Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November

28 November 2018

Inspire Brands – Recreation allowed. Sandstein 21:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Inspire Brands (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Overturn to no consensus or Allow recreation this is a multi-billion dollar subsidiary owning 4 major chains including Arby's restaurant chain, Buffalo Wild Wings, Rusty Taco and Sonic Drive-In this major corporation has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Taylor, Kate (2018-10-07). "Arby's former CEO is building a fast-food empire". Business Insider. Retrieved 2018-11-21. The article notes: Arby's parent company Inspire Brands is creating a fast-food empire. On September 25, Inspire Brands announced it chewould be acquiring burger chain Sonic for $2.3 billion, including debt. The deal follows Inspire Brands — which is majority owned by private-equity firm Restaurant conglomerates like Inspire Brands, Restaurant Brands International (parent company of Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes), Yum Brands (parent of Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and KFC), and JAB Holdings (owner of a range of brands including Krispy Kreme, Panera, and Pret A Manger) are on the rise. With the deal, Inspire Brands' portfolio will comprise more than 8,000 locations with combined system sales exceeding $12 billion, according to figures provided by the company. MORRIS, CHRIS (2018-09-25). "Here's Why the Parent Company of Arby's Is Buying Sonic". Fortune. Retrieved 2018-11-28. The article notes: Inspire Brands, which owns Arby’s and Buffalo Wild Wings, has bought Sonic in a $2.3 billion deal. The cash deal, which will pay $43.50 for shares of Sonic, will see Sonic become a private company. Sonic boasted $4.4 billion in sales last year, according to Nation’s Restaurant News, besting companies like Dairy Queen, Hardee’s, and Five Guys. That figure is still less than half of Wendy’s sales, though, and just 11% of McDonald’s total sales. For Inspire Brands, the deal checks another box in the company’s diversification strategy. Arby’s is the go-to burger- and chicken-alternative fast food choice for millions of people. Buffalo Wild Wings, which Inspire acquired last year for $2.4 billion, gives it a fast-casual presence that can also draw in sports fans. And Rusty Taco, another holding, lets it compete on a limited basis in the Mexican food space. Klein, Danny (2018-08-07). "Wendy's Sells Inspire Brands Stake for $450 Million". QSR. Retrieved 2018-11-28. The article notes: Wendy’s announced August 16 that it has accepted an offer from Inspire Brands, the newly named owner of Arby’s, Buffalo Wild Wings, and fast casual R Taco, to sell its 12.3 percent ownership interest back to the company for $450 million. The deal represents a 38 percent premium on Wendy’s previous valuation of the investment, and Wendy’s is expecting about $335 million of cash proceeds net of tax. “We have benefited from and enjoyed our partnership with Inspire, and we wish Paul Brown and the team continued success in the future," said Todd Penegor, Wendy's president and chief executive officer, in a statement. "The opportunity to monetize our investment in Inspire Brands will allow us to invest in future growth for the Wendy's brand and company, which is our top priority. The flexibility provided by the sale proceeds and the additional share repurchase authorization through 2019 will also allow us to continue to create value for our shareholders." Brown, formerly the CEO of Arby’s, was named to the same role at Inspire Brands in February, when the company formed following its $2.4 billion purchase of Buffalo Wild Wings. Inspire was co-founded by Neal Aronson, who started Roark Capital Group. Roark, a private-equity firm that’s portfolio also includes Jim ‘N Nick’s Bar-B-Q, CKE Restaurants (parent company of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s), Corner Bakery, FOCUS Brands (Auntie Anne’s Pretzels, Carvel Ice Cream, Cinnabon, McAlister’s Deli, Moe’s Southwest Grill, and Schlotzsky’s), Il Fornaio, Jimmy John’s, Miller’s Ale House, and Naf Naf Middle Eastern Grill, took a majority stake in Arby’s from Wendy’s in 2011. R. La Monica, Paul (2018-09-25). "Sonic sold to Arby's and Buffalo Wild Wings owner for $2.3 billion". CNN. Retrieved 2018-11-28. The article notes: Inspire Brands, a private equity backed firm that owns Arby's and Buffalo Wild Wings, is paying nearly 20% more for Sonic than what shares were trading at on Monday. Sonic (SONC) is famous for its quirky ads and retro 1950s-esque drive-in locations. The company also recently joined the wacky fast food trend of launching odd new menu items with its pickle juice slushies. But the company has been hit by tough competition from the likes of McDonald's (MCD), Burger King and Wendy's (WEN). Sonic's sales at locations open at least a year have been declining for the past few quarters. Inspire, which also owns Rusty Taco, said that nothing major will change at Sonic though. The chain, which has more than 3,600 locations, will be operated as an independent brand.[Four more paragraphs.] Ruggless, Ron (2018-11-07). "Sonic's Claudia San Pedro to lead company after sale closes". Nation's Restaurant News. Retrieved 2018-11-28. The article notes: Sonic Corp. said Wednesday that Claudia San Pedro, president of the company since January, will lead the drive-in brand when longtime chairman and CEO Cliff Hudson retires with the expected closing of its sale to Inspire Brands in December.Inspire Brands, parent company of Arby’s, Buffalo Wild Wings and Rusty Taco, agreed in September to buy Sonic for $2.3 billion. Inspire is majority owned by Roark Capital Group, an Atlanta-based private-equity firm. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Inspire Brands to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". These sources were not mentioned during the AfD. Given the significant coverage a standalone article passes our GN guidelines and therefore should be split. Due to editors adamant on maintaining AfD outcome I was forced to DRV this. I have spoken with Cunard (talk · contribs) and SportsFan007 (talk · contribs) Cunard believed db-repost should not apply because of new sources. Mifter (talk · contribs) added a list of sources published after the AfD stating "consensus can change". Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) and Spshu (talk · contribs) disagree. I do not believe WP:INHERITORG applies here due to significant coverage in reliable sources. Valoem talk contrib 17:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Comment: It looks like there has been substantial notable activity since the AfD closed in July. I think even the AfD nominator, HighKing, might agree these new articles achieve CORPDEPTH when added to the previous citations. Softlavender (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC) This is forum shopping. There is already a discussion regarding forming a new consensus at Arby's talk page. We were adamant that Valoem wait for a new consensus as their was a prior AFD, which he felt he can over ride on his own with an expected WP:canvassed supporter, then ignore support for the AfD and a new discussion. Admin @Mifter: left us there to form a new consensus. All these source still stress for the most part that it is Arby's parent company per the quotes and article titles. Arby's is a division of Inspire, the renamed Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc., thus Arby's is Inspire. Spshu (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC) DRV isn't forum-shopping, since it is the only forum (rather than talkpage) attempted. And a handful of editors on an article talkpage cannot legislate the creation/recreation/deletion/creation-protection of an article. At this point anyone could have actually gone ahead and recreated a brand-new, updated article on Inspire Brands, and that would have been acceptable, because it would have been substantially different from the one in July, and would have probably passed any attempts at AfD. Instead of BOLDLY creating a new article, an editor posted here first; they didn't need to, but they chose to. Softlavender (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC) I pinged every single person involved including yourself. This is not canvassing, rather bad faith on your part. Valoem talk contrib 18:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC) /edit conflict/ Source 5 being more about Sonic post-purchase. Thus yes, Valoem has attempted to WP:INHERITORG, since he rattled off the units of Inspire, Arby's, Buffalo Wild Wings, Rusty Tacos and soon Sonic as proof of "notability" and indicates its size in value in violation of inherent notability. Bad faith on my part? What planet do you live on? Pinging your supporters (Cunard and SportsFan007) on my talk page to tell me you would use them to reset the consensus is canvassing. You ping no one else on my talk page! Bad faith, I did not make you do that. If is forum shopping, Softlavender. Go read it, a talk page is a forum: "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want." Spshu (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC) This is the only discussion I've opened. So your are clearly lying here. You opened a discussion on the talk page with 2 editors in favor of reinstating and 1 administrator citing reasonable cause for reinstating. You cited the AfD result as reason for maintaining the redirect therefore the correct avenue is DRV this is WP:DRVPURPOSE. Any accusation of misbehavior is bad faith. Valoem talk contrib 20:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC) @Softlavender: I had to DRV because the expansion was reverted to a redirect and as per AfD outcome Spshu is correct any BOLD edit can be reverted per AfD outcome therefore DRV is the only option. Valoem talk contrib 18:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC) My understanding is that creating an entirely new article with substantial new content would not be a reversion of, or in violation of, the AfD outcome; it would only be a reversion if the article was substantially the same as the old article. The same applies when creating a new article when one has actually been deleted outright -- if the article is substantially the same, it gets CSDed and automatically deleted; if it is substantially different and has new and noteworthy and significantly covered citations, then it must stand for a new AfD before anything happens to it. Softlavender (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC) You are completely correct Cunard mentioned that due to new sources it does not violated db-repost. However that's how edit wars start. I had the support of SportsFan007, but then Serial Number 54129 jumped in and here we are. Valoem talk contrib 19:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Valoem, You were told by an administrator to hash it out on a talk page. Spshu (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC) A. I wasn't told by any administrator to keep it on the talk page. B. This is the proper channel. C. Administrators do not have that power. Valoem talk contrib 19:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC) A. Mifter is an administrator and Mifter told you here to discussion it on the talk page: "Please do not continue reverting each other, you can consider this a notice/warning for edit warning, and discuss here the company's current status and notability." B. This is still another forum (WP:forum shopping). C. Admin do have the power to block you for being disruptive (canvasing, forum shopping). @Mifter: Spshu (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Nowhere did Mifter say I cannot open a DRV regarding an AfD outcome. Frankly, this "I Win" mentality is unbecoming. Valoem talk contrib 20:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC) A brief note as I have been mentioned above. My goal, as stated when I declined the request for protection, was to avert an edit war without the use of protection and/or blocks as, in my judgment, I believed with a small push, the reverting might stop and a discussion would occur. Regretfully that goal has not been achieved. In first looking at the article's history, it was clear a discussion concerning if this should be a redirect or article was needed. To try and jumpstart it, I did some quick research for sources, cited back to WP:CCC, and pinged everyone I believed involved. As a discussion had already appeared to have started on the talk page, I left my note and recommended you continue it there, however DRV was a viable option. That being said, as Softlavender has mentioned, the article is very different from what was previously at AfD such that, when combined with the preexisting comments on the talk page, I believed it easier to simply continue it there. Turning to this discussion, while it appears to be pushing