Yulia Petrovna Vrevskaya – Clear consensus emerging and we don't undelete copyvios. To be clear a new article written from scratch using the sources but not closely paraphrasing them is not only encouraged but permitted. That can just be created without further discussion. – SpartazHumbug! 11:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Incorrectly deleted as G12 COPYVIO. Article was paraphrased from Russian sources - not a copy. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 07:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting admin comment - I went to the first Google hit for Vrevskaya, hit "translate", and it was 99% word-for-word, with only very minor grammatical changes. It was "paraphrased" only in that not every sentence was copied over, just every other one. Primefac (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of vaguely endorse, sort-of. I don't know exactly where paraphrasing ends and copyright violation / plagiarism begins. Reading WP:Close paraphrasing, I think this has crossed over the line to plagiarism. Added to the uncertainty, of course, is the question of what it means to plagiarize a machine-generated translation. For example, compare these two paragraphs:
from the deleted text:
Yulia Petrovna Vrevskaya, also known as Julia Petrovna (born 1838 or 1841 in Lubny, Poltava province) Her parents were, the commander of the Separate Reserve Cavalry Division, Lieutenant-General Petr Evdokimovich Varpakhovsky and Karolina Ivanovna (née Blekh).
Julia Petrovna Vrevskaya. Born January 25 (1838 or 1841) in Lubny, Poltava province in the family of the participant of the Battle of Borodino, commander of the Separate Reserve Cavalry Division, Lieutenant-General Petr Evdokimovich Varpakhovsky and Karolina Ivanovna (nee Blekh).
Copy? Paraphrase? Beats me. I don't read Russian. For all I know, somebody who is fluent in both Russian and English might do a better translation and find greater similarity. Or less. Lacking a more definitive answer, I think we should err on the side of conservatism and keep this deleted, with no prejudice against somebody writing a new version from scratch, to avoid any possible copyright questions. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect to the other editors here, and the difficulties with this, this is not a copyright violation and is paraphrased, for example the first paragraph you show there has similarities in standard titles like; her name, where she born:"in Lubny, Poltava province". the fathers name: "Commander of the Separate Reserve Cavalry Division, Lieutenant-General Petr Evdokimovich Varpakhovsky", the mothers name: "Karolina Ivanovna (née Blekh)". It will of course be similar to the machine translation of a similar biography. It is not the same. To avoid any possible issues I will write it again, but switch things round a bit to avoid it looking so much like the autotranslate. Translation is not the easiest thing to assess, even to autotranslate, google has used algorithms to change the grammar significantly from the original text. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 13:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's good that you're willing to re-write this, but I'm concerned about your statement that you'll, switch things round a bit to avoid it looking so much like the autotranslate. The goal isn't to just shuffle the words and sentences from one source. The idea is to start with a collection of works about this person, extract the facts, and then write a new article which presents those facts. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That did occur to me, I going to try and find something else with some extra information, the main issue is that source is quite a complete biography. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 14:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse a paraphrase can be a copyright violation, and its close enough here based on Google Translate to qualify as one in my view. Do not restore, we'd have to revdel everything until it was fixed. If someone wants to email the OP the text, so that they have a basis for their retranslating in line with copyright law, that would be acceptable. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having the text would be appreciated. Dysklyver 07:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't restore copyvios, or even suspected copyvios, even for DRV. Lankiveil(speak to me) 09:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Lankiveil, yes, if my comment suggested restoring on-wiki, it wasn't meant as such. I was under the impression that we could email the text of G12'd articles, however. I know I've seen Diannaa do it in the past at least. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the article with text from ru-wiki and uk-wiki. Dysklyver 09:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-deleted that. Similar to the original, that's a close paraphrase of [1]. Some of the wording has changed, but it's basically sentence-for-sentence, parargaph-for-paragraph from the source. It also uses File:Vrevskaya-u.jpg, which is taken from that same source. There's an assertion that the image is public domain, but I'm not enough of a copyright expert to know if that assertion is correct or not. -- RoySmith(talk) 11:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems highly probable that the ru & uk wiki articles are also copyvios if this is, since that newest incarnation was a direct copy of them (translated). It appears these sources are published by the The Likhachev Foundation and are part of this, my Russian is not quite good enough to understand what the copyright situation is on those, but the image appears to be an out-of copyright photograph from the national library of Russia, I have no reason to assume it is under copyright. Dysklyver 12:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may very well be that the RU and UK articles are also copyvios, but each wiki makes their own rules and processes (subject, of course, to the underlying mediawiki foundation requirements). Somebody should follow that up with the appropriate processes on those wikis, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. At least on EN, we have a conservative view of copyright issues; when in doubt, we assume we can't use it. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this was, at minimum, a very close paraphrase from the linked source or something very like it. This goes much further than translations of different biographies with similar material, there were large chunks of text in the deleted article which were essentially identical to the machine translation of the claimed source. Hut 8.5 10:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, at the time I was not able to find the source of copyvio, but the article certainly looked like machine translation from Russian (Poltava province instead of Poltava Governorate and a zillion of similar issues).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Page deleted without real debate DanielFarad (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page was deleted after a 2 against 1 vote debate over notability and I believe the people involved were not familiar with the video production field.
The guy is a well established video director and is recognized worldwide, having worked with the biggest bands and artists.
Please find here a list of references about Awards and nominations, interviews and news:
Awards and Nominations
Skrillex and Wiwek - Killa ft. Elliphant (Still In The Cage)
Berlin Music Video Awards 2016; Won for "Best Editor" [1]
Juno awards 2017; Nomination for "Video of the year" [2]
Zedd - Clarity
MTV Video Music Awards 2013; Nomination for "Artist to Watch" [3]
Deftones - You've Seen the Butcher
Antville Music Video Awards 2010; Nomination for "Best performance video" [4]
The New cities - Dead End, Countdown
Much music awards 2009; Nomination for "Post-Production of the Year" [5]
Imagine Dragons - I bet my life
Camerimage 2015; Nomination for "Best Music Video" [6],[7]
While this is an interesting question, it has nothing at all to do with whether the AfD was correctly decided. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a temp undelete to evaluate the difference between the sources in the article at the time of discussion and those presented above? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article temp undeleted. ATraintalk 12:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support @Jclemens:. I am definitely not a frequent contributor but I feel like there's much more energy put in trying to find one good reason to delete the page instead of finding one to keep it. I don't see why there's even a debate over this. 10 minutes on Google should do it... Here are other references I found on Alternative Press[1], Shots[2], IndieWire[3], Short of the Week[4], Pitchfork[5], Billboard[6], i-D[7].
Relist to consider an argument under WP:NMUSIC 8 for being nominated for a Juno. That wasn't discussed at the AfD. Bearcat made a de factoWP:DEL7 argument, which arguably isn't true anymore because of the sourcing provided above. A new AfD should be willing to consider whether or not the subject meets the subject specific guidelines, and whether that presumption of notability is enough to merit inclusion. I would strongly oppose overturning, because three established good faith editors reviewed the work, and agreed on deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielFarad: could you please answer my question, asked above? Do you have any relationship with the subject of this article? -- RoySmith(talk) 14:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith I really think that question is tacky and shouldn't need to be answered by any editor. Asking it is inherently ABF, isn't it? If you've got evidence, then by all means bring it up in a different noticeboard--my understanding is that DRV is for content issues, not user problems. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a perfectly legitimate question. And, actually, it's WP:AGF. I'm assuming that as somebody with limited experience on wikipedia, they may not be aware of WP:COI and the importance of disclosing any conflicts. If any such conflicts exist, then I'm helping them to be in compliance with our policies. If no such conflict exists, then all they need do is say so. I would only be assuming bad faith if I assumed that they were aware of the requirement and were intentionally failing to disclose. But I'm not assuming that at all. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith I don't. I come from the same area so I've been hearing about the guy quite a bit. I did create the page in the first place and although it might have suffered from notability at the time, I don't think this is the case anymore.DanielFarad (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the numbers this debate is pointing at "no consensus to overturn", which gives the closer the choice between "endorse by default" and "relist". Bearcat's !vote in the AfD is suggestive of borderline notability and the DRV has come up with some new sources... so "relist" would be the preferable outcome here I think.—S MarshallT/C 16:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Elisa Jordana – Decision endorsed. Near-universal agreement that this was a thoughtful close. ATraintalk 12:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC) – ATraintalk 12:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Robman94's !vote seemed a pretty good argument for retention. That said, the article appears to have serious problems (OWN issues making it a hagiography with exaggerated and/or false claims). Dedicated editors can cause a lot of problems at a borderline biography. Hobit (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - SoWhy clearly explained their rationale in their closing statement, and indeed it is apparent that there was roughly even disagreement as to the acceptability of the various sources provided, and equally even disagreement as to whether these sources established notability. "No consensus" was the correct call. On a purely procedural note, it doesn't appear that the requester of the review attempted to discuss with the closer at all before bringing this here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Ivanvector. I see no other way someone could have closed this, and SoWhy explained the rationale thoroughly. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - an excellent closing rationale to a difficult AfD, nice work Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a correct reading of the discussion. Consider starting a merge/redirect discussion... Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Holly Neher – Endorse, but restore. General agreement here that the original AfD close was fine (hence, endorse), but additional coverage since then has emerged (and some better research has surfaced some additional earlier coverage). I'm going to restore this to mainspace. If anybody still thinks it doesn't pass muster, they can bring it back to AfD again. – -- RoySmith(talk) 15:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, can you list the four or five best sources that came out after the AfD (or weren't part of the article or discussed in the AfD)? Hobit (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
USA Today "Hollywood Hills (Fla.) junior Holly Neher may have been the first girl to start a game at QB in high school football history"
Bleacher Report "This 5'2" Female Quarterback Is Making High School Football History"
Sun-Sentinel "Hills QB Holly Neher cashes in on historic start with 51-27 win over Pompano Beach"
Miami Herald "Hollywood Hills’ Holly Neher becomes first female starting quarterback in Florida"
All of these articles discuss the individual in more detail and include coverage of subsequent events.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. "She is also believed to be the first female to do so in the entire state of Florida and possibly in the United States." "... could not say for sure if Neher's pass was truly the first time a female high school player threw a touchdown pass, but after completing research they "believe it could be"". This sort of speculation does not belong in an encyclopedia. It is all basically "human interest", tabloid coverage, and neither news nor encyclopedic material DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an example, see the article Wright brothers which states "The Wright brothers... were two American brothers, inventors, and aviation pioneers who are generally credited[1][2][3] with inventing, building, and flying the world's first successful airplane." There are many sports precedents too, including Forward pass where it is written "Most sources credit St. Louis University's Bradbury Robinson from Bellevue, Ohio with throwing the first legal forward pass." There are many more.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to argue that we care about coverage for a topic, less so for what the coverage is about. And in particular this would be a very hard thing to confirm (there are a lot of high schools in Florida and a lot of years they've been playing football) so of course there must be language like "believed to be" in such a news story. Hobit (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse it was deleted less than a month ago: its still a BLP1E situation. Given that she is a high school student and high school athletes tend to get a lot of coverage in the US that we routinely don't count towards notability, I would say to come back after she graduates high school unless there is a lot of ongoing non-routine coverage of her. Even then, it would likely need to be in 6-12 months for there to be a claim that BLP1E doesn't apply and for it to be worth going through another AfD to sort out the issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How many events need to occur to get past the "one event" bar? 1) Significant coverage for the pre-season; 2) significant coverage for the first game; 3) award from Miami Dolphins; 4) Coverage leading up to second game including speculation of starting; 5) starting and results of second game; 6) aftermath (so far) of other stories crediting Neher. Six events may be a stretch for some editors, but we're clearly past "one" event. WP:BLP2E is not a policy. My goodness, look at the coverage!--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably until after high school is over. See WP:NHSPHSATH, which excludes all of the sourcing you provided above as counting towards notability. If they are still talking about her high school sports after she graduates, it will be sustained. If we didn't hold high school athletes to this higher standard of coverage, literally every high school quarterback in the United States would have an article. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two points: 1) that's a guideline and not policy, and 2) WP:NHSPHSATH limits exclusions to school papers and local paper sports summaries. Feature articles like the many covering the subject clearly still count.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"literally every high school quarterback in the United States would have an article". Not sure that's true. A lot of them don't get detailed, featured articles. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn 1E was wrongly decided by a bunch of people referencing it, even when it didn't apply. WP:WI1E has been used to sort this out, and somewhat improved since I wrote it. While there may be a lot of 'firsts' going to young women in sports, the solution isn't to suppress them pretextually and continue systemic bias: let her have an article, and merge it into a list of such pioneers if she doesn't progress further with it. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E doesn't really apply. As Paul notes, she'd gotten non-trivial coverage before the "event" of throwing the touchdown. The only way we can get to BLP1E IMO is if we treat her season as the "event". And I think that's going too far. overturnrestore. Though it wasn't an unreasonable close at the time, continued coverage of more than one event means we are over that bar. And WP:NHSPHSATH is, IMO, overcome by the fact that it is only about local and school sources (as well as routine coverage in stats and the like). This coverage is clearly not that. Hobit (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be cause for immediate relisting at best, not overturning a correctly closed AfD based on the discussion. If this were to get sent to AfD it'd probably have less than a 50% chance of survival still. I don't personally see any sourcing that would get past BLP1E and NHSPHSATH, and would prefer endorsing rather than another AfD, but a new AfD with more eyes is preferable to the limited crowd we get here dissecting the sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to moving the discussion to a different forum. I only placed it here because I believed it to be the proper place per WP:DRV #3: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;"--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist vs. overturn is a reasonable discussion here. Given the new sources, I don't think the old !votes should really be part of the discussion. So a relist would probably be a "procedural AfD" at this point. And _those_ I prefer to avoid (why do we have an AfD if no one is willing to nominate it for deletion?). So I guess "overturn", "relist" and "overturn and list at AfD" are all reasonable given the situation, I just think a pure overturn (with leave to list at AfD to make it clear that DRV isn't saying we'd overturn any deletion outcome because we wouldn't) is the best option of the three but I'm okay with any of them. Hobit (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair disagreement: I don't think the new sources change anything, so think the previous participants comments should not be discarded (and the outcome endorsed). FWIW, if this were overturned/put in main space I'd be willing to send it to AfD immediately, but I think "allow recreation" would be a better way of phrasing your point than "overturn". It implies the BLP1E claim and close of less than a month ago were wrong: allowing someone to recreate it is a different outcome IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the original outcome was reasonable at the time. Changed to restore as I think that's better than allowing recreation (no one objected to the content of the old article as far as I can tell, so starting over seems unneeded). Hobit (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection. I stand by the prior close but if new sources are available or were missed in the previous AfD allowing recreation - or even just restore with the draft text - is eminently reasonable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nullify the AfD This is another example of an AfD where notability with breaking news is a moving target. Had the article been speedily incubated and the mainspace title salted for one to two weeks, and the AfD procedurally closed; a new and better-informed AfD could be running right now, instead of having the effects of the ill-informed AfD at DRV. In spite of the intense participation, I suggest nullifying the AfD. This means that the userspace draft can be moved to mainspace, although I'd suggest waiting until November, and any editor has the option to start a new AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore I argued during the AfD that BLP1E did not apply, but the consensus was against me then and the AfD was appropriately closed as delete. However, there is now even further evidence of notability due to continuing coverage and it is becoming clear that we are beyond the stage of BLP1E. Lepricavark (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. The first clause excludes all school papers and school websites that cover their sports teams and other teams they compete against. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability.
The articles from USA Today and the Miami Herald are independent of the subject. The sources clearly go beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage in that they extensively profile the subject.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
italki – "Delete" closure endorsed. There's no consensus as to whether the draft at User:Kshanghai/Italki is now suitable for inclusion. Accordingly, if it is moved back to main space, it can be contested through a new AfD. – Sandstein 09:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to the process of Wikipedia editing and deletion reviews. I'll do my best to make the case correctly.
Recommending the reinclusion of italki (the language education service) from deletion, using this page as content User:Kshanghai/Italki.
Previous versions of the page were not well referenced WP:RS, and did not meet the standards for objectivity WP:NPOV, notability WP:GNG, and for being too close to corporate promotion WP:CORPSPAM.
New page content tries to address this by: 1. Rewriting the previous text to be simpler, and more neutral. 2. Adding references for sources that are reputable, including major news organizations and industry blogs that cover technology or language education WP:RS. 3. Removed text that could be viewed as promotional.
