussion was in 2016. Credits do not establish notability; significant coverage of the subject in third-party reliable sources is required. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC) relist the claim at AfD was that this didn't meet MUSICBIO and that claim wasn't contested. It also isn't true. I'd say that makes the AfD flawed (assuming the above claims are true) and worth a relist. It may be that we'll still delete it, but then at least we'll delete it for valid reasons. Hobit (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC) The subject meets this criteria as requested in WP:MUSICBIO as he is clearly an artist who was nominated twice for production on albums for the "2015 Grammy Awards" in reference to "Compton" and "2014 Forest Hills Drive". This notoriety is also published in an article for the "LA Times" The claim was that his bio showed no reference of being a producer for high profile artists User:Hut 8.5.tav (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Comment This isn't my subject, but a close is only correct if it comes to a reasonable result. If there's evidence he does clearly meet the standard, the article should be relisted . DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC) @DGG: From what I can tell it meets the SNG (which the AfD said it did not), but the GNG is a lot less clear. So the result of deletion _may_ be reasonable (or may not be) but the method it got there is incorrect. Hobit (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Naxuan – speedily send back to RfD. We're being a bit too trigger-happy given the large volume of work surrounding WP:X1 and WP:RfD. There's no evidence of bad faith from any involved editor. The WP:SNOW consensus is to not touch the redirect for now and let the ongoing discussion at RfD continue. – Deryck C. 19:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Naxuan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This is a redirect. It was nominated at RfD and for the two days that the discussion was running, it received one "speedy keep" !vote and two "retarget" ones. Then suddenly it got deleted per WP:X1 by an admin who wasn't aware of the deletion discussion, and who, when pointed in the direction of it, didn't undo their deletion. This is the deletion I'm challenging here. I wouldn't have caused everyone the trouble if that odd deletion hadn't led to further oddness: the RfD discussion was closed as "speedy delete" and, when following a suggestion made by the deleting admin, I recreated the redirect, it was nominated for speedy deletion per WP:G4. – Uanfala (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Comment I have removed the G4 speedy request and explained at Talk:Naxuan. I think is has been the G4 rather than the X1/G6 which was the problem. I suppose this can be closed now. Thincat (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Champion incorrectly applied a G4 tag and it was removed. Note that G4 is only for recreation of something that was deleted in a discussion. This was speedy deleted, so the only way it could be speedy deleted again would be via that same speedy criterion. The one used was X1, and since it was recreated by someone other than Neelix, that criterion can't be used again. I don't see this happening again, so the situation should be fully resolved. -- Tavix (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Context for my close: it's not uncommon for an item at RfD to be deleted through CSD. When I see a redlink being discussed, I procedurally close the discussion unless I see something suuuuper egregious. I try to always mention who performed the deletion, figuring that user is the better one to discuss the matter with. But I don't think my close is exactly the thing that's being discussed here. I don't have further comments at this time. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Overturn and relist - probably shouldn't have gone X1 but was probably just a good faith error. However, that deletion should be overturned - if we're deleting redirects and then just recreating them, we're breaking attribution (the redirect's original contributor is not credited). It should be relisted to allow the debate to run its proper course. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Not technically a valid X1 because the redirect wasn't likely to be deleted at RfD (the discussion was definitely going to go to Retarget) However as it's now going to a different target we don't particularly need the history either. Hut 8.5 16:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 November 2016

Independent Music Awards – "Delete" closure endorsed. –  Sandstein  20:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Independent Music Awards (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The subject has been covered / mentioned by the following reputable sources [10] [11] [12]. It's relevant enough for All About Jazz to mention.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Themusicwang (talk • contribs) 21:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse deletion. This rationale repeats arguments made at AfD, which failed. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC) perhaps said rationale for such articles needs to be reconsidered. It would seem to me that the article for the Billboard Awards, too, would have to be deleted if you apply the same logic of third party sources being a must; most of the references on the Billboard Awards wiki page come directly from the Billboard website, invalidating their point of support, which means that the relevance it's granted here is based on something other than the fact that it has paper sources. The Independent Music Awards are open submission according to the website, so, actually looking at the lists of nominees and winners you would see that the Awards are at least relevant enough for people like Macy Gray (2016 winner), George Benson (2014) and Meghan Trainor (2012) to enter their work into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themusicwang (talk • contribs) 07:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Seems like my close of the previous AfD is not