along, I fear the combativeness and general animosity, if not de-escalated, will not get anyone to a positive resolution. As I now find myself involved in this matter, I will not act in an administrative capacity, but I strongly encourage you to take a step back and focus on the content itself. Whatever got us here (to DRV, to two articles fully protected, to some editors dangerously close to being blocked, take your pick) is done. What we must now decide is how to move forward. It is clear there are strong opinions and corresponding rationales. Lay them out, participate in the discussion, and don't make it personal. Whatever the outcome ends up being, it is not worth attacking others or being blocked over. Mifter (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC) @Mifter: Thank you, I am glad to see that when someone goes through DRV to get a AfD overturned is not see as disruptive. I did not know that Spshu was close to dangerously close to being blocked, but I appreciate the fact that presenting multiple reliable sources is not forum shopping and glad to see administrative enforcement of basic here behavior. Valoem talk contrib 08:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC) Arby's isn't Inspire; Arby's is one of multiple subsidiaries of Inspire. Softlavender (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Yes, it is. Arby's Restaurant Group changed its name to Inspire. Spshu (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Because it started owning multiple notable entities it changed its name. It is no longer Arby's. Sometimes it really is that simple. Valoem talk contrib 19:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC) And some times it is not. Would you tell some women that took her spouses name that she was now some else? No, you would not. Spshu (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC) What in holy hell are you talking about? The problem with Wikipedia is that half of our editors are editing out of an insane asylum. Valoem talk contrib 19:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC) @Spshu: Roark Capital Group purchased Arby's Restaurant Group from Arby's and rebranded it as Inspire Brands. SportsFan007 (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007 @Spshu: Arby's and Arby's Restaurant Group were SEPARATE ENITITIES. SportsFan007 (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007 Just to add my 2 cents: note that we have separate articles on The Wendy's Company (the owner) and Wendy's (the chain). In this case, it would seem all of 1) article size; 2) actually being separate entities; and 3) (now) having different names, would ex ante be considerations that argue for Inspire Brands and Arby's being separate articles, and now that User:Valoem has IMO identified sufficient sourcing, we should proceed with overturning the deletion and give User:Valoem (and others) the opportunity to add the sources to the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Valoem, rather than reverting and then adding to the article, just create the new expanded article in your sandbox, or make a Draft:Inspire Brands where you and others can work on it, and then replace the redirect with the new expanded article. No one will have the right to redirect a new and greatly expanded article; it would have to go to AfD for that. Softlavender (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC) @Softlavender:, in that case, what would prevent an editor from changing it back to a redirect, citing the July 2018 AfD result? If you look at this diff, you see it is already greatly expanded; that is why deletion review is the better process. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC) The July 2018 AfD result was for the July 2018 article. If the article as it stands now is substantially different, and has new and expanded information, and citations that provide significant coverage in independent RS, then technically the article should stand unless it's renominated for AfD. The problem is, SportsFan007 simply reverted the redirect [1], and then things developed from there, which is decidedly NOT how articles should be recreated. As it is, it might be a good idea to hold off the article (place in draft space) until the Sonic acquisition is complete (presumably years end), because that acquisition, which is not yet a fait accompli, would clinch notability. Softlavender (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC) That is not a criteria for notability. Only signficant coverage in reliable sources. Valoem talk contrib 21:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Suit yourself, Valoem. I don't think your combative attitude is going to get you very far. At this point I think your best bet is to draftify until at least after the Sonic acquisition, and until more coverage is found, and then send the draft through RfC. Softlavender (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC) @Softlavender: Please understand I am only being combative to the editor who is accusing me of canvassing in an attempt to derail the conversation. I point out the strength of the sources as independent reliable secondary sources. For example the first source from Business Insider is completely independent and completely dedicated to describing the company and its assets. This is significant coverage. There is already enough coverage for a standalone article. I certain hope you did not think I was being combative toward you. Valoem talk contrib 22:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC) 2 cents Redirect was a reasonable close given that discussion But given that this company now appears to have enough coverage to meet WP:N (though I can see that as debatable) and IMO it makes little sense to have the owner of (at least) two notable companies be a redirect to one of them. I can't really argue the close was flawed given the discussion, but I do feel that we ended up in a place that doesn't make any sense. Hobit (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Comment I was pinged as the original nominator at AfD. I've now looked at the additional sources above. None of those meet the criteria for establishing notability either. Most of those references are based on company announcements or quotations and therefore fail WP:ORGIND as dependent coverage. In others, it is a mention in passing with most of the article devoted to a subsidiary/acquisition. On the basis of those references, this article still