Using criteria of neutrality and notability, removing italki from Wikipedia seems inconsistent. It is arguably the largest company in this segment, and significantly smaller companies are included in Wikipedia. For disclosure of conflicts of interest, I am employed by the company. WP:AVOIDCOI
Note: I've fixed up the header to include this as the XfD link -- RoySmith(talk) 11:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse for now. Thank you for writing the draft; having a concrete draft to look at makes these discussions simpler. However, I'm afraid I don't think the sources meet our requirements. I scanned the list of references. Many of these appear to be routine announcements of funding events. I found three titles that looked promising and read them in more detail. Online alternatives to language classrooms open up to students (The Guardian) and Secrets of Leaning a Language - Quickly (BBC) are both articles about the general topic of learning languages, and mention Italki only in passing. The 10 best language products (Independent) is a directory-style listing. Please read WP:CORPDEPTH; none of these meet the requirements set out there. It would be useful if you could list here the two or three and no more sources which you believe best meet WP:CORPDEPTH. -- RoySmith(talk) 11:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By endorsing the AfD, which was not being contended, your !vote has opened up the whole can of worms that was the AfD, yet you've not contacted the closer. Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I′m keeping an eye on this. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of the comments. @RoySmith: I've been trying to find the best articles that would fit the criteria. In other Wikipedia articles, I've found that editors seem to focus on the mainstream publications. My sense of the most important articles, and this is just an opinion.
Google Book search for italki has 2000+ references. They mention italki in its role for providing human teachers for language learning.
@Unscintillating: I communicated with filelakeshoe briefly before resubmitting here. Sorry, I should have noted that earlier. Kshanghai (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The e27 piece (the one you call Tech News) is a recycled press release. It shows up on Deal Street Asia a day earlier. Articles based on press releases don't count for anything. The two Guardian pieces are both articles about learning languages in general and only mention italki in passing. One of those, in fact, is exactly the source I already commented on above, as being unusable. -- RoySmith(talk) 07:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse new article, overturn AFD to noquorum softdelete, trout User:CAPTAIN_RAJU for relist #3, and trout User:TheSandDoctor for relist #4. Note that CORPSPAM is an op-ed, i.e., a blog by a Wikipedia editor. None of the participants has shown results from WP:BEFORE. Without even talking about Google web, Google news, and Google books; a look at the first page of Google scholar shows a persistent long-running interest by the world of academia. For example, the first link from 2010 states, "...[the] five most popular language learning social networks, Livemocha, italki, ChinesePod, MayHappyPlanet, and xLingo." The next four links feature "italki" in the title of the source. As a multi-language topic, sources from around the world include languages that don't use the Roman alphabet, which was not even mentioned in the AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse agreed that the relisting was pointless, and it should have been soft deleted much earlier, but it did have a full quorum (which these days we count as two !votes). I don't see a reason to overturn to soft delete since three editors endorsed deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, the sources provided by Cunard below do not change my opinion. I wouldn't oppose a relist, but I do oppose DRV being turned into AfD 2.0. The deletion was good on its merits, and the sourcing provided is not enough information to lead us to believe that it clearly would have survived AfD. If people think that the sourcing below is enough to support an article, a relist is better. DRV's job is to evaluate process, while AfDs job is to evaluate sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRVPURPOSE #3 is for "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;" Are you requiring OPs to submit petitions here under WP:DRVPURPOSE #1, "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;"? Unscintillating (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I also believe that when three AfD regulars agree to delete an article for reasons other than notability they also likely did a WP:BEFORE search. To turn DRV into an assessment of sourcing that they likely already reviewed is not part of the purpose of DRV, and AfD does it better than we do here. DRVPURPOSE3 involves things like new information coming to light that a subject actually met an SNG criteria, or it was deleted on grounds that non-English sourcing was unlikely, and someone then finds sourcing. There is nothing new here that if presented would have been likely to change the AfD outcome to the point where overturning is justified. I wouldn't be opposed to restoration and then immediately relisting at AfD by the closing admin here, however, but it is not my first choice. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe for a second that any of those three editors checked Google Scholar. Only the first editor reports looking for sources. I think an experienced editor doing a WP:BEFORE D1 with this topic might have skipped Google scholar. The second reported the irregular CORPSPAM, which fits in with WP:IAR based on article content, and does not report any source search or notability concerns, so might not have felt a need to make a source search. For the third editor, I checked their last 21 AfDs, and they never report that they have found a source. That leads to the deduction that they don't say that they've looked for sources because they aren't looking for sources, at least enough to have added a source to the AfD. In summary, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS is not based on vote counting. Unscintillating (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what WP:BEFORE D1 says, as of in permlink [2]
D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability
The point is to show that Google Scholar is not part of the basic WP:BEFORE D1 search for a non-academic subject. Unscintillating (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And is there evidence that any of the participants considered and rejected sources that are presumably available in Arabic, Greek, Hebrew, Hindi, Indonesian, Japanese, Persian, Swahili, Thai, and Vietnamese? Unscintillating (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow mainspacing the draft, and let anyone who disagrees with the new article take it to AfD again. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I don't think the draft would survive another AfD, the best looking sources in it only mention the subject in passing and the rest are funding announcements. However it is a lot better than the AfDed version and I don't see any harm in giving it another chance. I don't have a problem with the close of the first AfD, while it shouldn't have been relisted so many times it was proper to close as delete rather than soft delete with the participation it (eventually) got. Hut 8.5 06:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As detailed above, I don't think the new sources are useful. On the other hand, AfD is a better place to evaluate sources than DRV, so I wouldn't be opposed to restoring this and immediately listing it at AfD to get the new sources evaluated. @Kshanghai: really should respond to my request call out the best sources for evaluation; we're being asked to do work to evaluate this; the nominator should at least meet us half-way by doing a little work to make our jobs easier. I agree that four relists was pointless. I'm happy to hand out a couple of micro-minnows for the relists, but trying to rewind history and say, what would we have done if the relists never happened is equally silly. We're here, and we should evaluate the article we've got now. -- RoySmith(talk) 11:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I apologize to all the editors about my slow response. I have been traveling and in the Asia timezone. I've tried to respond to all of the comments above, and I agree that the original poster should do more of the work. I've tried to put the best sources above. Kshanghai (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard's sources below are much better than what was in the draft, and are IMO easily enough to justify restoring the article or reconsidering it at AfD. Hut 8.5 17:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to agree with Roy that this doesn't pass WP:N. The sources are startup stuff, press releases, and passing mentions. That said, this is a well written article (verging on a stub) that has encyclopedic value. I'd personally prefer we keep things like this around. Hobit (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: I hope that the article can be kept. My sense is there is not a perfect set of 2-3 articles that would prove the notability (WP:N) of the service. There are many, many mentions. If this article is removed on WP:N, there are other companies similar to italki that are smaller and arguably less noteworthy. I know that's not an argument in itself, but it's worrying from the perspective of impartiality (WP:NPOV, WP:IMPARTIAL)Kshanghai (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved Kshanghai's reply to Hobit to be right below Hobit's post (instead of below my post). Kshanghai, please move it back if that's not your intention. Cunard (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following up to my own comment (which lacks a bold !vote), I'm now at endorse but restore deletion was reasonable at the time, but while none of the sources identified by Cunard seem to be hugely in-depth, they are, together, enough to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And following up my follow up per Cunard's request. Source 1 is quite in-depth. Source 6 is fairly in-depth. The others are not so impressive. But for our purposes, the answer is that there is enough sourcing to restore and let someone list if they want. The original close was correct IMO given the sources known and that discussion. Hobit (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Three editors supported deletion. No editors supported retention. A "delete" close is reasonable.
filelakeshoe's interaction with Kshanghai
Thank you, filelakeshoe (talk·contribs) for your advice and guidance to inexperienced editor, Kshanghai (talk·contribs). While reviewing AfDs at DRV, I have seldom seen closing admins provide such caring and empathetic help to new users who ask why their article has been deleted. You explained why the article had been deleted and what needed to be done to overcome deletion. You userfied the article, provided feedback about the rewritten draft, and copyedited it to make it more neutral. This is admirable behavior. I hope you continue doing this. It improves the encyclopedia and makes new users (and experienced editors) feel more welcome and motivated to contribute content.
Analysis of sources
italki was studied and written about extensively in the peer-reviewed journal Teaching English with Technology, which is published by International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language Poland. italki received a substantial profile in a Sina Corp article written in Chinese. It received significant coverage in the Harmony Books–published book Fluent Forever: How to Learn Any Language Fast and Never Forget It and the John Wiley & Sons–published book Social Networking for the Older and Wiser: Connect with Family and Friends, Old and New. GeekDad's Luke Nailer reviewed italki.
The article looks at language learner autonomy as a social construct in relation to the context and its user based on the example of "Italki", a social networking site for tandem language learning. Considering the two foci--the context and the learner--the study is divided into two parts, both carried out from the perspective of online ethnography, each utilising different techniques and tools. Part 1, based on participatory observation and user experience of the author, was aimed at investigating the context of "Italki" as a language learning environment. Its affordances, noted in the course of the study, are analysed against the three aspects of social learner autonomy (Murray 2014): emotional, political, and spatial, in order to investigate the potential of Italki for interdependent learning. In Part 2 of the study, with its focus on the learner, the data were gathered by means of semi-structured open-ended interviews with "Italki" users (N = 10).
The article notes:
Italki – along with lang8, Buusu, MyLanguageExchange, eToM (electronic Tandem on Moodle), Speaky and many others – is a social networking site designed for tandem language learning. Such learning is based on one-to-one exchanges between speakers of different languages, who partner up to teach each other their mother tongue (or a language in which they are proficient) and to learn the target language from one another (Cziko, 2004). Apart from such language-for-language barter exchanges, portals like Italki offer their users an opportunity to learn with professional teachers for a tuition fee.
...
Italki is an informal service in the sense that it is not part of any institutionalized schooling system. Enrolment and participation are a matter of choice for any user and so is the agenda, which may range from mere exploration through socializing in a foreign language to informal (peer-to-peer) or formal (tutored) language education.
The husband of Barbara Laane, a small town near Elgin in Elgin, is a German, and she wants to learn German; and German is notoriously difficult, if there is no teacher to guide the difficulty of learning Even more By chance, she knew a website called italki, chose one of the many mother tongue teachers, made an online one-on-one paid course, and then fell in love with such online learning.
At present, there are more than 4 million registered users in the world, such as Barbara, there are more than 5,000 native language teachers, and up to 75 languages can be selected. In addition to the big language, there are some very rare Language. In addition to paying online one-on-one courses, italki students can also get free writing changes, language knowledge quiz, while users can also find their language counterparts around the world in italki for language exchange.
The company, which started at the end of 2006, has now grown to be a leader in the industry, providing a one-to-one course for language learners around the world through Skype's global language teacher.
A language exchange community with a well-thought-out payment system. You can use italki to find a professional teacher or untrained tutor in your target language and work with him through email or video chat for extremely low prices. There are free options on the site, which can help you find language exchange partners, but I mostly recommend italki for its paid services.
The book also notes:
italki.com can get you in touch with native speakers, who will talk with you or train you for very small amounts of money or in exchange for an equal amount of time speaking in English. You can spend an hour going through words with them and asking them to correct your pronunciation, which can help immensely.
The book notes:
italki.com brings money to the table, which changes the game dramatically. It can connect you with native speakers and professional teachers, who are willing to chat with you exclusively in your target language. This cuts the English out of your practice sessions and makes them much more efficient. Since these teachers get to work in the comfort of their own homes, they usually charge very little.
Practising with a native speaker is the best way to keep your fluency up in a foreign language, and can also be a friendly way to improve your language skills if you're not yet fluent. Italki makes it easy for you to find study partners who are native speakers of the language you're learning, and who would benefit from your native language (probably English, if you're reading this).
Whatever you want to learn, you're bound to find a partner here: The site has over 450,000 members from 212 countries, who speak over 100 languages.
As well as finding language partners, you can join or start discussion forums (in English, or a foreign language) and can pose or answer questions about language study. There's a wiki for learning languages too, which is an encyclopaedia that anybody (including you) can edit. The ratings will help you to find the well researched and accurate entries. Don't forget the contributions mostly come from other students and might occasionally include errors – don't let their mistakes rub off on you!
The goal of this social network is to create a community where people can learn languages by finding language partners and language resources and develop their language skills by participating in chats, groups, and forums. Dozens of languages are represented on this lively site.
Visiting the italki website and looking through the teachers seems a bit like looking at a Craigslist of language learning. There is a section for language exchange partners that don’t charge anything, but this is something that I am yet to explore. Teachers set their own rates. Depending on the language and where your instructor lives the price could
...
It is possible to go through other channels to find a Skype-based language teacher, but italki does a good job of having many in one place. I also feel like there is a degree of vetting and auditing going on, so I’m confident my teacher is who they say they are. In a few years time I might use italki to find a language tutor for my daughter if she’s enthusiastic about her language class at school.
One thing I found challenging with italki was that, after buying a batch of lessons, when I wanted to book a new lesson I kept getting redirected to buy new batches. This was annoying; I just wanted to book times for the lessons I’d already paid for. Ultimately I was able to navigate my way around this, but I have found the UI for the booking system to be not very intuitive.
Here is GeekDad's masthead:
Owner/Publisher, Editor-at-Large
Ken Denmead
Editor-in-Chief
Matt Blum
Managing Editor
Z
Senior Editors
Jonathan H. Liu, Jenny Bristol, Corrina Lawson, Patricia Vollmer
The site [Italki] launched in December 2006 with the goal of bringing free language learning to every part of the world, and thus far the site has been translated into 14 languages with more to come. Taking a look at the portions of the the Knowledge system they provided us with, it looks good, and seems it will teach words with easy visual recognition. The only thing that worries me, as with any wiki based system is the accuracy. For all you know, you could think you were learning "Where is the closest ATM?" in Japanese, and actually be saying, "Were is a good place to get mugged?"
That is the idea behind Shanghai-based italki.com, a free social networking website focused on language learning, and Beijing-headquartered Idapted.com, which supports professional language training.
...
Launched last December after receiving its first round of funding in July, italki has joined a nascent group of social networking sites integrated with language-learning services.
Competitors include United States-based Livemocha.com, established in September, and VoxSwap.com, set up in Britain in January.
...
So far, italki has attracted 250,000 registered users. In April alone, the site attracted 45,000 new users. About 20 per cent of its users are from the mainland and the rest spread across the globe, including 7 per cent from the United States, 4 per cent in India and 2 per cent in France.
@Cunard: Thanks very much for showing a new editor what a good case for notability looks like. It's very appreciated. I hope to use that as a reference going forward. Kshanghai (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, Kshanghai (talk·contribs). Thank you for your kind words. Feel free to reach out to me in the future if you would like someone to help review an article or look for sources on a topic. Cunard (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as what takes precedence here is absolutely our policy and that's WP:Not promotion, and it wouldn't matter that an article satisfies a general notability which only suggests the possibilities of an article, not a guarantee, and this itself is in its relevant lead. It certainly cannot be suggested that a consensus was not clear from 2 votes that clearly read the article and noted necessary concerns; that is what we consider sufficient. An example is how the sources above are of the same press releases-nature as the sources before the article was deleted; nothing changed. SwisterTwistertalk 04:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;"
{{db-repost}} clearly is inapplicable after Kshanghai's rewrite. DRV should not deny recreation of an article that has been rewritten and where substantial sources not discussed at the AfD have been presented. If editors disagree that these sources are sufficient to establish notability, then a new AfD should be created.
Editors at AfD specifically said that the article was "poorly referenced WP:CORPSPAM" and "corporate spam on a private company with no indications of notability or significance". The rewritten article addresses the promotional concerns. The two sources I provided above address the notability concerns.
Hobit (talk·contribs) and Hut 8.5 (talk·contribs), you wrote "none of the sources identified by Cunard seem to be hugely in-depth" and "the best looking sources in it only mention the subject in passing and the rest are funding announcements", respectively. Would you review the sources I've provided? When deciding whether to restore/relist or not, the DRV closer likely will put significant weight on your views about the sources. Thank you.