contested here (the claim is that new sources are available, apparently), but I must note that other pages are also non-ideally sourced is not a reason to restore this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse The close was good, and as Jo-Jo Eumerus pointed out, other stuff not being perfect is not a reason to recreate this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse, and I don't see that the new coverage is sufficient to write a new encyclopedia article about these awards, either. Huon (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse No issues with the AFD, and I'm not at all convinced that being "mentioned by All About Jazz" is very impressive. Their site makes clear that anyone with a press release and 10 bucks can get it republished there. So it's no more an achievement than taking out a classified ad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of 88 Films releases – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of 88 Films releases (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) unfairly deleted. there is a category called https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Category:Lists_of_films_by_home_video_label and my article was a contribution to this category. i was unfairly targeted by admins who did not even bother to see that this category exists. my article was very similar to https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=List_of_Arrow_Films_releases in which my article provided a full and updating list of 88 films releases. my article was personally appreciated by 88 films themselves who tweeted their appreciation to me. as well as many other film collectors such as myself. it is just a list. i had no images. all my references got deleted first and then it was the 88 films wiki page and finally my list article. Kn5150 (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC) It was a list belonging to the also removed article 88 Films. But 88 Films is nothing more than an re-issuing label and not a production house. Beside that, the list was (at least at the time that I nominated it for deletion) completely unsourced. With the parent company not notable, how can this list be notable? The Banner talk 16:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Previous versions of the list were, as Kn5150 says, referenced... sort of... with 70 links to pages substantially identical to either this or this. I don't think their removal was at all unjustified. —Cryptic 16:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Articles need reliable, independent sources conform WP:RS. A shop is not a reliable source, nor is a link of 88 Films by any means independent. The Banner talk 19:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse deletion. Rationale does not adress unanimous Delete arguments on XfD. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse I see nothing wrong with the deletion discussion or the closure. Hobit (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Strong Endorse. An accusation such as claiming you were "unfairly targeted" is a very serious matter, and an accusation of that sort should not be publicly made without some extremely strong evidence to back it up. As far as I can tell this was a totally routine deletion (the AFD was even relisted twice to solidify consensus and ran nearly a month, so nobody can say it was rushed or done sub rosa). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 November 2016

CybrHome – G11 speedy deletion endorsed. –  Sandstein  06:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
CybrHome (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Reason for undeletion was discussed on RHaworth talk page to which RHaworth has agreed. See here. Created undeletion request since the admin suggested me to post on DRV before restoration of page. Kindly restore the page as I want to read and update it.106.51.129.187 (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC) I recommend that people wanting to create articles WP:Register. Apart from benefits to the person, it greatly aids communication between the community and the person. This applies especially for authors of articles on topics that can be perceived as promotional. Note that CybrHome will need to meet the higher-than-normal standard explained at WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC) SmokeyJoe To add some facts, the article was already there for few months with citations and full factual content, nothing was promotional. Several editors had worked on building the page. It was mistakenly deleted by an admin as this article is about a global website but operated by an Asian company (and was relatively new on wiki, few months old) and the admin was perhaps an European, so there was confusion around notability issues may be. Also the site is popular among entrepreneurs and developers and not so much among common users. Think of it like the Product Hunt for websites. I think it already meets notability standards, I have seen WPCORP. So yes I also agree with 106.51.129.187 that this page should be restored. Thanks! DataManiac (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC) This was not "mistakenly deleted", and far from "nothing was promotional", though I'd have been more likely to delete as an A7 than a G11 (at least, if none of the reference bombing turned out to be from a reliable source - none of the links I spot-checked were). Endorse. —Cryptic 15:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse reasoning given is either false ("mistakenly deleted"[nope.]) or nonsensical ("the admin was perhaps an European"[WTF?]). No valid reasoning given to overturn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse per User:Cryptic and Andrew, no sign that the nominator or the supporter appreciate the issues of promotional content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC) List Sorry if there was some confusion but what I meant by 'mistakenly deleted' was that the admin suspected notability issues and promotional content because it was about a product and not a very old article. Given that new products, companies and people and always primary