fails WP:N. HighKing++ 21:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC) These are not routine announcements these sources give significant coverage multiple paragraphs describing the company. This is not a routine announcement. Non-notable entities cannot receive this level of coverage in multi-billion dollar acquisitions nor can they make such acquisitions. Valoem talk contrib 21:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC) @HighKing:, I think you misunderstand WP:ORGIND; Fortune Magazine (#2 above) is certainly independent of the company and enough to establish notability of the company because of independent coverage of something the comany did. Also, if a company is notable under its former name, and then changes its name, we do not require notability to be reestablished under the new name. (this is equivalent to how we handle notable people like Chelsea Manning).UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC) UnitedStatesian nope - I don't see any evidence of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Read the Fortune article - what does it say about Inspire? The second sentence says they've bought Sonic. The third details the price per share. Next it is the start of the fourth paragraph which says "the deal checks another box in the company's diversification strategy" - a strategy announced by the company (even covered during the Buffalo acquisition). The article finishes with a quotation from the CEO. I fail to see how anybody can justify this article passes NCORP - it is the very definition of the type of article that we worked to specifically exclude when NCORP was updated earlier this year. HighKing++ 13:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Allow recreation I think the Afd and its redirect result absurd--the parent of a very notable company that owns other companies also is certain to be notable. This is basic common sense, and we need to interpret our guidelines in accordance with that. If they don't give a reasonable result in a given instance, we can and do make an exception. I think everyone here knows how skeptical I am about sourcing for articles on business firms because of the increasing amount of promotionalism in this area. This seems very clearly good enough in that respect Tjhere's a difference between mere announcements of funding ,and real articles about business relationships. HighKing, with respect to your comment in the AfD about number of sources needed, the requirement for multiple sources is generally used flexibly in both directions--three barely passable sources are not enough; one really good source is. (like the Fortune article in this instance. ) DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC) DGG, I disagree. Notability is not inherited as you know - you're effectively arguing that the parent should inherit notability. That is not common sense. But perhaps you've missed the fact that Inspire is in turn owned by the Roark Capital Group article which passed AfD in July - I agree the current redirect is not normal but it could simply be changed to the parent company. The number of sources needed is generally accepted to be two sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability - that's in the guideline too. Finally, the Fortune reference also fails as it is "Dependent coverage" and in my opinion is specifically the type of churnalistic fill-up-the-inches rehashed-announcement type of reference that the tighted-up NCORP guideline was aiming to specifically exclude. HighKing++ 13:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. That was not a consensus to redirect, but an idea. The case for allowing improvement is well made here by the nom, User:Valoem. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Allow recreation in draft space The AfD is settled, since this is a "new information since" DRV, and should be kept as-is and not overturned. I agree with HighKing that the sources above don't really lend themselves to notability due to WP:NCORP. Even the Fortune article is questionable, since it seems like it's parroting a press release. But I don't see any harm in trying to recreate the article at AfC. SportingFlyer talk 23:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC) I'm still trying to wrap my head around where we are and what people think is the best way forward. Right now we've got a company that owns (very) notable companies. And the redirect for the parent company is to one of the companies that it owns? That seems bizarre. If we had an artist who had two notable works we'd not have a redirect for the artist to one of them. In fact I think that's part of the notability criteria for artists just to avoid something like this. I don't see how we can be happy with the status quo. There is clearly enough to write an article about this company even if you don't think WP:N is met (which I clearly disagree with, but eh). Even if it didn't meet WP:N I'd argue we should at least have a stub. Hobit (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC) I'm not sure the redirect is the best option either, but AfC will allow a new article to be created and judged to ensure it passes WP:NCORP. SportingFlyer talk 04:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC) AfC and draftspace is optional. Any autoconfirmed editor may move a draft to mainspace, if in their sole judgement it is suitable for mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC) There's no harm in allowing someone to create a draft about a topic which may or may not be notable and have someone move it if they think it passes. Better than creating an article that may not pass in mainspace and then having to AfD it. SportingFlyer talk 06:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Allow recreation most of the sources presented above weren't presented in the AfDed version (and many weren't even published at the time), so the AfD result can't be used to stop people writing an article based on them. It can be sent to AfD again if people feel that way. I agree with those above that the AfD result and redirect don't make much sense, if a company owns several major restaurant brands then it is very likely to be notable and I don't see why we'd want to redirect the title to an article about one of those brands. Hut 8.5 20:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC) Allow recreation. Inspire Brands has new information since the 29 July 2018 AfD closure: On August 16, 2018, The Wendy's