For what my opinion is worth, being WP:INVOLVED as the AfD closer, I would now support restoring this to mainspace. Cunard has convinced me there are enough sources available. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
CRMNEXT – No consensus to overturn the "delete" closure or to recreate the article. – Sandstein 09:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Endorse these sources aren't hugely impressive, to be honest. [3] is a press release, which never counts for determining notability. Several others (e.g. [4]) appear to be press releases or barely changed versions of them. The sources are in any case coverage of client acquisitions which is fairly routine. At least one of those sources was in the article at the time of deletion and would have been taken into account by the AfD participants. We don't particularly care how many users it has. Hut 8.5 18:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Hut 8.5. None of the sourcing presented would have changed the AfD outcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
* Point taken, but the facts published on Economic times and Business standard give credibility to the fact that CRMNEXT is India's first cloud based CRM and has the largest user base per client (or implementation) that is an achievement in itself for a CRM product. In my opinion the number of users does matter and that is how this organization is able to disrupt the market of established players like Oracle, Microsoft and Sales-forceNiK (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This was closed as "delete" despite there not being consensus to delete, in my opinion. I see this as a discussion to decide whether it is better to have ⛹️ target basketball or ball game, and the majority of discussion was in line with that. There were a few delete !votes, but one of them was patently ridiculous (no, the emoji isn't a yo-yo or a severed head) and another was a boilerplate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Finally, a third delete !vote was a bit stronger (although I disagree that it's ambiguous), and the closer used the language of that !vote in their closing rationale. However, the vast majority of discussion does not lend support to this conclusion. For example, I was supportive of a retarget to either basketball or ball game, but I am not supportive of deletion. I feel this should be relisted so I can get clarification from those who participated in the discussion to see whether or not they support deletion (because for the majority of !votes, this was unclear). --Tavix(talk) 19:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do we make redirects from emojis? I recognize some may be important enough to have an article, but otherwise they'd fall under NOT DICTIONARY. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn there's no reason to delete an article at all when a merge or redirect option has a numerical preponderance: the specific target can be sorted out, e.g., via a relisting, but consensus was clearly not for deletion. Mind you, i think we should actually ban emojis entirely, but that's not current policy even if I want it to be. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speaking for myself, my !vote for a target was based on it being unambiguous, and if I had come back to the RfD afterwards, I would have !voted to delete based on the clear confusion demonstrated in the RfD as to what the target for this emoji should have been. The disagreement as to the meaning of the character within the RfD, combined with the agreement that it was at the wrong target left the closer with little other option. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is something I would definitely have relisted. Excluding cases like "person holding a severed head" and the like, the only real ambiguity discussed in the RfD was between a specific meaning (basketball) and the generic meaning (ball game). This sort of ambiguity can be taken as an argument for retargeting to the generic meaning (which subsumes the specific one), but it seems odd to see it as justifying deletion. – Uanfala 17:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to relist as requested by Tavix. I do not see a consensus for deletion in the discussion. For redirects, lack of consensus for where to redirect should default to no consensus, not deletion.
We can add an anchor to that row: Miscellaneous Symbols#⛹️. It is better than the other targets gym, ball game, and basketball because different operating systems display different glyphs, which could be confusing to the reader, and because it gives readers more information. It tells readers the symbol's official name, glyph, unicode number, HTML, and common meaning.
Tavix (talk·contribs), what do you think about this alternative redirect target?
It is not the purpose of DRV to discuss alternative redirects. If the discussion is relisted, then we'll discuss. --Tavix(talk) 17:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it may not be, but this gets more eyes on a problem that didn't get an adequate solution the first time around, so I'm completely fine with "not the purpose" dialogue happening here if it provides a better solution than those considered at the AfD. And yes, I agree that Cunard's suggestion is more elegant than anything brought up in the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So let's get this relisted and then it can be discussed at the proper venue: RfD (not AfD). --Tavix(talk) 01:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to relist per nom. I share the concerns with some of the delete !votes, and would have relisted it if I had closed it to allow more time to discuss a redirect target.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but redirect to the miscellaneous symbols page as suggested by Cunard. In the discussion there was general agreement that the redirect pointed to the wrong place but no consistent notion of the proper target, as well as substantial support for the idea that it shouldn't point anywhere. Closing the discussion as anything other than delete would have left it still redirecting to the wrong target, so the close was the least bad option among a bunch of unsatisfactory alternatives. ReykYO! 07:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was no consensus for a single option in that discussion, the issue is about what "no consensus" means here. "No consensus" normally means defaulting to "keep", which would be downright silly here as nobody thought that was a good idea. Rather it means we're in the situation reflected in Finnusertop's comment, where the title is ambiguous and we can't agree on a definite target. Usual practice in that situation is not to have a redirect. Relisting is not a substitute for no consensus, it's used when the discussion hasn't had enough participation, and this one had plenty. Hut 8.5 19:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The delete arguments failed to cite any real policy-based arguments, and were severely overweighed in the closure. The discussion was narrowing down its options, and should have been relisted to gather further comments. I "delete" result makes absolutely no sense here. ℯxplicit 02:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Hut 8.5's articulate comment above. Everyone agreed that gym was not was not an appropriate target, and I don't think that a consensus of users agreed on a new target. One clarification about my !vote in this RfD: my comments were meant to be a general critique of WP:EMOJI (I don't think it should be a guideline or policy on Wikipedia), and it was not meant to be a "I don't like emojis" vote. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The logic in the close was that if we don't know where to redirect it to, it's better to not redirect at all. Doing so would essentially be WP:OR about what the symbol means. Yes, it's true that the emojipedia examples all look like basketballs, but it's easy to find other examples [5][6] that use a more generic image. And, the official unicode page is silent on what kind of ball it is. Let's not turn the pedia into 💩 -- RoySmith(talk) 20:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The redirect common outcomes page sited above says "character has a clear and definite meaning matching an existing topic on Wikipedia,". it is obvious from this discussion that it does not have a clear and definite meaning. Personally, I would oppose any redirect of this sort, and think we need a guideline to that effect to clarify our policy NOT DICTIONARY-- but in any case, this one is not suitable. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Please restore my article. I was out of home so I did not have time to contest your deletion and only saw it now. To reiterate: I translated it from the German equivalent Wiki, so, obviously, they did not have a problem vis-a-vis notability/importance over there (and I added references to reliable sources), plus, my article was approved here by another editor via the articles for creation apparatus. As for content: no, it was not vandalism. I realize the film's content is, to put it mildly, not everyone's cup of tea, yet, everything described in the text actually happened in the film. I have worked hard on this entry: Please reply ASAP. 79.183.203.120 (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and trout the deleting admin. The reason given in the deletion log was "Please review content. No indication of importance, verges on vandalism", which is what the tagger wrote. That kind of implies it was an A7 deletion, but the article was about a film and A7 does not apply to films. Even if A7 did apply to films the article cited a couple of sources which should have circumvented this. I don't remotely see how this could possibly be vandalism. Granted, the content of the film is obviously rather disgusting (it's about cannibalism), but that certainly doesn't make it vandalism. Hut 8.5 20:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Can you please kindly help me restore it?--79.183.203.120 (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When this discussion is closed the closer will make a decision as to whether to restore the page based on what was written in the discussion. Hut 8.5 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and take to WP:AFD. Unfortunately we don't have speedy-delete criteria for non-notable films, so AFD is the only venue for deleting them. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to have been a {{subst:prod}} deletion (though I'm not an admin so I can't check for sure). I'm not sure why the WP:REFUND discussion was closed in favor of this one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a PROD deletion, it was a deletion in response to a CSD tag that included the rationale "Please review content. No indication of importance, verges on vandalism." That isn't a valid rationale for a CSD nomination or subsequent CSD deletion. We don't generally overturn CSD decisions at WP:REFUND, and I felt it best if one admin didn't unilaterally revert the action of another admin (especially RHaworth whom I respect), so I preferred a consensus at DRV. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The deleted article certainly includes WP:Offensive material, but that's not a WP:CSD. The deletion log doesn't say which WP:CSD this was deleted under, so we're left to guess. If, as conjectured above, it was meant to be WP:A7, then it doesn't apply. Just because it's offensive and disturbing doesn't mean it's vandalism. And, it does have a reference to what looks to be (via the auto-translation) a legitimate movie review in what I presume is a WP:RS. I doubt this will survive WP:AfD, but it's not CSD material. If we do keep it, I would hope we can find some way to describe the film without listing every gross and disturbing plot detail. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was a CSD tag with a manually-edited rationale. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn with a trout to the deleting admin. CSD isn't a good place for IAR. Hobit (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Original deleter did not reply to my message yet. When can one restore the entry? Thanks.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DRV tends to be a "slow zone" with speedy closes being rare. Assume it will run the full week. Sorry, but as the "last stop" for dealing with deletion issues there is a sense that it's better to get it right than get it fast. Hobit (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They replied now and still seem very hostile for some reason: "Consider yourself lucky that I am talking to an IP address. So why did you not link to the German version? And yes they do have a problem - have you read the hat note to it? So which of the cited sources even mentions this movie? Try again via AfC if you must." Here is what I wrote back: "German version from which I translated is here. Here is the main source I cited which discusses the film at length. Four editors have by now replied over at deletion review and all said the original reasoning for deletion was spurious." You can see the tagger's comments here.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am the person who put the CSD tag on the article. To clarify, I did not use or intend to use A7 as a deletion reason. Anti-vandalism patrollers observed the addition of content like:
"...He indulges in several disturbing sexual fetishes, including defecating, urinating, necrophilia, bestiality, anal fisting, rape, murder, nose-picking... who puts an enema into her anus and defecates into a bucket, while placing the man onto a table and shoving her fist into his anus, pulling defecate out of there .... he is sexually aroused by her corpse. He cuts her nipples off in graphic detail and uses his scalpel to cut the dead woman's clitoris off. He then takes the scalpel and peels the skin off one of her fingers and eats the pieces of dismembered skin... stabbed multiple times in extremely graphic detail. Blood splatters onto Rafael, who is killing her. He then proceeds to ram a knife into her vagina, followed by him taking the knife and stabbing her entrails open, as he rips them from her abdomen..."
I was told about this in IRC, after review we decided it was probably accurate (this film is disgusting). In the absence of a button to summon admins to examine a page, I decided to use a CSD tag with a custom rationale (db) to get an admin to look at the page. It was discussed and decided that sending a page like this to AfD would be the wrong thing to do given the content. I am not adverse to it being restored but would kindly ask whoever does so to Revdel it back to its less graphic state (which did pass AfC). There is no real reason to explain the plot with this level of graphic detail, given that Wikipedia pages are read by children and carry no warnings. Not even Paraphilia or Sexual intercourse go into this level of detail. Α Guy into Books™§ (Message) - 13:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As I wrote on your talk page, I have no problem with removing/modifying the most graphic parts after the entry is restored. Everyone here is more than welcome to help me with this endeavor.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
<ec>Doesn't WP:NOTCENSORED apply here? I've no objection to editing out excessive plot details. But we don't put warning labels on things or edit away things because they are offensive. I can't see the history, but reverting excessive plot would have been a good first step. Net effect, the CSD tagging was suboptimal, the CSD deletion was _very_ suboptimal and requests to clean up the article before it's restored are unlikely to get traction. Hobit (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use deletion requests with something like a deletion rationale to "get an admin to look at the page". The template you added should only be used if you are requesting that the page be speedily deleted. There are plenty of mechanisms for you to bring a page to the attention of an admin without nominating it for deletion, e.g. {{adminhelp}} or WP:AN. Whether we want to modify the graphic description is open for discussion but I don't see how it falls under the revdel criteria, the only one which even vaguely applies is RD2 and that excludes factual content. You could just have removed that bit or reverted to an earlier version if you wanted to remove it instead of nominating the page for deletion. The deleting admin did make a much worse mistake by actually deleting the page with this rationale though. Hut 8.5 17:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What happens if the original deleter refuses to restore the article despite all that is being said here?--79.183.203.120 (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When the discussion is closed then if the consensus is to restore the article then the article will be restored, whether the deleting admin likes it or not. Hut 8.5 18:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn db-custom doesn't apply the second good faith editors consider it to be controversial. That's happened here, so its best to overturn. Feel free to take it to AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Google, by the way, managed to cache the article before it was deleted, in case someone wants to read it.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding WP:NOTCENSORED applying, also keep in mind WP:Offensive material, which says, Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Let's assume for the moment that this goes to AfD and ends up getting kept. Then, the next question is whether toning down the current language and graphical depictions would make the article less informative, relevant, or accurate? I'm pretty sure we could find some way to word this which makes it completely clear what the film depicts with being quite so literal in its descriptions. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn with trout, deletion imposed completely outside of the deliberately narrow scope we allow speedy for, and not the first instance of this in recent times, either. Lankiveil(speak to me) 08:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn No valid reason for deletion. Hawkeye7(discuss) 00:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion. OK movies cannot be deleted under A7 but is worth restoring it just to have it deleted at AfD? RoySmith, please check the sole reference in the article. Yes, it's a movie review but is it of this article? — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 11:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I already noted in my original reply to you (reprinted above), I cited two sources in my article, not one, including this book which discusses the film at length. After the entry is restored, will the talk page be restored too? And, sorry for the double posting over at undeletion. I should like to add that this deleter is arguing in bad faith, viz. their hostility towards me and blatantly false insistence that I only cited one source in the article, and, they continute to make snarky and hostile comments against me on their talk page, the latest: "I wonder if you will ever learn about wikilinks," strange given how I used them in the original article. It seems almost as if they have some vendetta against me: They're probably simply outright lying for their case against me and should be monitored and taken with a grain of salt for their decision regarding the case in the future.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, until we have a CSD reason for movies, it's worth restoring to have a community decision at AFD rather than a unilateral decision decision based on a misapplied deletion rationale. If deleted at AFD, it cannot be restored by a request to WP:REFUND, and any recreation qualifies for WP:G4 speedy deletion. That is not the case at the moment. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, will this article be restored today? Thanks.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At some point within the next day or two an uninvolved administrator will assess the consensus and take the appropriate action. As a side note, and speaking with no real concern for IP editing, if you create an account you can get access to a number of features that will make it easier to keep track of discussions as they happen such as a personal watchlist and the ability to receive email notifications when changes to a page occur. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to revdel This is basic deletion theory, that we don't delete articles that can be repaired with revdel. Unscintillating (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per above comments. This is better handled by editing the article content or, if necessary, AFD. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should like to thank everyone who came to support me in this. Tomorrow is a week since I opened this claim, so, in accordance with Wiki policy, I am looking forward for the discussion to end and for the article to be deftly restored given the consensus.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I sent him a notification about this DRV. He hasn't edited since last year. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to discuss it before opening the DRV, but seeing as how he seems to be inactive, it's probably kind of moot. In any case, the AfD saw minimal participation. I probably would have relisted it, or perhaps closed it as WP:SOFTDELETE. The sources presented here look plausible, so restoring it seems reasonable. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close since I don't find any fault with the closing admin's reading to the discussion, and allow recreation because of the new sources. ReykYO! 07:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closewhich means no restoration of history as the deletion was completely valid. Anyone is free to recreate if it would be substantially different (i.e. not G4 eligible) and doesn't need the permission of a deletion review. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
endorse and userfy. It was valid, but now we have sources. I can't think of a reason why we can't provide a copy of the old article as a starting point (no idea if the article was a decent starting point mind you). @TonyBallioni: am I missing some reason to not give someone creating a new article the ability to use the old one as a starting point (if they wish, clearly we can't and shouldn't require that). Hobit (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, very good point. I've struck that section above. If an article has been deleted in the past and the discussion was long, I tend to prefer new creations because it was assumed at the point of the AfD that the content was not worth keeping, and I don't like second guessing AfDs. At the same time, userfication is a normal process, and this specific AfD didn't give us a reason not to userfy. Thanks for raising the point. I'll agree with your suggestion here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userify for improvement with mainspace movement at the requesting editor's initiative, and other editors free to AfD it if they feel it still needs deleting once mainspace'd again. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to SOFTDELETE Without discussion with the closer, we won't know if this otherwise erroneous WP:NOQUORUM was somehow an undocumented WP:IAR. Whether the OP wants to use WP:REFUND or wants to start a new article is up to the OP. Unscintillating (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. Consider my !vote to be "userfy on request". Certainly not my intent to _make_ them start with the old article. Hobit (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Please forgive me, this is a long and frustrating read because this article goes deeper than a single AfD decision.
The articles for various cricketers were sent to PROD - those belonging to A. Devapriya, K. de Silva, N. Fernando and N. Kumara, back in March 2010, in spite of each of the cricketers meeting long-established notability guidelines. I re-added these four months ago
The article belonging to S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) was sent to AfD - nearly five years later, albeit by a different user. I reinstated this article along with the other four, following discussion here. Naturally, this cricketer passes these long-held notability guidelines, similar to every other team sporting guideline, that a single appearance in a major competition is enough to establish notability. (Statistics here). There are thousands of articles like this on Wikipedia, those of cricket players with a single major cricketing appearance, and every single one has been allowed to expand and thrive as an individual article - similar to single-appearance biographies in almost every team sport. Hence the reason for his addition.
I concede that the closing admin here had a difficult decision to make considering the views put forward on the AfD page - however I do not consider the deletion rationales to be watertight. All the original deletion rationale claims is "Non-notable BLP". Which is scant - and unqualified - justification for sending an article which clearly meets long-accepted guidelines - to which we have held ever since the establishment of Wikiproject Cricket, as has every other competitive team sport - to AfD, especially since the rationale quotes no policy. Nor would it presumably be given adequate weight as a deletion rationale by a casting !voter by a closing admin, as the vote would quote no single guideline. The discussion included the point that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I thereby considered, perhaps the reason the article was being sent for deletion was purely the pluralization of the word "source"! Perhaps if we had included a link to a second source, this would have satisfied the "single source" deletion rationale.
Along followed a debate on the AfD page in which the long-established guideline of WP:CRIN - which has never done us harm up until now - was quoted - that the article "technically met cricket biography notability guidelines", but that these were "only guidelines" (two quotes from the same user).