suspects on promotional content, spam etc. the admin deleted it assuming destructive changes to wiki like promotion, spam or lack of notability. I do not mean he accidentally hit the delete button, but as he mentioned during my discussion with him, he admitted deletion was a bit borderline and agreed to restore. By European, I am not highlighting regionalism or anything if you just assumed that. What I meant was since the admin is from UK, he is not in touch with the regions where this product is primarily used or media where this product was published - viz. India, Silicon valley etc. or the citations (since most of them were Indian national but not European/UK). Kindly take things positively here and please do not use foul language. Thanks for your replies. I'd like to work more on the article add more about notability and more citations. Please restore and let me work. I feel the article was proper, sane and helpful for Wikipedia community. You can also check CybrHome's official website or feel free to google it and research more about it. Thanks everyone. DataManiac (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Said the Sky – Userfied – Spartaz Humbug! 06:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Said the Sky (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Said the Sky was deleted because of the reason stated by the nominator; "Notability unable to be established". However, that was one month ago. This musician is now notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. This article has now met the criteria for musicians and ensembles (#2); "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". This musician has a song charted on two Billboard (US) charts; "Dance/Electronic Digital Songs" and "Hot Dance/Electronic Songs". As per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS, the mentioned charts are acceptable. Apparently the closing admin is "on vacation" and I have posted on their talk page but I came here because I think they won't respond anytime soon. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Do you know of any significant coverage in reliable sources? If so, could you list the 3 or 4 best sources you know of? Hobit (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Here's a list. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC) The first two aren't significant coverage (just membership on a list). The 3rd is A) not a reliable source and B) not clear how it's relevant. The 4th is a list of coverage, but a quick spot check turns up no significant coverage in a reliable source. Hobit (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Here's two recent ones/ and another one, significant coverage + reliable sources (for electronic music). - TheMagnificentist (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Weak endorse I'm not inclined to say that showing up on the lower reaches of the Digital Dance Songs or similar minor charts is enough to make one a notable musician by itself. It's certainly a start though, and perhaps we'll be able to get this one restored at some point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC) don't overturn While the subject may meet a SNG, no significant coverage in a reliable source has been found, so WP:N isn't close to being met, which is required by the SNG (criteria for musicians and ensembles). Hobit (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse. See User:JzG/And the band played on.... Guy (Help!) 00:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Userfy I was the admin who deleted it. I was away so I missed the request on my talk page. My suggestion, and what I would have done if I had been here, is to userfy the article to TheMagnificentist so they can improve the article and add their new information. When they have it in what they believe to be notable condition, I will solicit advice about whether it is likely to be retained this time. (The comments here about the new sources are not encouraging.) If the revised article is significantly different from the deleted version, and appears to have a better shot at notability, it could be moved to mainspace for a new evaluation. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Comment: That'll be great. I'm okay with that. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Since no one has objected, I will go ahead and userfy the article and consider this request closed. --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Emma Swift – Looks like it has been unprotected so all done here I think – Spartaz Humbug! 06:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Emma Swift (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This title has been salted after multiple speedy deletions and the involvment last year of multiple paid editors. I would like it unprotected to allow the creation of an article. I have no connection to the previous attempts and I have created a draft at Draft:Emma Swift. Subject is a ARIA Award nominee, satisfying WP:MUSICBIO#8. Last deleting admin is retired so I have come here. Thanks. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Ping HJ Mitchell. Thincat (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Allow re-creation. Duffbeerforme is a music expert, ARIA Awards are significant, and the reasoning is sound. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC) allow re-creation I'm not certain this would pass at AfD, but it's a new article, written by an established editor, that has some sourcing and appears to meet a SNG. No objections to a listing at AfD, but the reasons for salting don't apply here, so it should be allowed. Hobit (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Looks ok to me. User:HJ Mitchell has not been online much lately so I will go ahead and unsalt it; I don't think he would object. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC) No objection. This was well over a year ago and I don't remember the incident (it was probably an RfPP request) so there's no need to defer to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 November 2016

End-Year Chart 2015 (Romania) – Withdrawn. —Cryptic 16:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