Anyhow, following much discussion, which included delete votes put forward by an IP address, as well as an account which we have been unable to trace, the article was deleted.
While fearing this article would be speedily deleted under CSD G4, I reinstated this (link to the Undelete logs) in May 2017, based on a discussion which took place here, alongside the four previously PROD-ded articles. While not deleted there and then, the article was speedily deleted four months later (is that a contradiction in terms?) under exactly the CSD criterion I feared.
My main point is that most of the deletion !votes - as well as the rationale of the closing admin - in the 2015 deletion debate - based primarily on the fact that "we do not have basic details like date of birth", quoted three times by the IP address, are weak or invalid.
In conclusion, I feel this article should be reinstated, based on weak, and invalid, deletion rationales, the fact that the article categorically meets inclusion criteria, and the fact that I believe there was no clear consensus in the AfD discussion. This article deletion has proven a net negative to our project, where we now fear that every article which meets the same criteria may suffer the same fate. Bobo. 10:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- the consensus at the AfD was clearly to delete, and there was nothing wrong with the later speedy deletion. I think both decisions reflected the state of the article and the opinions of the AfD participants. As the closing admin pointed out, the actual problem is one WikiProject elevating its own, overly inclusive, standards over WP:GNG, which is accepted Wikipedia-wide.
The article was little more than a few database entries inflated grotesquely. It was not even possible to determine the player's first name. Turning raw stats into prose in this manner leads to possible BLP issues, because it's easy to be tempted to introduce unsubstantiated material. Examples, which have actually happened, include asserting a player is retired, or still living, when there's no way to tell that from the source material. Or when it's not clear whether two stats pages are referring to one player competing for two clubs, or two similarly named people playing for one team each. This of course leads to BLP issues.
The best way, IMO, to present raw stats is in the form of a list. I would support the creation of List of Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketers where these bare numbers could be listed in full, allowing the comparison of similar entries, and avoiding the trap of saying more in prose than the sources do. Genuinely notable players would be blue linked, of course.
Finally, I am aware that endorsing the AfD is likely to make me the target of further harassment and abuse, but that is no reason to avoid speaking my mind. My opinion on this matter is legitimate regardless of what my detractors may think. ReykYO! 11:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk, while I generally don't understand how this procedure works, I suggest that given our considerable interaction, this should recuse you from the discussion. Bobo. 11:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. ReykYO! 11:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the whole point of taking articles to DRV was that they were evaluated by an uninvolved party..? Bobo. 11:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You'll find I didn't nominate the original AfD, and didn't vote on it, so I'm as uninvolved as can be. Your subsequent actions are an unrelated, behavioural, matter. Since your repetitious complaints about this AfD served as a distraction from your behavioural issues at the ANI, I could just as easily accuse you of being involved and therefore lacking standing to bring this DRV. But I'm not a wikilawyer. My !vote here stands. This will be my last reply to you on the topic. ReykYO! 11:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as deleting admin, Bobo's comments referring to long established guidelines are illuminating. The idea that all first class cricketers are inherently notable is long entrenched but does not reflect the tightening up of standards around bios and bops in particular that has happened in recent years. So we have an sng in conflict with wider community expectations shown in blp/gng/n. Bobo's would argue that CRIN has priority but is is a long established principle that wider community requirements have precedence. Therefore this was an inadequately sourced bio and in closing I gave weight to arguments reflecting wider community norms rather than narrow subject based views out of kilter with community wide expectations. Reyk is correct that a list is the appropriate solution. SpartazHumbug! 11:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How much more "adequately sourced" would you want the article to be? The fact that we included two sources which are universally agreed amongst the cricket Wikiproject to be satisfactory, disproves this. In what way was this article "inadequately sourced"? Bobo. 11:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the closer was a bit harsh on the Keep commenters in that AfD. The subject here is an athlete from a developing country where English is not the main language and he was active about 20 years ago. This suggests that Googling by Western English speakers may not provide a particularly comprehensive view of the available sources. The closing statement refers to "detailed examination of the article" but this is probably all that was done. SNGs are particularly valuable in those situations as they indicate where sources are likely to exist (the article did have enough sourcing to verify that the subject met the SNG). Given that I think it was reasonable to argue that the article should be kept on the grounds that the subject met the relevant SNG, just as it is reasonable to argue the opposite. Several of the Delete arguments are weak or dubious. Hut 8.5 12:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And invalid - one from an IP address, one from an untraceable account, and one as per the untraceable account. Bobo. 12:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IP's can vote at AfD, as can "untraceable accounts". Unless they are blocked, they are valid. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, but in this situation we could plausibly discount the comment from the IP. The "untraceable account", Rainbow unicorn, has since been indefinitely blocked for abusive sockpuppetry (the account has been renamed, which is why it doesn't immediately appear). That does bring into question whether the IP is a sockpuppet. Hut 8.5 06:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus to be clear. I think that's a better reading of the discussion, particularly if we assign reduced weight to the possible sockpuppetry. Hut 8.5 07:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Spartaz, what did you mean when you responded to my comment about "every first-class cricketer having an article except this guy" when you responded "not unless they have sourcing"? Given the sources that you were aware were present on the article, please would you explain what is wrong with these sources? If there is a fundamental problem with these sources, then there is a fundamental problem with sourcing on 90 percent of cricket articles.
You left a suspiciously lengthy justification on the deletion conversation which mentioned nothing to do with the sourcing, and now you are claiming that the "inadequate sourcing" is the problem. As far as I can tell, in this case, the problem is that you feel the article was not sourced, which anyone who is able to access the article can clearly see it was. Bobo. 13:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As a fair reading of the consensus. While there is some debate over whether individual SNGs override the broad GNG guidelines (WP:PROF being one I participated in recently) it is made pretty clear at WP:NSPORTS that the sport specific notability guidelines are a guide to help people decide if something might be notable, not an automatic inclusion. This was pointed out at the discussion. It was also pretty clear from that discussion that this article only just met the SNG and was not even close to the GNG. Those !votes that simply said that it meets WP:NCRIC without indicating how the article also complies with the GNGs were rightly given less weight. AIRcorn(talk) 06:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse mostly per Aircorn. The speedy deletion was appropriate as the two states of the article were, for all intents and purposes, the same. The AfD discussion was also closed appropriately, with respect to the arguments made and the import of the quoted guidelines. Harriastalk 11:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorseOverturn to no consensus mainly per Hut 8.5 pointing out the socking. It wasn't known at the time, but it cast doubt on at least two of the keep !votes. FWIW, yes, SNGs are equal to the GNG based on the actual guideline, which is WP:N. NSPORTS has chosen to subjugate itself to the GNG, but that is not what the community wide policy is. You have a tension between WP:N and WP:NSPORTS on this one, with the former considering the latter equivalent to the GNG, but the latter saying the GNG take prominence. That makes sports AfDs difficult to deal with. If it weren't for the socking, I'd have called this no consensus.TonyBallioni (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have this the wrong way round - the sockmaster and the IP !voted Delete, not Keep. Hut 8.5 21:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goodness, I did misread that didn't I. Thanks for pointing it out: I've amended my !vote accordingly. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC as far as I an tell the SNG and GNG run on parallel tracks here. What I mean is that NSPORTS doesn't specifically defer to the GNG (" Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." So an argument that the topic meets the SNG is just as valid as one that says it meets the GNG (as long as it's true). I do think in this case there could be an argument that this person shouldn't have an article. He did participate, but only just barely. Seems like a bit too low of a bar IMO. But the right place to debate this is at the SNG or the AfD. And if you weigh the SNG and GNG arguments equally, there is no consensus to delete. And that's without considering the socking issues. Hobit (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Just barely" is not the point - and in any case, unverifiable. We are looking at absolutes - yes and no - and not cloudy "maybe" criteria. "Just barely" is yes. Bobo. 00:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be. The SNG gives room for not including everyone who meets it. Quite specifically. And this case (very minor player on a fairly minor team) seems like a good case for using that discretion. I'd likely !vote to delete on that basis (meets the letter of the SNG, but not the spirit basically). But that's not the direction the discussion went. It was "meets the SNG" vs. "The GNG trumps the SNG". On a good day, that's NC given the numbers. Given that the GNG doesn't trump _this_ SNG (per the long-established SNG itself), the keep side had the better argument. I think there _is_ a solid deletion argument to be had. But it didn't get consensus. Hobit (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: Are we reading the same guideline? The "Applicable Policies and Guidelines" section led me to pretty much the opposite conclusion. In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline.. The "Basic Criteria" section seems to support this as well by prominently linking to WP:BASIC which is basically the GNG. AIRcorn(talk) 09:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I had missed that. It also says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." I think that's a pretty clear statement that meeting one or the other is enough. Feels like different parts written by different people with different goals. That does weaken my argument though I don't think crushes it. Hobit (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there probably needs to be some clarification on these guidelines no matter what way this unfolds. AIRcorn(talk) 22:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - After taking a close look at the AfD, the relevant guidelines and discounting Rainbow Unicorn's !vote (I am not inclined to discount the IP as there is no evidence that it is a sockpuppet of any other user - though their argument holds no weight) I have to endorse the close. The basic keep argument was simply that the article met NCRIC. This is simply not enough. NSPORTS (and therefore NCRIC) is subservient to GNG as quoted from WP:NSPORTS itself; In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Thus, it must be argued, that the articles failure to meet GNG holds significantly more weight than its success in meeting NCRIC. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what the countering delete argument was saying; that while it might just barely meet NCRIC it comprehensively failed to meet WP:GNG or WP:N. Side-note; Hobit and TonyBallioni, in this case the SNG requires the article to meet GNG. They are not on parallel tracks. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude From WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; (emphasis mine). NSPORTS contradicts the text of WP:N, which explicitly lists it as equal to the GNG. To borrow an old maxim: when the law is unclear, there is no law. The people involved with it couldn't figure out how to sort out the ambiguity. When that's the case, we keep an article, not delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I hadn't noted that, though that's hardly a contradiction. Per your quoted material, the criteria outlined by the subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right (NSPORTS in this case) is that it must meet GNG to receive a standalone article. This goes hand-in-hand with N which also states that meeting either the GNG or SNG is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page (page meaning article). It looks like a mess, but, it's relatively clean to parse out. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and btw, pings like this won't work. You have to either create a new comment or delete the old one, save the page, then repaste it with the fix and a new sig and then resave the page. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its a strong tension at the very least, and yes. You raise a very good point: these are simply guidelines and we can choose to exclude something included by them or vice versa. The issue here is that there wasn't a consensus to do either. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This contradiction was part of my confusion all along, I quoted at the time that the entire fact that the two guidelines contradicted each other meant that we could safely ignore both... Bobo. 08:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni, Hobit, and Hut 8.5:. In case you were unaware a RFC was opened earlier this year on the SNG vs GNG debate at the village pump here. The closing statement says amoung other things thatThere is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline.). It might just be a case of WP:N needing updating. AIRcorn(talk) 09:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was a horribly written close that was beyond the scope of the discussion, and there is currently an RfC at WT:PROF that is about to conclude the exact opposite. There is no backdoor way around changing WP:N. Our guidelines remain in tension here, and likely will remain in tension. Like above, these are all just guidelines anyway, and we can include something that fails WP:N if there is good cause, and delete something that passes it. The issue here is that there was no consensus to do either. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I remember participating in that discussion. One person suggested "a single season" or an individual championship in a given sport. How do you even define that? Does someone have to participate in every game in a single season? For English soccer players, that's all 38 games. For baseball players, that's 162 games. That's simply infeasible. I bet only 2 percent of any sportsmen would qualify under this, if that...
The fact that all three levels of consensus were seemingly reached in the debate makes me question whether any consensus was reached... just as I expressed at the time: "Let's take NCRIC for an example. One first-class appearance. Want to make it two? Three? Fifty? Fine. Offer that suggestion as an alternative. State NPOV reasons why. But doing so is more POV than any existing guideline." Bobo. 10:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is deciding whether some subject has passed the GNG or not. It is impossible to prove absolutely that a subject does not satisfy the GNG, because you can't check every possible source in existence. The most you can say is that you made a reasonable effort to find sources and failed. What constitutes a reasonable effort varies from topic to topic. Here we have reason to think that a simple English language Google search may miss relevant sources, so the fact that this has been done does not mean the subject doesn't pass the GNG. If you read a bit further down the RfC close you'll see that it does discuss this issue and suggests that somebody might want to draw up an intermediate standard for this situation. AFAIK that has not happened so I have no problem with people using the SNG for this. Hut 8.5 17:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is no need to challenge that close since it didn't actually affect WP:N, and if it did it would be reverted instantly as not being within the scope of the RfC, which was on NSPORT, not N. What it told us was that there was dissatisfaction with that specific SNG and that people felt not meeting the GNG was grounds for deletion even if it met the SNG. Sure, I think I even argued that in the RfC. What it did not do was change the overall notability guideline, which includes WP:NPOSSIBLE, which is effectively what the SNGs exist to show. Arguing to delete based on the GNG and to keep based on an SNG are both equally valid arguments under WP:N, which is just a guideline, and WP:NHC tells us If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. Since the views here on which notability standard to use were split, there was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, both the G4 and the original discussion. The requirement for articles like this (and this one is most probably a BLP) to pass the WP:GNG is well documented above so I won't repeat it, but that is reason enough for endorse. I'll add that as a cricket fan, I'm going to guess that in the development of WP:NCRIC, situations like this were not considered and keeping articles like this may have not been the intended outcome. I'm also reminded of a similar baseball-themed case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball). Lankiveil(speak to me) 10:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The fact that User:Go Phightins! picks exactly the same logical hole in the two guidelines as we do proves that we, as a Wikiproject, aren't on our own... I'm not saying they're right therefore we're right therefore the argument is wrong, I'm just saying that we're not alone in having found that logical fallacy. Bobo. 13:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The problem with most of the WP:SNGs is they tend to be written by fans of that topic, and tend to be overly-inclusive. And, the idea that a small number of people in a wikiproject can write a SNG which trumps the WP:GNG is absurd. The AfD close got this exactly right. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wearing my CU hat for a moment: while as usual CheckUser is not magic pixie dust, the information in the logs concerning Rainbow unicorn suggests that it is quite unlikely that the IP is their sockpuppet (different continents). T. Canens (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus There's no requirement that the community is obligated to follow a guideline like an SNG ("Wikipedia has no firm rules"). However, I see no consensus in the AfD that the SNG should be ignored in this case. My take on Spartaz's closing statement at AfD ("... give less weight to arguments for inherant notability than those arguing delete based on wider policy") and his endorse above ("... but is is a long established principle that wider community requirements have precedence.") is that he may have confused the local WikiProject Cricket consensus of WP:CRIN with the wider community guideline of WP:NCRIC (which is a part of WP:NSPORTS). However, the keepers were citing the guideline NCRIC—not CRIN—and it is a deadlock with those saying GNG wasn't met. Also, there was no consensus at AfD that a lack of a birthdate was a reason to delete, so the close citing that aspect appears to be a WP:SUPERVOTE. I considered the endorse votes! above, but it beings to mind that DRV "is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question ... the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate."—Bagumba (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You, uh, might want to check the names of the endorsers against the names of the AfD participants: myself, Reyk, Aircorn, Lankiveil and an T. Canens were not participants in the AfD and thus cannot re-express our opinions. Spartaz as closer is only re-affirming their position that their close is correct. So that leaves one, and only one, endorses who actually participated in the AfD to begin with; Harrias. Also, Spartaz's comment about wider community requirements is a reference to GNG (applicable to all articles) versus NCRIC (applicable only to cricket articles). The rest is really a matter of interpretation of consensus. That is what we're here for after all. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: The re- portion was in parentheses (original wording, not mine), meaning it applies to both those expressing and re-expressing their opinion. At any rate, my feel is that many here in the DRV are bringing in their own arguments and interpretation of guidelines, as opposed to solely assessing the level of consensus of the original participants. No worries, we can disagree.—Bagumba (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, fair enough with parentheses so meaning both re-express and express. You might be correct about the interpretation of guidelines, it is just that they are somewhat central to the validity of the close. If GNG supersedes NCRIC (for example) then GNG arguments are weighter than NCRIC ones. If not, then no the close has no validity and would indeed be a supervote. But yes, of course we can disagree on the interpretation of the consensus. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS only allows closers to supersede participants' consensus regarding the policies (not guidelines) of "verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons". Having a short sparse bio, in itself, is not a violation of any of those policies. It's neither the closer's nor DRV's role to argue how guidelines should be weighted. We are only here to gauge the consensus of how they were interpreted in the AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I'll revisit this and do necessary citations of the website Herrera enrico24 (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I recovered this misplaced request from this attempt to add a DRV to an old log page. That said, endorse. T. Canens (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Closing admin) In addition I note that some editors in the AfD were concerned about the way the page was structured, and that citations while they existed are too few and not independent enough to justify an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a correctly closed AfD. I suggest that if you want the page to be moved to a draft state then you should provide some examples of citations that you want to add to the article to address the concerns about sourcing. Additionally there was another concern that the article content was largely a massive list of people in minor positions in student organisations, which isn't encyclopedic (WP:NOT#DIR). Hut 8.5 10:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no other way to read this AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse If you want to run the proposed sources by someone once you have them, feel free to use me. I'm a bit busy, but should be able to respond. Hobit (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
We thought you told me not to repost anymore and this isn't Blue's Clues Wikia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeymiskulin (talk • contribs) 00:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
He debuted with Wanna One , placed number 1 in survival show "Produce 101". He is very popular in both Korea and international, among various age groups with many activities and variety shows. He is also Top List Of Most Buzzworthy TV Appearances. Chilli pepper (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Chilli pepper: Can you please show us reliable sources backing up those claims? —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
endorse- the close properly reflected the consensus at this discussion. ReykYO! 15:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@@Mr.Guye: :
He was placed number 1 in Produce 101- the most popular Korean survival show that was air in Japan (Mnet), Asia and Pacific (Tvn) , Vietnam [1][2][3]
-After his debut with Wanna one August 7, 2017 ; he paticipated in many group activities ( KCON in LA,USA and upcoming KCON in Sydney,AUS) [4]; debut concert (2017); Wanna One Go ( group reality show ) [5] , variety shows (Happy Together , Saturday Night live, Immortal Song,Oppa Thinking ...) and Fanmeeting in Singapore, Thailand, Hongkong, Taiwan.
-Also ,he has many individual activities such star guest at KBS "Superman is back" [6] ;KBS "Hello Counselor" [7] ; JTBC "Lets eat dinner together"Ep.44[8] ;himself as a main cast MBC’s “It’s Dangerous Beyond the Blankets” show [9] , he also took first place for "the most buzzworthy TV appearances" the non-drama category [10][11]
-He also Graces Cover Of Current Events Magazine Due To Huge Popularity : the cover of "Weekly Chosun"[12]
-He's the First Male Celeb To Grace The Cover Of Instyle In 14 Years will be issued in Octother [13]Chilli pepper (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-Hello all I am the one who created the page first on 16 September 2017 but I was advised to create a draft first and submit it later when there's already more materials on the subject. In the time being I would redirect the page to Wanna One page first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon Gin (talk • contribs) 10:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC) }}[reply]
@Moon Gin: this page was created first back in June I think . Chilli pepper (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and merge The article should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. Tilly Lai (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chilli pepper: I see. I want to make this page into an independent page but Iw ant to wait until it's ready. I'm currently keeping a draft for it.
Endorse I would have closed as just redirect, but I think Sandstein's was within discretion: there certainly weren't any objections to getting rid of the article history here, and there was agreement that it shouldn't exist. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Jeff Deyo – No Consensus. Like so many DRV's, this discussion is a mix of re-arguing the merits of the article itself and arguing about the process. We're supposed to be evaluating only the process here. In any case, there's no clear agreement here, so I'm closing this as NC. My suggestion is to let this be for a while and if somebody still feels it should be deleted, WP:RENOM provides guidance on that. Likewise, if somebody feels it should be redirected, WP:BOLD seems like the right advice. – -- RoySmith(talk) 11:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
It is regarding the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Deyo. WP:CONSENSUS is not a !vote count. There were two keep !votes & one of them was WP:ILIKEIT. Second keep !voter provided few sources which mention the subject in passing, along with giving a link of an album's promo. None of them even remotely proves the subject's notability. In fact, it was wrongly relisted for the second time, as there was consensus to redirect it to Sonicflood after the first relisting. And then it was wrongly closed. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. There were only two !votes in favor of Redirection, which in my opinion is never enough for any consensus whatsoever. Also, Walter Görlitz's !vote was not "I like it", though his comment was in my opinion an improper use of Arguments to avoid. This needs to be relisted. We need more input. There really was no consensus. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there were three redirect !votes before the second relisting, and each one of them explained their rationale quite clearly. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect bad NAC and an example of why WP:Relist bias is such a horrible thing at AfD. The final relist was pointless as there was already consensus, pace the bludgeoning, that the article shouldn't exist as a standalone article (the nom's rationale counts too). The no consensus close was likely based on no further discussion happening after the pointless final relisting. The consensus was that there shouldn't be an article, and there was no consensus between deletion and redirection, therefore we go with redirection since it is the more conservative option. Problem solved. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
endorse NC Not much of anything solely on this guy I'll grant you, but there is probably enough to support a NC outcome. From a "re-argue the AfD" viewpoint, a lot of decent sources seem to take it for granted you'll know who he is ([27], the Christian Today article and a few others). He also appears to have charted (https://books.google.com/books?id=hA8EAAAAMBAJ) on Billboard on his own which may meet WP:MUSIC. It could probably have been closed as a redirect, but I don't think it is wrong to call it a NC. And the charting on his own may make a difference? Hobit (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The points you've made are relating to Sonicflood. As already discussed at the AfD, he is just known for Sonicflood, and that article has already his relevant details. Few more relevant lines might be added there, if you have the relevant sources. But there isn't enough coverage of him for a standalone article, even if we ignore the normal standards of WP:GNG here. In spite of some attempts to source the BLP, there are just four sourced lines as of now. In short, the BLP will remain mostly unsourced & might get bombarded with different tags in the future. In fact, at least one of the tags was wrongly removed recently – [28]. BTW, I have nothing against the subject or religions. But we have to think it from the perspective of an encyclopedia. Rest of the stuff is nicely explained by TonyBallioni above. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? The listing on Billboard was with his name, not Sonicflood. I don't know the area very well and I'd never heard of this guy before, but it looks like he had a successful solo album that made the charts. Hobit (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which solo album you are talking about, but the few mentions he received here & there are mostly in relation to Sonicflood. And he fails every notability guideline for a standalone BLP. So it all comes down to ATDs and, as exhaustively discussed at the AfD, redirect is the only plausible ATD here. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Thiripuram – Disruptive non-admin closure by article creator reverted. – Sandstein 22:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Non-admin closure (with a speedy keep result) by an editor whom had rendered an opinion on the subject Afd. Additionally, the closer User:Mrgrockz (talk) is the creator of the article in question. This instance is a clear case of Wikipedia:BADNAC. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/re-open NAC was clearly inappropriate as it was performed by the article creator, who had also opined in the discussion, and the Speedy Keep rationale given was not in line with WP:SKCrowCaw 18:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've backed out the obviously (and trout-worthy) WP:NAC and relisted it. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
MSQRD – Endorse, but allow recreation. Reasonable agreement that the WP:CSD was valid, due to both the promotional style and copyright issues. However, even among those who argued to endorse, there is essentially unanimous consensus that a new article could be written about this, assuming it was done in a WP:NEUTRAL tone, properly sourced, etc. Due to the copyright questions, I'm not going to drafify or userfy this; a new article will have to start from scratch. – -- RoySmith(talk) 11:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Overturn. There was one section that contained a description apparently copy-pasted from some website ("Using MSQRD is extremely easy. Having opened the app, you choose Photo or Video mode, and the front or back camera. ..."), but if that would have been deleted, the article would not have been blatantly promotional, but at most very vaguely so, the way many low-profile articles about commercial products unfortunately tend to be. The references also indicated that there is a reasonable case to be made for this software's notability. Sandstein 15:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow recreation. The article included a fair bit of second-person instructional language ("By tapping the screen, you can change the level of exposure. Then you choose the video effect by previewing it, and record a video of up to 30 seconds.") which is a dead givaeay of promotional intent. That said, the topic does appear notable, so if Pessimist2006 or another established editor wants to fix it up, that's fine. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow a Draft as the contents alone should and will be interpreted as "unambigious promotion" as by our relevant policies, and we aren't going to apply special circumstances in any subjects, especially common interests ones. However, since Draftspace is allowed chances of a page, this can easily be the case here. SwisterTwistertalk 23:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get a temp undelete? Hobit (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional intent is not covered by G11, just irredeemably promotional language. The above examples seem to violate the former in a way that could be fixed by regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the speedy deletion of an advertising brochure, but allow creation of a neutral, non-promotional article on this topic if one can be written. ReykYO! 13:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, there have occurred some problems with the advertising content since I have made some corrections to it. I didn’t track it and have learnt about the deletion from the message about some problem with the image. But at that time with was ok, and it was enough just to revert to the neutral version. Or use template, or use WP:AFD. But, from my point of view it is wrong to use a speed deletion of the article as it obviously has an notable theme.--Pessimist (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow recreation per Starblind. I generally have a narrower view of G11 and hold a wide view of deletion for promotional intent at AfD (where per WP:DEL14 and WP:NOTSPAM, it is a valid reason for deletion). Allowing one process latitude, while holding the other to be strict is a good way to have checks and balances. That being said, the portions that have been replicated here are enough for me to think that it scrapes by the G11 standard. Second person text is unambiguously promotional, even under a strict reading of the criterion, and combined with the the text Sandstein cited, is enough for me to feel this one probably was within an administrators discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse" it is wrong to use a speed deletion of the article as it obviously has an notable theme" the article was deleted for its promotional tone, which isn't outside the realm of reasonable interpretation (which is what G11 is all about) here. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, could someone do a temp undelete? Hobit (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, could you explain what you are referring to? Apparently I'm very slow today. 12 hours at work so far... Hobit (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I almost just undeleted for you as it does help to see the article, but there's an accusation of a copyvio made above by Sandstein that I would like some clarification on before restoring that. Lankiveil(speak to me) 00:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. I think it was just a suspicion, but I understand being careful with such things. Thanks again, Hobit (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this article, and there was no copyright infringement. Probably that was added later during editing. All that will be easy to remove after restoration.
Endorse, the article has been through a few different rewrites but they're all promotional to my mind. A G11 does not and should not preclude the creation of a new, neutral article on this topic if anyone wants to take on the challenge. Lankiveil(speak to me) 22:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn G11, send to AfD Promotional intent is insufficient for G11, and should be adjudicated by the community in a deletion discussion, where, as TonyBallioni notes, it's a perfectly fine deletion rationale. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate It looks like a few edits in draftspace can resolve any copyright concerns and any promotional concerns, which may also avert an AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The core issue is that the discussion didn't involve the right people. There's no bright-line notification requirement (as there is in, say, WP:ANI) but there's broad consensus here that the people who are most interested in these categories (i.e. several wikiprojects) really should have been brought into the discussion.
It is also noted that WP:AfD, while ostensibly a parallel process to WP:CfD, has grown better tools. There's automation which adds notices to the talk page of the article's creator. There's automation which finds historical AfDs and adds links to them so people can review the previous discussions. There's a discussion sorting process which alerts interested parties. None of these are strictly required by the rules, but they add up to a much more transparent process. Getting something like that spun up for CfD seems like a good idea.
Finally, I'm not an expert on the WP:CfD process. I'm going to undelete the categories and re-list these at CfD. If I mess up any of the technicalities, please jump in and fix them for me. – -- RoySmith(talk) 14:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I am requesting that the discussion be reopened based on new information and circumstances since the CfD discussion was recently closed on 6 September. The closing admin suggested DRV
I have created List of National Basketball Association undrafted players. I'm not implying that the category needs to exist because there is an article, but the sources cited in the list article demonstrate how frequently reliable sources note an NBA player's undrafted status in headlines.
Consensus can change, but all known arguments should be made available and parties who have since expressed interest should have their input heard (especially when a significant number were not aware that the CfD was nominated). —Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Relist both NBA and NHL Not notifying interested parties in such a major cfd deletion leaves a bad taste in my mouth. As Bagumba mentions, not all leagues are created equal. It is exceedingly rare for players to make the NHL without being drafted. It is a topic that is brought up regularly about any player who has gone undrafted. It is generally in hockey atleast considered one of the most defining characteristics of a player who has gone undrafted. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
relist both Given the fairly limited attendance and that there appears to be a fairly large group wanting to keep this and given that a CfD can be hard to notice, this seems like a reasonable thing to relist and get wider feedback. Hobit (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist both - the nominator did not inform relevant projects of the nomination and there was minimal discussion. He did notify the creator of the NBA category, but that editor is retired and has a prominent notice on his Talk page that this is the case so no response should have been expected. He did not notify the creator of the NHL category as near as I can tell. So there was insufficient notification of obviously interested parties. There are literally more editors who have expressed disagreement with the deletions after the fact than who chimed in on this nomination in the first place. I don't think the similar NFL category (or WNBA category) is a particularly good test case as the NFL does not use draft team categories ("Category:Green Bay Packers draft picks") so the "undrafted" category isn't part of a larger category structure, as it is with the NHL and NBA. I can make a case that these categories are relevant and defining and would like the opportunity to do so. Rikster2 (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the result on the NBA and NHL categories. No comment on the other ones deleted in that batch. And while I'd say just close and save us all the time, no doubt relist is the only option that strict policy people will accept. It actually stands as a great example of Wikipedia's failings that an 11-year-old category can be deleted on the basis, quite literally of a vote count involving four people. Bearcat was actually the only person who gave an actual argument for deletion - the rest being a form of "I don't like it" or "This similar category from another sport went so..." - without considering that different leagues have different standards and different measurements for notability on things like this. And to that point, this nominator already knew this, as they attempted and failed to delete these categories in the past. In that discussion, I gave numerous examples establishing 'notability' of this category. Which leads us to the real problem here: Nominator failed to notify anyone active in maintaining these two categories in particular. If they had, these never would have come close to being deleted. Resolute 00:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nominator, I'd also support the more efficient overturn that Resolute (and Djsasso before their redact) suggested, while making it clear that the original close was spot on at the time in the absence of this new information.—Bagumba (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I am still good with either. Mostly because I am confident a discussion would result in a keep anyway. -DJSasso (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am also very comfortable with an "overturn" outcome. Rikster2 (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist both projects should be notified for a meaningful discussion to be properly held.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To expand, in response to TonyBallioni, and to emphasise some general points: The closure ("The result of the discussion was:delete. ℯxplicit 01:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)") was not good because it did not reflect and summarise the discussion. It was too brief. It did not self assert whether the close was a "consensus" or a "rough consensus" or what. It contained not even acknowledgement that of the two meaningful !votes, the second offered an alternative solution while creating a meaningful counter-point to the first. The nominator I discount as perfunctory, serving only to highlight a problem, and superseded by the two !voters, and so should not be counted. I therefore read the discussion as having just begun.[reply]
RE: "There is not a requirement to alert WikiProjects of the discussion". There is not, mostly because attempting to make such rules leads to hopeless micromanagement and the setting aside of common sense. However, the long-running failure at CfD to value wide ranging consultation with stakeholders, is a systemic failure. Given that the outcome was contested, and poorly participated, the situation demanded wider advertising. We lack micro-documentation on how to do that, but it isn't rocket science.