End-Year Chart 2015 (Romania) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This page consists of wrong data (only). As I stated in the AFD discussion, this article is based on a wrong source - http://www.mediaforest.ro/Charts/Chart2015s.aspx - which is for summer chart only, not "End-Year", and thus there is wrong info. For End-Year chart the correct source is http://www.mediaforest.ro/Charts/Chart2015.aspx After 3 months I see no changes; that page still exist with the same wrong information. I consider we can't keep here such articles in Wikipedia's main namespace. XXN, 17:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC) As noted in the deletion discussion, why can't you just update the page with the complete information? Hut 8.5 19:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Sorry, but I don't understand why should I do this? There are many other drafts and newly created articles that are below the Wikipedia standards and/or have any other major problems, thus being considered unkeepable and (speedy-)deleted. There is much to work on, and I don't have in plans (and time, interest) to do it. --XXN, 19:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Articles are only deleted here if either they have a fundamental problem which cannot be addressed through normal editing, such as the article subject not being notable. The only exceptions to this are a very limited set of very serious problems which make the article actively harmful, such as copyright violations. What you're describing here is a problem that can be fixed through normal editing. Wikipedia's deletion processes aren't intended to be cleanup tools. You obviously are willing to put in the effort of repeatedly trying to get the page deleted. Hut 8.5 20:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC) I strongly disagree. And I have valid reasons for this. Yet, this page HAS a fundamental problem, and not only one: It consists only of wrong data. No valid version exists in page history. There is not needed an update, but to completely rewrite the page (it was created already "outdated"). And seems that original author is not interested at all in this ([13]). "Through normal editing" you can even transform a hoax (with a valid title only) into an acceptable article, or you can rewrite in English an article originally posted in a foreign language here on en.wp, but we are not doing such things — such pages are speedy-deleted (at least aren't kept for months and years)! That's why I continue to consider this article is not keepable in this form. --XXN, 21:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC) If you think this is not the right place to discuss this, may this page be converted to an AFD? --XXN, 21:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Rather than spend more time arguing about abstract points I've just updated the list to draw from the source you linked to. Happy? Hut 8.5 12:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC) It's OK now. Thanks for work done and sorry for having taken your precious time (but it was your choice to do this:) ). I think this discussion can be closed. --XXN, 15:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse with no prejudice towards immediate renomination. There was no delete !vote so I feel overturning isn't warranted. Make the case again at AfD if you feel strongly. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse but chart does look wrong to me. I have asked the person who created the article if they would like to comment (or correct the article!).[14] Thincat (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Comment - I think this discussion can be closed. Nothing more to do here I guess.. —UY Scuti Talk 15:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 November 2016

Black Metaphor – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Black Metaphor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I first attempted to reach out to admin Sarahj2107 to resolve this matter. According to the AfD discussion, Black Metaphor’s wiki references were in question of lacking content from secondary sources and containing trivial content. Below I have gathered coverage from multiple published secondary sources per WP:BASIC. Black Metaphor is a RIAA certified gold music producer in the United States by way his song “In God We Trust” on Dreams and Nightmares. Also, Black Metaphor has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio and music television network including Atlanta’s radio station V103 and VH1’s popular Love and Hip Hop Atlanta. These are only a few mentions of many that can be confirmed on BMI’s website [15]. He also is confirmed be one of the most prominent representatives of soulful hip hop sampling producers in Atlanta [16]. These 3 facts makes him notable according to WP:MUSICBIO. Here are the secondary sources that will build and improve the original article: Black Metaphor XXL Black Metaphor Pigeons and Planes Black Metaphor HotNewHipHop Prominent Mainstream Producers Here are other supplementary secondary resources that verify Black Metaphor’s music notability: BMI link: Black Metaphor BMI All Music link: Black Metaphor All Music [17] Rapper Jeezy mentions Black Metaphor at1:03 [18] Black Metaphor Billboard [19] Black Metaphor - Jeezy featuring The Game and Rick Ross -Beautiful Review [20] Black Metaphor - Boosie Interview [21] Black Metaphor - Karen Civil Peacemvmt1 (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse the situation doesn't appear to have changed significantly since the AFD closed less than a month ago. Primary claim to notability is as a producer on one song on another artist's album--that's just not enough for an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse. This artist may develop into a notable figure but right now the bar is a bit above his achievements. The cited sources show that he exists, but they don't show that he is discussed to a significant degree. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse the new sources don't significantly address the issues presented at AfD. If at some point in the future the artist becomes notable, recreation could happen then. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Comment According to Wikipedia:Notability, “Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The links below follow this notability guideline. Dave East And G Herbo ‘Do It For’ The Streets With A Black Metaphor-Produced Banger (new resource link) Black Metaphor XXL Black Metaphor Pigeons and Planes Black Metaphor HotNewHipHop Prominent Mainstream Producers According to WP:MUSIC Musicians or ensembles (music producers) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: Black Metaphor meets 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, & 11 . WP:MUSIC states BMI is a reputable source to verify. The claims above are verified by his BMI and All Music links. BMI link: Black Metaphor BMI All Music link: Black Metaphor All Music Here is the RIAA gold certified link for the “Dreams and Nightmares” album that includes Black Metaphor’s track “In God We Trust” Black Metaphor RIAA gold certified To meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. The article itself must document notability. Black Metaphor is verifiable, please focus on article improvement for sufficient notability and undelete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemvmt1 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Please stop posting the same set of links over and over again. Getting the article restored would require a substantial additional level of notability since the close of the AFD (which was October 18th). That simply hasn't happened and you're not going to convince anyone by reposting the same things yet again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Comment There is a new secondary link listed from this year. Black Metaphor is affiliated with Rick Ross, Meek Mill, French Montana, Young Jeezy, The Game, and Jim Jones. The uproxx article includes his name in the title and he has a mention in billboard. A producer that makes the music for the song is insignificant? How does that make sense and follow guidelines for achieving article improvement? This is belittlement of accomplishments and verifiable achievements. Selling half a million records is a recognized achievement in the U.S. Consistent television features is significant. Having multiple songs on the charts including "do it for -2016" and [pitchfork.com/news/67670-isaiah-rashad-shares-new-song-i-mean-listen/] - Isaiah Rashad is significant. Please explain, how this article does not meet the WP:MUSIC guideline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemvmt1 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 November 2016

Don Allison‎ – Closure undone by closing admin. – Hut 8.5 17:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Don Allison‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Closed with !supervote Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC) The closing admin has reverted this closure [22] [23]. Hut 8.5 17:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Eastern Air Lines Flight 3452 – Endorse. (non-admin closure) – JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Eastern Air Lines Flight 3452 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This incident involved Mike Pence when he was campaigning for the Donald Trump Campaign. Considering the success of the Trump campaign, this probably qualifies as notable now. Joseph Zadeh (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Why? Muffled Pocketed 10:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC) The argument for deletion was that the subject was a briefly significant news story with no lasting importance or coverage. How does Trump winning the election change that? Has the event acquired new importance, or is it getting continuing coverage now? Unless one of those is the case I don't see any need to revisit this. Hut 8.5 13:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse nothing about the election outcome changes the concerns raised at AfD. Pence being VP-elect doesn't have an impact here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse, clear decision, although I personally would have !voted for a redirect to Mike_Pence#2016_vice_presidential_campaign. There is currently some coverage there, and it can be expanded by consensus, with discussions to occur at Talk:Mike_Pence. It should be included at Engineered_materials_arrestor_system#Incidents, with technical information in that article. The status quo appears reasonable, but expansion can be discussed on the article talk pages. There is no case to make for overturning the AfD, or for supporting a stand alone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC) @SmokeyJoe: did you mean to comment on the below DRV about the aircraft incident? Hut 8.5 08:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC) yes, thanks. Hut 8.5. I cut and pasted this thread from above to here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse, I'm not really sure I grasp why the results of the election would overturn an AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 November 2016

Mic Jordan – Moot: The deleting admin has undone the contested speedy deletion and sent the article to AfD. –  Sandstein  10:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mic Jordan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Jordan's page was deleted due to not containing a claim to significance, under the speedy deletion process. To the contrary, the article explicitly included coverage by multiple reliable sources, including Paper and the High Plains Reader. It thus included claims not only to significance but to notability, and should be restored. Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC) I am afraid that I will be absent from Wikipedia until this evening PST, for which I apologize. Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Looks like this has been restored and sent to AfD, so this can be closed. It was a bad speedy btw as it probably meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC) Actually, could an admin go through the deleting admin's deletions in-and-around the time of this deletion? I'm seeing something like 3+ deletions per minute. Given how wrong this one was, I'm worried that there are a lot more. I'm pinging @Anthony Appleyard: as I don't want to be talking behind someone's back... Hobit (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC) @Yadáyiⁿga and Hobit: At 03:21, 7 November 2016‎ User:KATMAKROFAN tagged Mic Jordan for speedy-delete. I was working through a long backlog of speedy deletion requests in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Someone has to do the job, else the backlog piles up. I do look at each page involved, but this one got past me. Sorry. I have heeded the admonition. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC) @Anthony Appleyard: the apology is appreciated, as is your hard work in the backlog. Yadáyiⁿga (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Candyland (musician) – Relist. Normally, my preference when relisting a recently-closed AfD is to reopen the previuos discussion, but there's indication here that the previous discussion was marred by the presence of socks, so starting fresh seems like the right plan here. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Candyland (musician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) "Speechless (Candyland song)" charted on Billboard, and the other two song have sufficient references, as does the short article that I tried to write before it was deleted. The AFD states "No prejudice against recreation if somebody can show notability and create a decent, non-promotional article", which is what I tried to do before it was deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Relist the presence of socks threw off the AfD, and I didn't get a sense that the consensus was for deletion without them. Jax says he is trying to create a non-promotional article. Lets have a second look at it without the socks. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse normally a deleted musician who's since charted would be a slam dunk for a relist, but the "charting" (it was actually only 46 on the dance chart, NOT the mainstream charts) was discussed by several voters in the AFD and didn't change the result. Given the obvious spam/self-promo/socking, I'm disinclined to give any benefit of the doubt to something discussed this recently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Reply - @Starblind:, I may be inclined to agree with you in most cases, however, this article has been blown up and started over due to extensive reference bombing. The new article no longer has reference bombing, has 3 reviews, and if the three songs were merged into this article, it would likely be notable. Therefore, the new article must be judged on its own merits. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus (I am also fine with a relist). Two editors supported deletion: Magnolia677 and duffbeerforme. One editor supported a redirect: David Gerard. One editor supported retention or redirection: Jax 0677. Two editors supported retention: TheMagnificentist and Nikthestunned. I am discounting the "keep" comment from Infopage100, who was blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Infopage100 for being a sockpuppet of TheMagnificentist. I am not discounting the comments from TheMagnificentist, who made policy-based arguments for retention, whose account was created in March 2016 so is not a new account created just to comment in this AfD, and who has been unblocked. Arguments for retention The arguments for retention were that the subject meets WP:NMUSIC for having a charted single on Billboard's Dance/Electronic Songs chart (as argued by Nikthestunned and TheMagnificentist). Jax 0677 endorsed this line of reasoning. From Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles: Musicians or ensembles ... may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: 3. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. From the guideline Wikipedia:Record charts#Suitable charts: A chart is normally considered suitable for inclusion if it meets both of the following characteristics: It is published by a recognized reliable source. This includes any IFPI affiliate, Billboard magazine, or any organization with the support of Nielsen SoundScan. ... It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources. As Nikthestunned noted in the discussion, the subject had a charted single on Billboard's Dance/Electronic Songs chart, which the guideline says is suitable for inclusion. The dance chart "covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources". From http://www.billboard.com/charts/dance-electronic-songs: This week's most popular dance/electronic songs, based on radio airplay audience impressions as measured by Nielsen Music, sales data as compiled by Nielsen Music, club play, and streaming activity data from online music sources tracked by Nielsen Music. Arguments for deletion The arguments for deletion were that the subject failed WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO because the chart failed WP:BADCHARTS (as argued by Magnolia677) and the article was promotional, had excessive reference spamming, failed WP:GNG, and should be deleted per WP:TNT (as argued by duffbeerforme). Conclusion The closing admins incorrectly assessed the consensus: The closing admin cited WP:TNT as one reason for deletion. But there was no consensus in the AfD to delete the article per WP:TNT. Only duffbeerforme supported deletion under WP:TNT. Closing admins should apply WP:TNT only if there is consensus in an AfD to do so. The closing admin cited notability as a second reason for deletion. There was no consensus in the AfD to delete the article for notability reasons because there is a credible argument for retention under WP:MUSICBIO for having a single chart on Billboard magazine's Dance/Electronic Songs chart. Therefore, I support overturning to no consensus. Jax 0677's recreation I support allowing recreation of Jax 0677's rewrite. I am fine with a relist. I recommend history merging User:Jax 0677/Candyland (musician) with Candyland (musician) per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright. Cunard (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 November 2016