SmokeyJoe, thanks for the response (I somehow missed the ping). I consider all of the !votes meaningful, especially considering they were agreeing with a recent discussion that was better attended and did come to the same conclusion: saying one agrees with the previous practice and concurs with consensus in similar discussions is more than just a "per nom" type !vote. CfD is relatively poorly attended, and in this type of situation, the closer probably saw it as a relatively uncontroversial deletion. That being said, the level of opposition here by people connected to the project makes it worth a relist. A pure overturn is not ideal because we don't want WikiProjects setting a local consensus for categorization at DRV, which is a forum that deals primarily with article deletions and none of the regulars here to my knowledge are that familiar with CfD, so we can't really engage in a conversation with those that have opinions on the subject beyond just what to do with the close. Getting broader input by CfD regulars is ideal. A pure overturn wouldn't be appropriate here in my opinion. A courtesy relist because people who want to comment didn't get to comment on a relatively small conversation? Sure, that's a good call in my mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there was absolutely nothing wrong with Explicit's close given the information they had to work with and the nature of CfD itself. The problem, as noted, is the systemic failure that tends to define this process coupled with the nominator's failure to notify anyone relevant and failure to notify of past discussions. Both of these omissions resulted in a woefully incomplete look at the issue. And while I can understand your rationale behind saying a pure overturn is not ideal, I think it is already clear that a relist will simply be a case of process for the sake of process. We can go through the dog and pony show if we must, but why waste the time? Resolute 14:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting brings to mind WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY: "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles."—Bagumba (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its not being bureaucratic to insist that people outside of WikiProjects voices be heard on this. None of the deletion review regulars have any view on this. Allowing more people who care about categorization to participate is simply trying to see if there is a broad consensus, which this DRV isn't doing well. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn both. Aside from the arguments in favor of such given above, I've two other considerations. First off, requiring a fresh relisted discussion for such an obviously egregious action is process worship for the sake of process worship, and wastes the time of editors who could be doing more productive things. For another, WP:NATHLETE was devolved into WP:NSPORTS several years ago now for a very simple and basic reason: all sports are not created with a single die stamp, and a uniform set of rules to satisfy a conformity fetish serves just as poorly as rolling books, films, songs, plays and folktales into a vast WP:ENTERTAINMENTS banner. In some sports (association football, ice hockey, baseball) minor league play's important. In others (American football, basketball) it's next to trivial. In some sports (figure skating, gymnastics) 15-year-old amateurs routinely achieve notability; in most they do not. And so on. Frankly, any editor unaware enough of these pervasive differences to equate notability in ice hockey and basketball with notability in football ought to be better educated on the differences before making deletion nominations ... that being quite a charitable explanation of the nom's motives, given the 2010 discussions. Ravenswing 14:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stray thought: Err ... was the nominator informed of this DRV? I'd hate to think we were committing the same faux pas. Ravenswing 18:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn both per Ravenswing. And as a side note, notifying the basketball and hockey projects before the CfD discussion would have been a nice thing to do.Canuck89(what's up?) 02:51, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
Comment Nothing in deletion process requires that miscellaneous WikiProjects be notified of deletion discussions. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it certainly would have been a more functional way to go, displayed proper etiquette, and avoided situations like this where categories were deleted with minimal discussion and now must be relitigated. As was mentioned earlier, no active editor was informed about these two nominations. Seems like if you have a strong case to delete you'd want full discussion so the result would truly reflect consensus. Rikster2 (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention assuming it ends up overturned because it didn't get a true consensus, re-categorizing all those articles will waste a large amount of time. -DJSasso (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus requires participation by the stakeholders. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When a discussion that impacts very old categories and hundreds of articles is hidden to the point that the only participation is from a handful of professional XfDers, what do you expect? WP:BEFORE applies here, and since the nominator not only failed to notify anyone active about these two categories in particular, but also failed to notify the very few participants of a previously failed CfD on these categories, he denied everyone the opportunity of a fair look at this. This was a badly handled nomination that has thus far resulted in little more than damage to the project and a great deal of wasted time. Resolute 02:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy relist the closure was good, there was nothing materially wrong with it. There is not a requirement to alert WikiProjects of the discussion, so I don't see why that is an issue. I very nearly endorsed this, but I also believe that for limited participation discussions, when a good faith editor asks for a relist, it should be granted. That is the case here, so call it a courtesy relist. Endorsing the closure on the merits, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Resolute, who puts it well. --Tavix(talk) 19:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Opinions on the NFL and WNBA cats? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I feel no obligation to review/overturn those. Neither league has seen the need to create team draft pick categories, so why is an undrafted category needed? They kind of go together. Rikster2 (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn both per the well-reasoned arguments of several editors above. The WikiProject editors should have a say in the deletion of categories related to their area of expertise. Lepricavark (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This page can be restored using newly available sources, I want to recreate it, so please get back what was written before. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's really nothing there but boilerplate. But, with a four-year old AfD and a claim of new and better sources, I can't see any reason not to restore it. I've moved it to Draft:National anthem of Cornwall where it can be worked on. -- RoySmith(talk) 21:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Independent news sources other than Gaon itself have been added, which verify the results of the charts and other claims made. As such, the page is no longer a simple mirror of Gaon's chart pages, because it provides multiple viewpoints showcasing the facts about which songs were the top hits of the week. Satou4 (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing Admin Since the article clearly is not now deletable through G4 and is properly sourced, I have restored it to article space. I have also history-merged in the old version which was in userspace. Black Kite (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Hi Black Kite. I do not see a consensus for a redirect to List of anime conventions#Defunct and on-hiatus conventions. Aoziwe and I both supported retaining the page, while Knowledgekid87 and Cjhard supported deletion. No one supported a redirect. No one commented about the sources I posted. Would you clarify how you found a consensus for a redirect? Cunard (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two Deletes, a Keep and a Weak Keep but the latter voting on the basis that it was not covered at List of anime conventions before being pointed out that it was. This type of AfD is always tricky but now I see someone's nominated even the redirect for deletion. You can't win, can you? Send it to DRV if you want, I won't disagree. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a redirect is that List of anime conventions#Defunct and on-hiatus conventions says "These are notable conventions that have at one time existed, but have either gone on hiatus for more than one year, were merged into other conventions, or have finished operating entirely." If AfD concluded that the Manifest convention is not notable, then it will no longer meet the List of anime conventions inclusion criteria. That means editors can delete Manifest from List of anime conventions and then delete the Manifest redirect because Manifest is no longer mentioned in the list. That is why Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 3#Manifest (convention) has a high likelihood of succeeding in deleting the redirect.
Closing admin Yes, I closed this as redirect on the basis that the content would be contained in the redirect target, but it now appears that it won't. On that basis, I have no objection to this being overturned to No Consensus. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Ball and Chain (restaurant) and FlightNetwork and other deleted articles – Speedy deletions endorsed, as least as regards the outcome. This concerns a mass deletion of apparently around 80 articles speedily deleted per WP:G5 and WP:G11 as the suspected work of a paid editing sockpuppet network. There is considerable controversy as to whether the speedy deletions met the policy requirements for such actions, but there is consensus in this discussion to endorse them nonetheless, either on their merits or in the spirit of WP:IAR. – Sandstein 14:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I disagree and it's clear from Jeremy112233's habits of editing and facility, like this creation from his first few days after creating this account, and his self declaration that he was not really a new account. Given that apparently 100% of his edits (and those of his socks) matched undeclared paid editor profile, the G5 deletions were valid.
Given WP:NOTSUICIDE, it shouldn't be necessary to show legally conclusive evidence. However, if a new SPI were required to link to a preexisting LTA, I'd suggest looking at the sandbox similarities between Jeremy112233 and Sublimeharmony, for starters. If that's not cool enough, the Jeremy account was created less than two weeks before MooshiePorkFace. But it doesn't matter exactly who they are, the pattern is clear enough. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sublimeharmony was blocked by a checkuser 12 July 2013. Jeremy112233 was actively editing 12 July 2013. If these accounts were operated by the same person, the checkuser would have found and blocked Jeremy112233.
That Jeremy112233 said "I've been away from Wikipedia for a while" and has Wikipedia experience does not prove there's a WP:G5 violation. I do not consider "it doesn't matter exactly who they are, the pattern is clear enough" to be sufficient to delete articles like Ball and Chain (restaurant) and FlightNetwork under WP:G5. When I reviewed the articles at AfD, neither qualified for deletion under WP:G11.
Checkuser shouldn't be treated like some oracle. These operators know how to use multiple networks to hide their tracks. At least sometimes. You want more? How about [29] and [30] . They are laughing at you, Cunard, and you are enabling them. What if you just stopped doing it? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not there's a possibility that the user was previously blocked, G5 and G11 don't apply in cases where the article has survived AfD. - Bilby (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CU is NOT magic pixie dust. It does not pick up all a person's socks, in fact it only picks up a small number of a person's socks. Did this person have previous accounts, definitely. Were they previously blocked, using common sense, yes. In fact we have blocked accounts as mentioned with a similar editing pattern. Were these articles paid for and thus were they advertising, certainly by looking at them. So yes G5 and G11 applies. There creation is also a TOU violation which some here are willing to enforce. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way you did notice that Jeremy112233 voted in both AfD? [31][32] Both of these occurred after the TOU came into force.
Also we know that it is not that hard to create accounts that cannot be picked up by CU. We need to use common sense sometimes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the editor did have prior accounts, and it is possible that one of those prior accounts was blocked. But I think we have two issues. One is whether or not it is acceptable to apply G5 on the possibility of a prior blocked account. The other is whether or not G5 can be used on articles that have survived AfD. The second question isn't controversial - under CSD, we cannot delete articles under G5 or G11 if they have survived a prior AfD.
In regard to the other issue, I don't think we want to be in a situation where we allow articles to be deleted under G5 simply because of a suspicion of prior accounts. However, where it seems to be extremely likely, perhaps IGR applies? - Bilby (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The pages were speedy deleted after creator Jeremy112233 (talk·contribs) was blocked 13 September 2016 after investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremy112233. The rationale for speedy deletion under WP:G5 is that Jeremy112233 likely had previous blocked accounts. The deleting admin said he may have had previous blocked accounts because of a comment he made in 2012 ("I've been away from Wikipedia for a while"). But that is unverified and unknown. No clear link has been provided between Jeremy112233 and a prior blocked account.
This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others.
does not apply.
The terms of use's "paid contributions without disclosure section" was added 16 June 2014. Some of Jeremy112233's articles were created before 16 June 2014 so there is no terms of use violation.
The speedy deleting admin deleted 157 pages. He restored White House Community Leaders Briefing Series with the edit summary "Was okay." I am posting all the deleted articles here for review by the community since it is likely that more are okay.
Here's the thing — this place was established in 1935, it is a local landmark. I'm a little astonished at the Nominator's rationale, frankly... It does not matter a whit if all coverage is local, there is nothing in our General Notability Guideline that says "national good, local bad" — what we seek are multiple, published sources dealing substantially with the subject and of presumed reliability. This article passes GNG based on sources already showing in the footnotes.
It does not benefit the encyclopedia to delete this content.
Our undisclosed paid promotional editor "voted" in both the AFDs [33][34]
There SPI is here. It contains 30 blocked accounts.
As mentioned the Jeremy112233 was not new when it started. They very likely have prior blocked accounts seeing that they are using an army of socks. We have accounts prior to their creation that have the same editing pattern and are blocked.
Endorse per the unanimous consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 4, which was a similar case. Mass sock farms can reasonably be assumed to have previous blocked accounts. That a sock farm knows how to game CU should not prevent us from protecting Wikipedia. Doc James, would you mind also sharing the blocked accounts that are behaviorally connected? I think that would further your already strong argument. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sublimeharmony was blocked by a checkuser 12 July 2013. Jeremy112233 was actively editing 12 July 2013. If these accounts were operated by the same person, the checkuser would have found and blocked Jeremy112233.
Jeremy112233 does not know how to game checkuser because if he did, checkusers would not have been able to technically connect sockpuppet accounts That's not how the CU tool works. The CUs are very reluctant to go on fishing expeditions to find accounts not included in an SPI case. That Jeremy112233 wasn't identified earlier tells us exactly nothing about whether he was connected to the other accounts or not. Rentier (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain? It shows he did not know how to perfectly game CU. But we ALL know that CU is not pixie dust and will not pick up most socks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We recently had a similar sock farm with an account operating concurrently recreate the material byte for byte as exact recreations of the article. That these accounts can get caught by CU once does not mean that CU can't be gamed by them other times. We also have had times where CU has found an account technically unrelated after an admin DUCK blocked them, later to find out through UTRS IP data that they were the same account and have it confirmed. Behavioral evidence is the standard with many of these large operations, with CU being used to help as much as possible. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is speculation. There is no evidence that Jeremy112233 had a prior blocked account. With no connection between Jeremy112233 and a prior blocked account, WP:G5 does not apply and speedy deleting 157 pages is inappropriate. If admins want a suspicion of a prior blocked account to be sufficient for WP:G5 speedy deletion, they should achieve consensus to change the wording at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. It is not appropriate to speedy delete articles on notable topics like Ball and Chain (restaurant) and FlightNetwork that have passed AfD.
You see not concern that undisclosed paid socking accounts voted "keep" in both those AfD? If we cannot / do not deal with socks makes most of our processes meaningless. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles would have passed AfD even if Jeremy112233's comments were not taken into consideration. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse . CU is a primitive tool. It can suggest or in some cases prove that edits come from the same location but it's nothing compared to what other webmasters have access to nowadays. Our decision to block socks and/or delete their articles and those of paid editors relies on intelligent assessment of the evidence. And if the community decides an article goes, it goes. Wikipedia may be the result of crowdsourcing but that does not give any individual a constitutional right to edit or write it. Nor does it give any individual or company a right to have an article even if they found someone willing to accept money to write it. Wikipedia's inclusionist philosophy is sometimes too wildly accepted; IMO we should interpret the ToU as being sufficiently broadly construed to allow the deletion of such articles whether notable or not. With 5.5mio articles, the loss of a few in order to demonstrate that we don't tolerate sockpuppetry or paid editing is negligible, and IMO more than perfectly justified. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Per the above discussion. G5, G11, and TOU violations justify these deletions. Our readers deserve a Wikipedia that is independent of the subjects we write about. Not taking action is going to hurt our reputation and thus our shared brand. A lot is on the line here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's inclusionist philosophy is sometimes too wildly accepted; IMO we should interpret the ToU as being sufficiently broadly construed to allow the deletion of such articles whether notable or not. – that is a valid opinion to share at an RfC about expanding the speedy deletion criteria to include terms of use violations. But it is not appropriate to speedy delete articles outside of the speedy deletion criteria and against consensus, especially considering that G14. Articles created in violation of Wikimedia Foundation terms of use was rejected in January 2017 at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 61#Proposed new criterion.
The terms of use's "paid contributions without disclosure section" was added 16 June 2014. Jeremy112233's account was created in 2012. Some of Jeremy112233's articles were created before 16 June 2014 so there is no terms of use violation.
All of them have had edits by Jeremy after June 2014. Did not delete the ones they have not edited since June 2014. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be a great tool if we could use G5 to delete the work of paid editors even if they weren't blocked at the time. However, when this was put to the community in July, it failed to gain consensus. I'm loathe to go against that community discussion and see it applied by stealth. That said I hope we can get consensus for deleting ToU violations - I'd just like to see community support first. In regard to the articles that had previously survived AfD, I'd like to see them restored. G5 does not apply in cases where the article has survived AfD, so it doesn't matter whether or not this editor had prior blocked accounts - we cant delete them using this method. - Bilby (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Were does it say "G5 does not apply in cases where the article has survived AfD"?
Per "Some of Jeremy112233's articles were created before 16 June 2014", those I believe were excluded from deletion (at least the ones that had not been edited by them after that date)
And finally this which you claim has not gained consensus has not been closed yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to AfD, I'm surprised you weren't aware of this. Per the policy on WP:CSD - "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria; these criteria are noted below", and none of the criteria includes G5. Those articles should be returned, as they were deleted out of process, although there's only six or so that fall under that category.
You are correct that the discussion hasn't closed yet - that was my fault for following what I thought was an archive link. However, as it hasn't been closed, I don't think we can circumvent that discussion by unilaterally deciding to delete paid articles here while it is still being discussed. Once the community finds a consensus we can work with that, whatever it may be.
Finally, in regard to deleting articles because someone might have been blocked in the past - that's a very uncomfortable precedent, and not a principle that I'd like to support. We'd be far better off getting support for CSD on articles by undisclosed paid editors, than we would be by allowing articles to be deleted without discussion because we're guessing whether or not the editor may have had a problem in the past, but don't know either way. The former would be an invaluable tool in stopping paid editing; the latter is a dangerous precedent that would be very open to misuse. - Bilby (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal you linked to has nothing to do with G5. G5 is often applied, by different admins, to articles created by sockfarms (e.g. the Anatha_Gulati one) - even in the absence of identified previously blocked socks. There's been relatively little opposition to the common-sense presumption that older blocked socks exist. Rentier (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G5 is very clear that someone had to have been blocked at the time they created the article. There are three issues - is it ok to delete using G5 if you don't know that the editor was blocked at the time; is it ok to delete on the grounds that it was created in violation of the ToU; and is it ok to delete under G5 an article that survived AfD. The last of these is simple - no. The first is a bit grey, but it isn't a precedent I like. The second is still under discussion, so I linked to the discussion of that proposal. Personally, I think we should separate out the articles that survived AfD and allow them to return, and look at the first as the issue for the rest. - Bilby (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say here that passing a prior AfD protects the content created by a banned user from deletion. The last of these is simple and it is AfD does not matter. If it was the case than undisclosed paid editors would have a great trick to "protect" the content they create before they are discovered. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just read WP:CSD. G5 is not an exception, and we don't delete articles under G5 if they have survived an AfD. The policy is quite clear. Linking to another policy which doesn't say anything one way or the other about prior AfDs is not a way of getting around it. The community may wish to make an exception in this case, but you should have been aware of the CSD policy. - Bilby (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Bilby:"is it ok to delete using G5 if you don't know that the editor was blocked at the time" - if an admin is fairly certain that the editor was banned (not just blocked), then the action is reasonable; we appoint admins to use their judgement in such events. We may not agree in every particular case, but the principle that we trust admins with this sort of discretion is sound. "is it ok to delete on the grounds that it was created in violation of the ToU" - this is still debatable, but deleting on the grounds that it was created in violation of the ToU by a banned user is surely uncontroversial? "is it ok to delete under G5 an article that survived AfD" - it may be, where it complies with other policy. You need to ask yourself whether an AfD which was 'poisoned' by the lack of revelation that a participating editor was a banned user (especially where they were the sole editor of the article) should carry more weight than our Bans apply to all editing, good or bad policy and our Terms of Use. I have no doubt that it should not. As for "policy is clear", policy documents practice, not prescribes it. in any case, the CSD policy does not proscribe CSD G5 of the work of a banned user after an AfD because it does not mention it, nor does it state that the list of exceptions are exhaustive, by your own reasoning, it doesn't say anything anything one way or the other. --RexxS (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly open to saying that IAR applies if that is the decision, and that the articles created by an editor that we're almost certain was previously banned can be deleted. I'd much rather an agreement that we can delete ToU violations, though, as that would be a far better tool, and hopefully consensus will go that way.