Category:Top Gear people – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Top Gear people (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I don't really think the outcome we have is the desired outcome. With only two editors supporting the status quo, four for delete/upmerge (including myself), and one keep but purge, I don't think the correct consensus has been called in this case. Following the "no consensus" close, I purged all articles that fell foul of WP:PERFCAT, but these have been added back in by one of the "keep" camp, which I don't think is really in the spirit of the discussion. I've discussed with the closing admin, who agrees that it's close to a consensus that something should change. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse The discussion was correctly closed by Good Olfactory as no consensus because there was no clear consensus. I voted keep because a discussion had only just finished that resulted in Category:Top Gear presenters being upmerged to this one. As I said then, the outcome of that CfD should be taken into account when considering this category. One of the other people who voted keep actually suggested that Category:Top Gear presenters be recreated and everyone moved back. I'm also more than a little bit concerned about the way Robsinden has gone about trying to get this cat deleted. First he proposed Category:Top Gear presenters and when that didn't end the way he wanted he nominated this cat the same day. After the discussion closed, again not as he wished, he deleted almost everyone from the cat, ignoring the outcome of both CfDs. Now, over a month later he's requesting a deletion review, after the deletions were reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC) The first discussion found that Category:Top Gear presenters failed WP:PERFCAT and was deleted. After upmerging to Category:Top Gear people, the same WP:PERFCAT issues hadn't been resolved, they were just moved to another category. The guideline states "Note also that performers should not be categorized into a general category which groups topics about a particular performance venue or production (e.g. Category:Star Trek), when the specific performance category would be deleted (e.g. Category:Star Trek script writers).", which is exactly the situation the upmerge caused. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC) The first discussion found that the category failed PERFCAT "as-is" and "Several participants noted that they should be in the people category, which would mean there is consensus to upmerge". Clearly it did not find that including the people in the parent category failed PERFCAT, or the category would have just been deleted, without upmerging. And no, Category:Star Trek script writers is not the same. Note that this category is part of a well established "<Foo> people" category tree. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC) endorse I'd tend to agree that PERFCAT would have us get rid of this category. I also think that for regulars, that's fairly silly. But either way, there was no clear outcome, though IMO deletion would also have been within discretion given the strength-of-argument of each side. Hobit (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse – While I also agree that this category is probably unnecessary (and said so in the discussion), the closer was correct that there was no consensus as to whether PERFCAT applies to the category as a whole. I suggest we move on with a multiple-category nomination for this and similar, a la TV writers by series, with the aim to listify the many program-specific categories that have popped up. Ibadibam (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Consensus was not found for what to do, even if there is arguably a rough consensus for doing something. WP:TROUT the nomination for repeated nominations, noting the brevity of the nominations, and the subsequent purging that smacks of an end run around the nuiscience of others' differing opinions. Recommend a renewed effort on finding agreement on how to fix things. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse because there was no consensus for any specific action. CFD is "categories for discussion", not deletion so things could have been continued but maybe in a different forum. WP:PERFCAT is sometimes misused, as in this case. It is presented as an aspect of overcategorization which says "One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics" as so PERFCAT is not intended to be used to remove categories where the concept is defining for a performer. Performers ought to be categorised by their defining characteristics. Following the discussion it was at best controversial and was probably wrong to remove Hammond and May from the category.[24][25] Removal was unlikely to be accepted as a "desired outcome". Thincat (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC) PERFCAT is there precisely to remove categories like this, as the general consensus for years has been a preference to handle this information in articles and lists, since a show's page usually contains a cast and crew list already, and a performer's page includes a filmography or other list of appearances, so it's redundant to create a parallel categorization system. And WP:NONDEF specifically points out that any characteristic that falls under the overcategorization guideline is inherently non-defining, so it's impossible for a concept to be "defining for a performer", as you argue. Ibadibam (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC) Relist Relisting is the better course for an aberrant decision that needs further attention. CFD like the other XfD processes is used both for deletion and for discussions leading to other outcomes, and have always been used for both purposes. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC) Endorse – PERFCAT does not overrule the fundamental purpose of categorisation, namely to capture defining characteristics, and it is simply false to maintain that 'Top Gear' is not defining for the likes of May, Hammond, Clarkson. Oculi (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.