However, I disagree with you in regard to the application of G5. The community has always felt that we need to be careful not to delete useful material in order to spite a banned editor. Accordingly, if the content was approved through AfD, or if other people have made substantial edits to the material, it has been protected from CSD - especially given that it has already been examined and found to be worth keeping.
We can play at wikilawyering if we like, but the policy is clear. If an article has survived AFD it is no longer eligible for CSD, unless it meets the requirements for G6, G8, G9 or G12. If it does not meet one of those exceptions, we can't delete it via CSD. This accounts for a grand total of six articles in the list that Doc James deleted, so it isn't as if it is a big deal, but I think we need to treat those separately. - Bilby (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyering is precisely arguing the letter of policy over its spirit, which - with all due respect - is exactly what you're doing in that argument. A poisoned AfD should never be protection from deletion, and the list of exceptions at CSD is perfectly capable of being expanded. These are not set in tablets of stone and must reflect practice, not define it. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are still trying to play games. We don't change policy or define practice through one person deciding to go against what the community has repeatedly shown that it wishes to do. If the consensus is to endorse this deletion then it will be a one off exception under IAR, which is fine - independent exceptions happen and we should be ok with that if it is the consensus. If you want the exceptions under CSD expanded, feel free to give it a shot over there. But don't bother claiming that this is anything more than an IAR exception that goes against existing policy. To be honest, I would have been much more comfortable if that was the reason given by Doc James in the first place, than I am with attempts to invent justifications under policy which don't exist and which are based on a lack of awareness of a key part of CSD policy. - Bilby (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bilby we disagree on the interpretation of policy. Where has the community repeatedly expressed the desire to keep promotional articles created by massive sock farms run by undisclose paid editors with likely prior blocked accounts? Were has the community agreed that "paid for advertisements" should be kept? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're playing strange games still. You've followed the paid editing debates at least as closely as I have. Whenever someone tried to get support for a policy regarding paid editing, the problem was always that a large percentage argued that we should focus on the content, not the creator. It wasn't until the WMF stepped in and ran a RFC on meta that change happened, and only because it was held off en-wiki. There is an emerging opposition to paid editing that might override this in the future, but the reason why G5 is restricted in this way is because the community has wished for admins to respect the community decisions at AFD, and not delete an article that they have decided is worth keeping.
Very simply, if you want to say that an exception should be made under IAR to allow deletions out of process in this case, then ok. There's an argument to be made. But you keep trying to say that this is permitted under policy, when the policy is, and has always been, very clear about when G5 applies and when it doesn't. I agree strongly with S Marshall and SomkeyJoe - there may be a reason for an exception here under IAR, but this mess trying to justify it is a problem. - Bilby (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that the deletions are within the spirit if not the letter of policy. CU is not the only method used to link accounts to prior account. Undisclosed paid promotional editing is nearly always, well promotional. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If they were overly promotional, the articles that survived AfD would not have done so. But at least you seem to be acknowledging that the deletions were not within policy as written, which is something. - Bilby (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"...if not the letter of policy". - Bilby (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse -- the deletions were within admin discretion. They were also supported by common sense and the in line with the goals of the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse--The deletions were perfect and in acc. with common-sense.Cunard has somehow equated CU with magic-pixie-dust.Winged Blades Godric 10:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, within common sense and within discretion. No objection if an editor in good standing wants to tackle any of these topics with a new article, but we shouldn't be restoring the work of undisclosed paid editors based on arguments around potential notability. Lankiveil(speak to me) 10:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse as reasonable and necessary to control paid editing and socking. Further, Admins should be deleting drafts created by these sockfarms as well. I often find drafts of deleted articles lurking. Legacypac (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I heartily endorse speedily deleting the sock-created articles but am uncomfortable with the justification we have.
On the one hand, Cunard has shown that in at least some cases G5 did not, strictly speaking, apply because there were substantial edits by others. Cunard has also shown that in at least some cases G11 did not, strictly speaking, apply. Neither G5 nor G11 may be used to remove articles that have survived deletion discussions, and some of the articles had survived them. Terms of use violations may be very good grounds to speedily remove material but we don't have a rule that says so. I find it very hard indeed to square an "endorse" outcome with DRV's role in ensuring the community's long-established and finely-balanced deletion processes are correctly followed.
On the other hand, we clearly need effective means of expunging sockfarm-created promotional material from our encyclopaedia. We need to empower our sysops to do so promptly and with the minimum of bureaucracy. It's vital that the outcome of this DRV does not encourage sockfarms to AfD their own articles to inoculate them against G5 and G11, and I would endorse on these grounds alone.
I see a case for an amendment to our rules here that would retrospectively authorise these deletions.—S MarshallT/C 12:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think I deleted any with "substantial edits by others". Happy to look at cases in which you feel this is the case. Would be happy to see our rules around this clarified. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd prefer a rule that specifically authorises sysops to use extraordinary measures including out-of-criteria deletions to clean up promotional material created by prolific sockfarms, after a full CU has taken place.—S MarshallT/C 13:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I was God of Wikipedia then there would be a general rule in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry saying something like, "Once a SPI has confirmed the existence of a prolific sockfarm (where prolific means connected with more than a dozen articles) whose purpose is advocacy, admins cleaning up their edits are authorised to use their judgment about how to do so. This includes speedy deletions that would otherwise be out of process, and the use of scripts or other automated tools to perform large-scale reversions or cleanup." There would also have to be a G14 ("cleanup of advocacy by CU-confirmed prolific sockfarms").—S MarshallT/C 16:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: (i) The fact that Jeremy112233 is a sock of a banned user, linked to a large paid-editing sock farm is clear by both behavioural evidence and by SPI - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremy112233/Archive. The 2012 admission that they had edited previously strengthens the conviction that this operation goes back many years, leaving no doubt that the edits made by Jeremy112233 are made by an indefinitely blocked user. (ii) A user who is indefinitely blocked and has no admin willing to unblock is considered "banned by the Wikipedia community" per Wikipedia:Banning policy #Community bans and restrictions, i.e. site-banned. (iii) All blocks and bans apply to the user. not merely the account. (iv) The community has decided, as a matter of principle, that edits by banned users, good or bad, are eligible for reversion or, for complete articles, speedy deletion per Wikipedia:Banning policy #Edits by and on behalf of banned editors: "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion.". There is no exception made at that policy for articles previously surviving a deletion discussion. (v) It is clear that we need to harmonise the CSD policy with the banning policy. It is worth noting that CSD #Pages that have survived deletion discussions lists uncontroversial reasons for speedy deletion. I contend that the deletion of an article solely edited by a banned user, is not merely uncontroversial, it is already policy. The fact that the edits are also unarguably a breach of our ToU strengthens that contention. --RexxS (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: G5 deletions were appropriate based on the common-sense presumption, supported by behavioural evidence, that Jeremy112233's previous accounts (which existed, by his own admission) were already blocked at the time of his edits. We can't wikilawyer ourselves into accepting articles created by sockfarms on procedural grounds alone. Rentier (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fie. Agree largely with S Marshall. I support deletion of the sock-created articles but am uncomfortable with the haphazard attempts at justification. Get ToU violations deletion policy documented, and call it IAR in the meantime. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletions per comments by RexxS. It would be controversial to restore articles created by socks, paid editors, or COI editors. CU does not let admins to go on fishing expeditions. Decisions to delete articles generated by paid socks relies on evaluating the evidence. I have been watching the COI noticeboard and the apparent COI and sock violations need to be dealt with swiftly. QuackGuru (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
strongly endorse -- User:Cunard I can appreciate an inclusionist ethic, but what you are doing here is terrible on two levels. Please think this through. This socking paid editor has made money dumping industrial waste into Wikipedia and the editing community has already spent a ton of time cleaning up this industrial waste. All the time that went into identifying all the fake accounts that this person used as pipelines for industrial waste, was time not spent building good content. You are defending an industrial polluter andforcing us to waste yet more time on this. I and everyone else !voting here, are not building content, because we are here dealing with this. Why you would do this -- why you would defend an industrial polluter and make us waste yet more time on this -- is completely beyond me. If you think any of these are appropriate for an actual WP article, please go ahead and write them. That would be a good use of your time, and everyone else's. Just FIXIT instead of rewarding industrial polluters with this wikilawyering. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard's not forcing you to do anything, actually.—S MarshallT/C 20:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes technically that is true. This is a volunteer project and no one is forced to anything. But that is a complete bullshit remark - snarky, CWOT and beneath you and everyone who wastes time running their eyes across it. To be as tedious as you and drive your face into your own bullshit and smear it around -- to the extent that things are decided by consensus and there are people who close mostly by counting !votes, anybody who gives a flying fuck and is aware of this needs to respond here. So really, take your snark and use it... well, just don't use it. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC) (strike Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
No snark here, Jytdog. You're rather overexcited. Neither Cunard nor anyone else is forcing you to participate in this unanimously endorsing deletion review. There's a discussion about process to be had, which you're welcome to disregard if it doesn't interest you.—S MarshallT/C 20:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your comment on my watchlist. Stopped what I was doing to come here and read it. More of a waste of my time. I fucking wrote that I fucking know that every fucking thing I do is here is fucking voluntary. Cunard wrote "It does not benefit the encyclopedia to delete this content." and for anybody who gives a flying fuck that needs fucking rebutting. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)(strikes Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Endorse per S Marshall, SmokeyJoe, and Jytdog. In general, I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to WP:CSD. I agree that, as currently worded, WP:G5 doesn't apply to creations of TOU-violators (see, for example, my argument near the bottom of WP:Articles for deletion/Gene Freidman). But, I think that, even if the letter of G5 doesn't agree, the spirt is clearly that people should not be able to benefit from performing forbidden actions. I agree that we should modify the wording of WP:G5 and/or create a new WP:CSD to deal with the scourge of undisclosed paid editing head-on, and with unambiguous language. Until that time, I'll proudly fly the WP:IAR banner on this endorsement. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I became aware of this discussion because I watchlist Doc James' talkpage. I think that this is a useful discussion, and I find no fault with the editors who are arguing for review, because I think that it's a good thing to have a close look at the underlying issues. For me, it comes down to how we can balance the genuinely massive harm that is done by these kinds of TOU-flouting sockfarms against the possibility that some page topics may in fact be notable. And the fact that good-faith editors remain free to recreate deleted pages with proper sourcing etc. puts me firmly on the side of "endorse". I looked at the two AfDs, and one was closed as "keep" with very little discussion while the other was closed as "no consensus", so it's not like anyone deleted a page that had strong community support. I don't much care whether it's IAR or just plain f--k the undisclosed paid editors and CSD fine print be damned. I do not see this as a violation of CSD rules, but rather as something that is desperately necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse it's obvious that these articles were created by someone with a long history of paid editing and sockpuppetry and it is therefore very likely that one of their accounts has been blocked at some point. That's enough for me. The fact that CU didn't pick up the accounts means nothing. I am tempted to say that the ones which survived deletion discussions should be restored, as G5 and G11 do not apply there, however the fact that Jeremy112233 participated in both of those discussions brings the results into question. Hut 8.5 07:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per RexxS. CheckUser is not magic- this is proven by CU not finding Jeremy's self admitted previous account. In fact we have sockfarms who actively change their behavior after reading their own SPI cases, and sock farms are becoming more and more sophisticated in their attempts to circumvent CU, such that even clear DUCKs can be unrelated after a check. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse per RexxS's great policy analysis and Jytdog's amplifying comments on ways and means. Plus of course my owncomments at Doc James' talkpage that were part of the genesis of this review. 20:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)☆ Bri (talk)[reply]
Overturn 1) G5 is not retroactive, and the community declined to make it so, and 2) The evidence that these were created by previously banned entities is circumstantial, and 3) CSDs do not allow G5 if an article has survived its most recent AfD. I am concerned that the legitimate interests of preventing undisclosed paid editing (UPE) are causing us to abandon appropriate levels of evidence and due process. I am further concerned that this scorched-earth, evidence-light approach to punishing suspected UPE can be used maliciously by anyone smart enough to NOT fool CU to cause the unwarranted deletion of articles they dislike, or are perhaps paid to eliminate. Due process is a bulwark against such miscarriages. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Due process", "circumstantial evidence" and other legalistic terms are more evidence of wikilawyering on this matter. What's at stake is the credibility of the encyclopedia as a neutral source of information, not an advertising, and retention of our good-faith editors who at least want to know when they are interacting with paid creations. Deletion of ToU violating material is allowed, and arguing for it to be kept is counterproductive to the broad goals of the project as an ongoing enterprise. Arguing for massive amounts of ToU violating material to be fought piecemeal, article by article, agonizing over each specific source, quote and credibility of the source, is a suicide pact that need not be kept; rather it should be abandoned right now. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbole much? There is no special risk to the encyclopedia, since any identified advertising content can be fixed through the regular editing process, and any assertion that there is such a risk is evidence that rational thought is taking a back seat to the desire to punish UPEs. G5 is about punishing banned editors by intentionally destroying their contributions regardless of merit. G11 is about denying ad space. Combining them to presumptively retroactively destroy UPE content--or anything suspected of being such--is not a good idea. As I've argued elsewhere, speedy deletion is not the right process for suspected UPE content, and yet your shrill response posits that I am somehow advocating for the foreseeable and imminent demise of Wikipedia by preferring more deliberative and transparent processes. Jclemens (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, I hope you don't mind my asking (because it is a question out of trying to understand your logic here, and not a gotcha'), but what is the distinction you draw between G5 on these articles where it is pretty clear by the creators own admission that they had a previously banned account and your position at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 4, where you had a sockfarm of a similar scale. I respect your view re: paid editing, and that isn't the reason behind my endorsement. I supported the CSD criteria for that, but it hasn't been adopted yet. There did seem to be consensus there when it was brought up that large sockfarms were already covered by G5. I certainly wouldn't support applying G5 to a family with only one or two socks, but this one had 30. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's an absolutely valid question, and three factors play into my slightly different take on this: 1) Scope, single article vs. dozens. 2) that one was a BLP, and 3) no one seems to be paying much attention to the 'yes, but...' opinions above, so I thought I'd speak out a bit stronger against it. Again, I continue to believe we need a deliberative and transparent way to handle these on a large scale, and while one G5 isn't going to make a difference, I'd rather see this broad number of articles dealt with other than as an IAR. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. In my mind the distinction in making this G5 is the scale of the socking and the extreme likelihood given all the behavioral evidence that we have a blocked master that is not named in the SPI. I'd not support this for a one account TOU violator or even a 5 account violator. The 30 accounts though all but guarantees that if we had the technical ability, we'd be able to connect this to a blocked master before these articles were created. FWIW, assuming that this DRV goes as it is trending now, I think a discussion at VPP could be had about updating G5 to clarify for these type of situations without going to the extent of the proposed G14. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a passing comment, the user admitted to a prior account, but not to a prior blocked account. We're working on the assumption that the prior account was blocked to justify G5. - Bilby (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which I think is fair given the level of socking we've seen here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case - I actually think it is a bit unlikely, but possible, if only because most paid editors go from one long term account to individual throwaway socks per job, rather than one long term to a new long term account. However, I just needed to correct where you said that the editor had admitted that they were previously banned. This is not the case. - Bilby (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. I actually didn't say that: I meant that by their own admission of having a previous account, it is pretty clear from their behavior here that it was likely banned. I see how you could confuse my wording, though. Thanks for allowing me to clarify. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilby: You're mistaken. Blocks and bans apply to the user, not the account. If one sock is banned, every account of that user is banned, whether we have made the connection or not. If a banned user admits to a prior account, that account is, of course, de facto banned as well. --RexxS (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that is irrelevant. The question is whether or not they had a prior account (yes), and whether or not that prior account was blocked or banned before they edited as Jeremey112233, (which were are assuming is likely, but don't actually know). - Bilby (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to tag the articles, and give the community a week to review the content and opine whether they should stay or go, in my mind. Yes, we want to ruin UPE's days, but not at the expense of our own processes, of which everyone seems to want to make everything a speedy (yes, I know THAT is hyperbole) when we should really have a transparent, deliberative process to make sure we're firing on all cylinders and not being inappropriately overzealous. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. We appoint admins on the basis that we trust their judgement when making a decision like "is it extremely likely that this is a banned user?" The benefit of having a speedy deletion process for uncontroversial deletions is that we don't have to sit around for a week arguing about something that's obvious. The downside is that only two pairs of eyes are needed to make the decision, but at least one of those is an admin, trusted to make that decision. In the event of mistakes, we have REFUND and DRV, but we should not be overturning something as clear cut as deleting the contributions of banned users, simply because we haven't yet codified the exact circumstances in which G5 is a sensible exception to the "survived prior deletion" policy. That is putting the letter of policy before its spirit, and our encyclopedia is founded upon doing exactly the opposite to that. --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, there weren't two pairs of eyes. However, the main issue is that we place limits on admin actions through policy, especially where the actions are difficult for a normal editor to reverse. CSD is very open to misuse, and to make sure that doesn't happen we have things like the restriction to G5, intended to avoid deletions of articles without consultation where the community has decided that the article should be kept. This isn't about due process as some strange bureaucratic court, but being transparent and careful so as not to override decisions of the community or to act against the community's expectations. - Bilby (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From the point of view of the general public who is coming to Wikipedia and absorbing its content, I asked myself the following: Do I care if the subjects I am coming across in the encyclopedia are notable? Yes; do I care if the content was created by someone who was banned or is a UPE? Not really, so long as the content is good; do I care if Wikipedia editors have applied all of the extant rules regarding speedy deletion of content? Meh; do I care if I am reading content that is phrased promotionally? Yes, I don't want to see that; what about accuracy? Yes, I want accuracy; do I care if editors remove valid content by way of punishing someone who deserves it? Yes, I want to be able to see that no matter who wrote it or why; what about sockfarms? Shrug— I said I wanted things to be notable and accurate; even content generated by banned users? Shrug again. I understand we have rules about the kind of content we host as well as who is not allowed to create it, and I see the benefit of having these rules, but, to put it in simplest terms, if that restaurant is notable and the information was accurate and not phrased promotionally, I want to be able to read about it even if having that article is some kind of exception to the rules about edits by a banned user. That's my take, anyway. KDS4444(talk) 09:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KDS4444: The bigger picture is Do I care if the encyclopedia gets flooded with borderline notable, promotional articles that have been placed there for payment, rather than to further the sum of knowledge? - Yes, too right I do. The reason we remove all content from undisclosed paid editors is not to punish anyone: it is to make the point that the community has agreed it is better to lose some usable content if it means that we demonstrate to those paying for promotion that they cannot benefit from it. The only way to stop undisclosed paid editing is to ensure that the source of income dries up, and for that to happen, we have to take a firm line. Of course, if you or anybody else wants to read the sources and generate a notable article afresh, please do so. Nothing is stopping you from that. Just don't expect to get paid for it and not tell anyone. --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The moment any given rule prevents us from acting within common sense is the moment that rule needs to be ignored. What's best for the encyclopedia is showing spammers and their work to the door as quickly, permanently and non-disruptively as possible... and we should do the same for spam defenders/enablers as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Say what? First off, 'common sense' does not unanimously say we discard otherwise good content based on who wrote it, especially in some of the cases decided above. Second, a wide diversity of opinion is welcome and necessary on Wikipedia, with exactly one exception: WP:CHILDPROTECT. We have all sorts of other disagreements about things from the ridiculous to the sublime, but your statement would put those who don't believe in witch hunts against possibly/probably UPE-created content in a category currently only occupied by pro-pedophilia advocates. That is not a consensus-building approach. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have a number of things we do not readily compromise on. (1) One is child protect as mentioned (2) Is no legal threats (3) Is not adding material that is a copyright infringement (4) Is our Terms of Use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: Consensus is already clear: the banning policy has a section, "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad", and states "The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. That has a footnote refering to arbitration decisions, that I'm sure you're aware of. We remove even good content to make sure that a ban remains a ban. There are no compromises on that. Of course the removal is without prejudice to an editor in good standing making use of good sources to re-add or re-create it. It's not as if we're "salting" the topic, and that sort of process actually fits better with CSD than AfD, because of the ease of REFUND for articles speedy deleted. --RexxS (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do not know if the editor was banned or not when these articles were created. The question is not whether or not we should delete the work of an editor evading a block or ban, but if we should delete work on the basis that the editor might have been blocked or banned. - Bilby (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing gives us absolute proof that a person does not have prior banned accounts. CU is sometimes wrong aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this world is certain, except death and taxes, but if a user is banned then all of their accounts are banned. If you look through the creation dates of the linked accounts in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremy112233/Archive, you'll see that they had a sizeable farm as early as 2014 - there's no might about that, or about the fact that they are banned. The actual question is if a user is blocked and banned for chronic systematic sock-puppetry, are their edits prior to being caught exempt from WP:BMB? Must we preserve their edits because we didn't catch them sooner? I say not. You should feel free to disagree, but you'll need good reasons to fly against the spirit of our banning policy. --RexxS (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're getting anywhere. G5 states "To qualify, the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion". The articles that we are discussing here were created by the user before the account was blocked. Therefore they would not normally qualify for G5. The exception that Doc James is claiming is that it is possible that the user had a prior account that was also blocked, but I'm very uncomfortable about using G5 in cases where we have no proof that the user was blocked before they created the articles. Your question, "if a user is blocked and banned for chronic systematic sock-puppetry, are their edits prior to being caught exempt", the answer is yes, in regard to G5, under existing policy.
Anyway, I'll let this be. I'll be disturbed if this becomes a precedent that we apply without community consensus to modify G5, but I'm always ok if consensus is to make a one off exception under IAR. - Bilby (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it may be worth, a significant part of why I'm comfortable with this particular IAR is that the deletions are not the same thing as WP:SALT. It's not like the content is lost forever. Good faith editors remain free to re-create the pages with their own writing if the subjects are notable. It is even possible to ask an admin to temporarily undelete a page in order to let one see what was deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting promotional articles created by large groups of socks were none of the socks appears to be a new account is already standard practice based on G5. This deletion review is just reinforcing that current practice still remains the consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bilby echoes my concerns: Y'all are pretty clear on your desired course of action, but the underpinning is flimsy and inappropriate. This isn't a discussed deletion, it's a SPEEDY deletion. No one opposed to the speedy deletion has said it would be inappropriate for a deliberative process to have killed this content with fire. Nor has anyone objected to proven banned editor content being speedily deleted. I have seen nothing to suggest that any urgency demanded the deletion of content without discussion. For those reasons, I oppose applying G5 to suspected banned editor contributions. I am greatly disturbed by the seeming presence of religion (UPE) and politics (banning policy) in the same cart. Again, nothing needed to be done via speedy. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are fair concerns. Giving admins the right to declare ToU violation and speedy delete masses of pages is not consistent with a community run project. I think maybe a new deletion forum, specifically for the past work of now banned editors. The assessment would be very different to notability guessing at AfD. The questions should include: Do editors in good standing share a significant proportion of the authorship? Is the topic of such low value that it should be simply deleted, or was it actually a wanted article that deserves retention of the good references, and stubification, stripping all content authored by the ToU violator. These discussions would then be appropriate records, should the decision be later questioned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Jytdog, Roy Smith, and S Marshall. If the current wording of G5 seems to compel us to overturn these deletions (and I don't agree that it does), then that's a reason to repair the wording of G5 rather than to restore these CVs and advertising brochures. ReykYO! 10:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's important to address the "there weren't two pairs of eyes" claim made above. Actually there were many more than two pairs of eyes prior to a single speedy deletion. Recounting events that led up to the deletions: Zeroth, the first Jeremy112233 COIN case on 2014-02-25. SPI first opened 2016-09-13. New evidence added two months later and again 2017-03-07, case closed 2017-05-26. I created the full list of their edits 2017-08-31, created new COIN case for community review and cleanup the next day on 2017-09-01, and I posted the first G5 for Bedgear Performance Bedding a few minutes after that with the explicit comment inline and in the edit summary [35] that it was a trial nomination to see if policy was met. Only after all this, and with no objections to my trial comment, did Doc James and other admins (n.b. Doc James did not delete Bedgear) start to delete the articles that I had nominated or listed, then he waited, then deleted some more. So laying this out as if there were a rogue admin on the loose is a reporting of events that does not accord with the actual events. RexxS's comment "the deletion of an article solely edited by a banned user, is not merely uncontroversial, it is already policy" is accurate and applies in every way to this case, where policy was correctly applied. This review (per emergent consensus) hasn't successfully challenged any policy nor (per my analysis) shown misapplication of existing policy. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid I don't think that's right. This review has resoundingly endorsed Doc James' actions as appropriate and justified in the circumstances. But I think to say there's no policy issue here at all is to misstate the position quite badly.
During this deletion review what's come to light that the banning policy is at odds with the speedy deletion policy. As you rightly say, WP:BANREVERT says any edit by a banned user can be removed. But as Cunard equally rightly says, G5 is not listed at WP:CSD as one of the criteria that can lead to speedy deletion despite surviving AfD. This is a lacuna in the way our policy is written, and it's potentially a large problem because to leave policy untouched as a result of this discussion would be to encourage sockfarms to AfD their own articles to inoculate them against G5.
Fixing the lacuna would be a good outcome from this DRV.—S MarshallT/C 23:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can just see it: undisclosed paid sockfarms AfD-ing their own pages to game the system. Ouch! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree further clarification of CSD to close this potential "loophole" would be a good outcome of this DRV. Not sure if we need another discussion other than this or not. Have gone ahead and boldly added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As that's been reverted already, I volunteer to start the necessary RfC on WT:CSD once this deletion review has been closed.—S MarshallT/C 01:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just in regard to the "two sets of eyes" thing, wheat I meant was that Doc James deleted the articles without tagging. There are plenty of times when this is justified, but generally one person tags and another admin provides a second set of eyes to consider the tag and delete or not. Accordingly, there was only one set of eyes for each of these articles. This may well be justified - I don't have a particular problem with it, and do the same with clear cases of G5 - but it was in relation to RexxS' comment that CSD has two sets of eyes evaluate the case. - Bilby (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Re Ball and Chain, the notability is even more suspect than expressed at AFD. (Would an admin mind copying exact info from my post on the now deleted talkpage...). The sequence of businesses at the location goes roughly: Ball and Chain 1 > other bar > Furniture shop for 20 years > Empty for X years > Nightclub 1 > Nightclub 2 > Ball and Chain 2. There's no continuity between the B&C1 and B&C2 apart from same name and building. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of talk:Ball and Chain (restaurant)
The 57 year gap, notability, etc.
Ref the AFD, I started out trying to patch the gap, began digging, (I know this is heading in the direction of OR) and the order of businesses as far as I can tell is:
Ball & Chain I (1935-1957)
Copa Lounge Tavern (1957?-1966?)
Futurama Furniture (1966?-199x)
?Empty? (199x-2008?) - this crossreferences with this 2007 photo
Kamazoo Nightclub, etc (2011?-2012?), mentioned only in this wire story, and address shows as 1513 SW 8th St
B&C2 (2014-)
While the omission of clubs from the standard narrative (and their website) might be understandable, it does mean that the B&C2 has even less continuity with the B&C1.
The building is not currently listed either singly or in aggregate. It's possible that something might happen if the National Trust, which designated LH one of the 11 most endangered areas in the US last year, designates the district as historic, but that's WP:CRYSTAL.
And on the Orlando Sentinel's "Two iconic buildings in the 1500 block predate Little Havana the Tower Theater, an art-house cinema, and the Ball & Chain", there's not any independent evidence available to show that the B&C building is actually iconic, there's few distinct (even if adjoined) buildings in the 1500 block, and Little Havana emerged as LH in the 1960s, so many buildings in the block appear to predate it (xref this thesis -- which is not usable as a RS but is at least indicative).
Uncertain I think it was definitely right to delete in these cases, and I agree with Doc James' interpretation , and with the others who support it. But this was a real violation of accepted procedure, and an uncollegial administrative action (even tho I agreer with the result). I consider it very poor administrative practice for an administrator to make speedy deletions without a prior nomination from another editor except in purely routine or in emergency situations. It's pretty well accepted we do not delete single-handed in situations involving A7 or G11, because judgment is involved, and nobody should fully trust their own. I think it poor practice to do it with banned editors, because it's sometimes not absolutely certain that the editor has in fact been banned at the time--and because it is sometimes possible for a responsible editor to adopt the article. I think it totally wrong for TOU violation, which is not yet really a fully accepted criterion. These deletions involved TPU violations, G5, and G11 ; none of which should be done single handed. And this was a bold use of the combination criteria, in a situation where opposition was to be expected from at least a few other admins. I would never work this way, and I feel just as strongly about they underlying situation as Doc or anyone else here--and in fact have been advocating doing exactly this for over a year now, so I am glad to see it done. But it should have been done by nominating them--there is as the discussion above shows no shortage or other admins to confirm and delete. I hope single handed action like this will never be repeated. (and I came very near !voting revert rather than uncertain because of this, much as I agree with the result.) DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw in the discussion no evidence that handling them in this fashion was agreed on by consensus--re-reading it, I rather see a dispute on how to handle it. I do see two admins agreeing that the deletions should be done that way--but the requirement for confirmation by 2 people holds for individual articles--doing mass deletions that way requires more consensus than that. I see at the list no discussion of doing it this way either. As many of the articles on the list have not yet been deleted, I am working on removing them the proper way, one at a time, with a check by another admin via speedy , or by afd if it seems to warrant a discussion (In fact, one of my speedies was just declined, and will consequently go to AfD. ) The extent of subversion of WP that is being revealed should not be met by panic. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This talk about TOU and whether or not the editor was banned is entirely irrelevant, since G5 only applies when there are no subsequent substantive edits to the article (the G5 text is already quoted above). I even had an administrator refuse to delete an article talk page once, claiming that my DB-G5 speedy delete request added a substantive edit. The issue here is about two articles that went to AfD, so even without the article history there can be no doubt that the AfD template was applied and removed. These two AfDs represent a huge investment in good edits, which G5 is written to protect. Unscintillating (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I believe the subject qualifies as notable. Deleting admin suggested I bring the matter here. Note that I am not asking for the article to be restored to the version in which it was deleted but rather to the earlier version mentioned in the deletion discussion. I feel the deletion discussion did not adequately consider that version, which I believe is appropriately neutral. Subject continues to be the topic of ongoing news coverage; see deleting admin's page for our discussion of the BLP1E issue. If necessary, I would be willing to recreate the article from scratch, but undeletion of the previous version seems more appropriate. KDS4444(talk) 23:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the content that the nom wants restored was commented on as several editors as still not being within the inclusion guidelines. Additoinally, the article as a whole was deleted as paid spam, so notability doesn't come into the question: pages can be deleted for WP:NOT violations, and this certainly was one. Even if one thinks WP:N trumps WP:NOT (which the text of the guideline makes it clear it doesn't), DRV is not AfD 2.0, and while KDS4444 might believe that the subject who paid him for this article qualifies as notable, the consensus at this AfD was that the subject was not notable per BLP1E. All of these arguments were brought forth and rejected at AfD. Trying to relitigate it here is not the purpose of a deletion review. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That debate couldn't possibly have been closed in any other way, but on the basis of my review of the sources, I think this gentleman probably does merit his own article. It's true that a lot of the sources are about one event ---- but there are simple biographical sources as well. Dr Levenson is chief of medicine at a reputable medical institution --- which is not an insignificant accomplishment and in my opinion pushes him over the bar for WP:PROF. (DRV regulars will recall my antipathy to SNGs, but for me, WP:PROF is an exception. I think it's right that Wikipedia is generous to academics who do a lot more to earn their coverage than many others who get Wikipedia articles.)
The AfD was crystal clear that the article was way too promotional for Wikipedia, and there were no revisions in the history that were neutral enough to comply with policy.
The take-home message from that AfD is that any biographical article written by a paid editor should be strictly factual and easily checkable, by which I mean that every statement about the person should be immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the statement being made.
One of DRV's functions is to review drafts of articles that have previously been deleted, and I recommend to the closer that DRV should reserve to itself the review for this particular draft. So I'll go with endorse deletion but allow creation of a userspace draft which should be presented to DRV for review.—S MarshallT/C 14:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per TonyBallioni. There was absolutely zero chance of the AFD being closed any other way. If the subject is ultimately going to have an article (and I am absolutely unconvinced that they should), it should be written by an established editor (no more paid shills) and absolutely NOT touched by KDS4444, who's frankly made a complete pig's ear of the whole thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse -- the consensus was clear; there was no other way that the discussion could have been closed. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Well participated with clear agreement that the topic in not suitable. KDS4444 was arguing unpersuasively all through the discussion, and there is nothing left to say. Do not userfy or draftify. Do not allow re-creation from scratch. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So salted, yes? Do not allow recreation by anyone on any terms without prior approval? That seems reasonable. KDS4444(talk) 09:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse-None of the editors at the AfD were convinced by either of the versions and/or the counter arguments. Not sure how KDS thought (or dreamt) of some different closure.Winged Blades Godric 08:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