Company announced that it sold its 12.3% stake in Inspire Brands back to Inspire Brands for $450 million, which includes a 38% premium over its stake most recent valuation. On September 25, 2018, Inspire Brands announced that it was buying Oklahoma City-based Sonic Drive-In for $2.3 billion. The firm expects that the acquisition should be completed by the end of the year. There is enough new information in the article that {{db-repost}} does not apply. There is enough coverage in reliable sources in Valoem (talk · contribs)'s well-researched DRV nomination to establish that Inspire Brands passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Change the Redirect to Roark Capital Group since that is the parent company. I don't see why only two choices were presented here either. The new references do not meet the criteria and most of the arguments in relation to "but there's new sources" are referring to more press releases. With respect to the above I've yet to see any argument that can point out why the new references pass WP:ORGIND or are not "dependent coverage" and Valoem's references are mainly based on press releases and are therefore classed as "Dependent Coverage". Even Cunard's logic above fails to see that when something says "Inspire Brands announced..." that it therefore fails as a reference that can be used to establish notability since it is "dependent coverage". HighKing++ 13:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Comment. As Inspire Brands was Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. and is more associated via sources as Arby's parent company not Roark Capital Group. Spshu (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 November 2018

Joseph Forbes (educator) – Speedy deletion overturned. Sandstein 17:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Joseph Forbes (educator) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) After a deletion nomination, the page was restored to a draft which I edited. The new draft was approved by an editor who has since been blocked. Afterwards, the page was speedily deleted under G4. The page has more sources compared to its original deletion discussion. During the time the page was speedily deleted, I made a DYK nomination for it, and there is also some discussion at its DYK nomination. The admin who speedily deleted the page has restored it to two drafts, the one I edited and linked above, and one from before I started editing. I believe the subject is notable and that the page should exist. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC) The two new sources (clipping, BYU article) seem enough to overcome a G4. So overturn speedy and someone can list at AfD again if they wish. I'll !vote to keep based on the three solid sources we have (the book appears to be published by a reputable publisher at the time, if I'm wrong and that is a vanity press the case is weaker). Hobit (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC) It looks to me like the page is now at User:Thmazing/Joseph Forbes (educator). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 09:58, 15 November 2018 Shirt58 (talk · contribs) deleted page Joseph Forbes (educator) (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (CSDH)) User:Shirt58, where is the deletion discussion? Why do G4 deletion logs not link to the deletion discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Barlow Forbes. Found it via the history at the "before I started editing" link. Hobit (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Hi all. Thank you Hobit (talk · contribs) for identifying the deletion discussion. I have slightly refactored your edit to show the link in standard formatting. As already mentioned, the text of the first version of the article deleted as a result of that AfD is now here - User:Thmazing/Joseph Forbes (educator) The text of WP:G4'd second version of the article is now here - User:Thmazing/Joseph Barlow Forbes As for now visible the second version, it was a short article that basically reiterated the assertions in the first version, without reliable third party references and with the addition of references sourced from this writer. OK, we've identified the problems. Now let's look for solutions. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC) You're describing it backwards. I edited this version, which you stated was the second version but was actually the first. That version was deleted after a deletion discussion and restored to a draft. After I editing the page to this version, the page was speedily deleted. I think User:Shirt58 made them two different pages when he restored them to differentiate the versions? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC) I don’t think the draft overcomes the reasons for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Barlow Forbes. With all sources seeming to be from grandchildren, JBF lacks independent coverage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Hi SmokeyJoe, I found a news article about one of the high schools named after him, an entry in a biographical collection about Mormon pioneers, and mention in an academic article about Mormons in the civil war--none of which were authored by his grandchildren. They are cited on the draft I edited. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Overturn speedy The recereated version was not substantially identical to the deleted version per G4 criteria. No current opinion about how I might !vote at a hypothetical AfD Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Overturn with the rationale just given by Barkeep49. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC) My brain hurts. We seem to have *four* distinct copies of this, with overlapping timelines, but distinct histories: Joseph Forbes (educator) (currently a redlink) Joseph Barlow Forbes (currently a redlink) User:Thmazing/Joseph Forbes (educator) User:User:Thmazing/Joseph Forbes (educator) (currently a redlink with an invalid namespace) At this point, I'm not even sure what's being requested. I think what the nom wants is for User:Thmazing/Joseph Forbes (educator) to be moved back to mainspace. Is that correct? And, please people, don't make multiple copies of the same page. Leaving aside any issues of proper attribution, it makes it really difficult to sort out the history. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Yes, that's correct. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Overturn. If I've unraveled all the uber-complex history, we're talking about: the version deleted at AfD the current version in userspace WP:G4 says, sufficiently identical copies. The two versions are clearly not completely identical, so the question is whether they're sufficiently identical. There's been some textual changes, but the overall text is mostly the same. More importantly, there have been some added sources. Personally, I think the added sources are extremely low quality, and I very much doubt they would stand up at another AfD, but AfD is where the quality of sources gets determined. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC) Meta-context explanation: "my brain hurts" is a catchphrase from the Gumbys skits in the British television series Monty Python's Flying Circus. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC) It is also, apparently, a punk rock album. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC) Overturn speedy and send to AfD. I consider the expanded version to be sufficiently different for G4 to be inappropriate. However, I also agree that notability for this article is borderline. Note: I prompted the article creator at Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Forbes (educator) to start a discussion here. feminist (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Suhai Aziz Talpur – Moot. Article has been restored already, so nothing left to do here. I do note, however, that this DRV was opened 12 minutes after leaving the initial query on the closing admin's talk page. That's not a reasonable amount of time to wait for a response. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Suhai Aziz Talpur (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This is a marginal delete with three delete votes vs. two keep, after a first AfD which resulted in unanimous keep. She has recently received significant worldwide coverage for her heroics during the 2018 Karachi Chinese consulate attack, see Google News results. I believe she now meets WP:GNG. I posted a message on the deleting admin's talk page, but then noticed that they had not been active recently. Zanhe (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse deletion- I don't see much wrong with the deletion, given that it was relisted to gain better consensus and consensus was clear from that point on. If this person has become notable since May I would have no problem with the article being re-created. Reyk YO! 08:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Keep She meets GNG now. Reuters account is being widely mined for other news stories. Apparently she is also a social media heroine in China. We should expect wider coverage of this feel-good story, and have a decent article where people can learn more about her.HouseOfChange (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC) References Closing admin I've restored it, as honestly I think this is pretty uncontroversial, and would have happily done so without a DRV. As can be seen from the AfD, the article was a little borderline in terms of notability but was deleted as some of the coverage was a bit of a stretch to demonstrate notability, while the overall claim as to why she was notable was also a bit thin. With even a few new reliable sources (which HouseOfChange (talk · contribs) seems to have already located) the article is in a perfectly okay state to be updated. No issue with Zanhe (talk · contribs) taking this to DRV given I hadn't edited in a few weeks, but in actual fact i'm around! I'll leave it to someone else to close the DRV if appropriate (just in case there are objections I haven't foreseen), but this should be resolved assuming the article actually does get updated now. ~ mazca talk 09:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 November 2018

Frederick Klenner – Speedy endorsed. This DRV is the same identical rant to the one from yesterday, which was also speedy closed as not meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE. (NAC) Reyk YO! 08:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Frederick_Klenner (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Arbitrary and unprincipled process Danslation (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC) None of the editors who voted to delete the article on Frederick Klenner refuted a single fact presented in the article. Instead, they vented their prejudice against the nutritional therapy practiced by Dr. Klenner. Guy, who launched the deletion campaign, set the tone by branding Klenner “a figure in the world of orthomolecular quackery” — with no substantiation. When I pointed out that the clinical data presented in the article enabled any medical doctor or researcher to test — and perhaps refute — Klenner’s therapeutic claims, Guy haughtily responded: “His claims have already been tested and found to be false. In any case that is irrelevant to Wikipedia's notability standards…” I then challenged Guy to “cite a single scientific experiment that used Klenner’s dosing of sodium ascorbate and refuted his clinical findings” — and he lapsed into silence. By laying bare Klenner’s clinical methods and procedures, the Klenner article enabled falsifiability. The editors who voted to delete, on the other hand, showed their scorn for falsifiability. None of them had the openness of mind to propose: If such-and-such therapeutic claims get confirmed by scientific experiments, I will no longer reject Klenner’s clinical methods. Obviously, the question of notability hinges on whether Klenner’s clinical findings prove valid: If they do, he will rank as one of the greatest doctors in world history. The deletion crew employed circular logic to argue against notability: Klenner is not notable, they argued, because his therapeutic claims are invalid. They presented no facts to support this latter premise, simply presuming it a priori. I feel we should respect the intelligence of Wikipedia readers, enabling them to form their own opinions as to whether — and to what degree — Frederick Klenner was notable. Danslation (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Frederick_Klenner – Speedy close. Nomination fails WP:DRVPURPOSE. The AfD was (except for the author) 7:1 to delete, and the one keep argument was nothing beyond, adequately sourced. Nothing in this rant in any way suggests that the close was in error. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Frederick_Klenner (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Arbitrary and unprincipled process Danslation (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC) None of the editors who voted to delete the article on Frederick Klenner refuted a single fact presented in the article. Instead, they vented their prejudice against the nutritional therapy practiced by Dr. Klenner. Guy, who launched the deletion campaign, set the tone by branding Klenner “a figure in the world of orthomolecular quackery” — with no substantiation. When I pointed out that the clinical data presented in the article enabled any medical doctor or researcher to test — and perhaps refute — Klenner’s therapeutic claims, Guy haughtily responded: “His claims have already been tested and found to be false. In any case that is irrelevant to Wikipedia's notability standards…” I then challenged Guy to “cite a single scientific experiment that used Klenner’s dosing of sodium ascorbate and refuted his clinical findings” — and he lapsed into silence. By laying bare Klenner’s clinical methods and procedures, the Klenner article enabled falsifiability. The editors who voted to delete, on the other hand, showed their scorn for falsifiability: None of them had the openness of mind to propose: If such-and-such therapeutic claims get confirmed by scientific experiments, I will no longer reject Klenner’s clinical methods. Obviously, the question of notability hinges on whether Klenner’s clinical findings prove valid: If they do, he will rank as one of the greatest doctors in world history. The deletion crew employed circular logic to argue against notability: Klenner is not notable, they argued, because his therapeutic claims are invalid. They presented no facts to support this latter premise, simply presuming it a priori. I feel we should respect the intelligence of Wikipedia readers, enabling them to form their own opinions as to whether — and to what degree — Frederick Klenner was notable. Danslation (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse Wikipedia isn't interested in determining the validity of scientific theories, or in adopting a Teach the Controversy attitude of presenting fringe theories as valid alternatives so that people can "form their own opinions". Instead Wikipedia follows the judgement of reliable sources. If a scientific theory has little or no credibility in those sources then we will present it as a fringe theory. WP:FRINGE says that fringe theories should not be presented as mainstream, and that we shouldn't have articles on fringe theories (or aspects of fringe theories) if they haven't received serious attention outside of the promoters of the fringe theory. WP:MEDRS imposes high sourcing standards for medical claims in articles. WP:GNG, which applies everywhere, expects that article subjects are covered extensively in third-party reliable sources. This article is about someone known for the promotion of a fringe theory and the argument presented for deletion in the AfD was that it failed all of this. Almost all the citations in the article are to the subject's own work or the true crime book Bitter Blood, in which the subject plays a minor role. The remaining citations are essentially all to other unreliable supporters of his fringe theory. None of these has any value in meeting the tests mentioned above, as was pointed out in the AfD. In addition the long article (60 KB) portrays the subject as some sort of medical visionary, so the WP:TNT argument has some merit. Hut 8.5 12:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 November 2018

Samahang Kapatid – Moot. The AfD close has already been backed out and the article moved back to mainspace. I'll relist the AfD and we're done here. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Samahang Kapatid (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Closing as draftify to Draft:Samahang Kapatid was an incorrect resolution. No one in the discussion suggested draftifying, so closing as that is essentially a supervote. This is not a new article under active development which needs time to incubate in draftspace - it has existed, basically ignored, in mainspace since 2009. Moving it to draft means it will exist, basically ignored, in draftspace until G13 kicks in. The closer literally says as much in their close, indicating that this is a backdoor deletion of exactly the kind that WP:DRAFTIFY says we are supposed to avoid. With regards to the consensus: AfD is not a numerical vote, it is a discussion in which arguments are weighed according to their strength. The keep votes were weakly argued and rebutted by me without answer. If the arguments were weighed correctly according to their merits, this should have been closed as a straight delete. At worst, it should have been relisted. I have asked the closer to reconsider and they declined. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Strictly speaking, the article could have been kept. There is not a clear consensus for deletion, even if the support for keeping it is weak. At least one participant in the discussion alluded to the possibility of additional sources being added to the article, which can be done in draft, if anyone cares to do it. If the draftification of the article is overturned, then the result should default to no consensus to delete the article. bd2412 T 02:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Or a third relist, which you have consistently ignored as an option. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC) The discussion was in the backlog, which is best supported by closing discussions, rather than kicking them down the road to join the ever-growing list of tasks to be done. bd2412 T 03:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Respectfully, AfD is not so backlogged that a close which does not weigh the arguments on their actual merits and effects a result we are supposed to avoid is desirable over a third relist. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC) If it is your impression that I did not weigh the arguments on their merits, then you are mistaken. Two editors each made a case for keeping the article, one of which was premised on the possibility of the article being subject to improvement. A different closer could conceivably have deemed those sufficient to close as no consensus, and maintain the article in mainspace. bd2412 T 03:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC) The first argument was "there is coverage", but failed to produce any. That's not a legitimate argument once notability is challenged, per WP:NEXIST. The second argument was "here is some coverage", which I pointed out consisted of a trivial mention, small-town municipal recognition, and three sentences stating that they performed. What weight can you possibly assign to either of those arguments? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC) I tend to agree with Premeditated Chaos that moving this to draft space was unusual and not the correct way to close this AfD. I would've likely re-listed to give a final attempt at consensus and if that failed, a no consensus close. I would suggest reverting the close and relisting. -- Dane talk 04:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Overturn and relist - I have to agree both with the general concept that closing as a draft when no-one had recommended it feels like a super-compromise. There was also a mixed viewpoint that hadn't completely stuttered out as of time of close. I agree with Premeditated Chaos that AfD is in a good enough condition to survive the occasional 3rd relist. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Very well, then. I will reverse my close. Feel free to relist. bd2412 T 17:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 November 2018

Template:Rdd – Speedy deletion overturned; these redirects can be listed at WP:RfD Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Rdd (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Template:Rdead (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Template:Recentd (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Template:Rdeath (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Template:Rded (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Redirect was deleted unilaterally without going to redirects for discussion. Please feel free to combine the redirects into one heading. Jax 0677 (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Restore and send to RfD. WP:G6 is for uncontroversial maintenance. While calling this deletion "maintenance" may be subjective, this is clearly not "uncontroversial" since it's at DRV. -- Tavix (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Ways to identify a bad G6: You're not willing to undelete immediately upon request. Check. There's a more specific speedy deletion criterion that would apply, except it has a mandatory waiting period. Check. There's been rejected proposals for a speedy deletion criterion covering this exact case on WT:CSD, maybe often enough that it actually appears in WP:NOTCSD. Check and check. About the only way this could've been worse is if there was a non-transitory loss of content. I fully agree that these redirects are useless, and I'll happily argue for their deletion at RFD. But they're not speedies, and particularly not G6s. Overturn. —Cryptic 04:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Speedy undelete and list at XfD, standard response to most requests for deletions. If someone wants a discussion, let them have it, at XfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC) List at XfD- didn't look like a terrible G6 to me, but if someone wants to have this discussion they should probably be allowed to. Reyk YO! 13:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Overturn. We used to automatically overturn any contested WP:CSD. That was a good policy. Almost by definition, if somebody objects, then it must not have been uncontroversial. That's especially true of WP:G6. I don't know if these redirects are useful or not, but if somebody wants to discuss their deletion, they should get the chance to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC) Welllll... I don't agree that any CSD should be an auto-overturn on request. G10 (attack pages), G9 office actions, and the ones relating to copyright violations should not come back just because someone asks. Also, if I U1 something in my user space, the only person who should generally be allowed to request its restoration is me. Other than those necessary exceptions, I agree with you. Reyk YO! 10:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Seems quite reasonable. There will be times when it's not appropriate to undelete on request even for other speedy categories, so this probably isn't a hard-and-fast rule. But a fine general principle. Hobit (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC) This is true; I overstated my case. The examples given by User:Reyk are certainly cases where just having somebody object isn't enough. But in this case it is :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 November 2018

Cincinnati Time Store – Relisted. The AfD and DRV are a bit of a procedural mess. Opinions are broadly divided between overturn to merge, and endorse the keep but allow a proper talk page merger discussion. This gives us no consensus for the DRV. As is allowed under such circumstances, I'm relisting the AfD discussion because it was relatively brief. I guess that this means that people who enjoy such things can continue with a merger discussion in the wrong venue again... Sandstein 21:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cincinnati Time Store (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Spoke with closing admin, who agreed that the AfD should have been closed as "merge", but when he went to revert his close, another editor objected. The closing admin prefers to bring to consensus at DRV. czar 19:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC) As an aside, this article should have never went to AfD in the first place—nevertheless twice—as the nominator did not advocate for deletion and redirection was (and remains) a suitable alternative, given the lack of sourcing. But provided the talk page's sparse traffic (it has been tagged for cleanup for a decade, a queue I was processing whence the nominator followed me from my edit history), I have more confidence in applying the extant AfD result properly than in relegating merge discussion to an unfrequented talk page. czar 19:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Merge as the AfD should have been closed as. Neither AfD nor DRV are the correct outlet for this mess anyway, the proper procedure should have been a broadcasted RfC on the talk page. Also pinging the participants in the AfD: @Andy Dingley, Spinningspark, Peterkingiron, Power~enwiki, and Tone. Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Keep, per the results of both AfDs. I don't know that Czar's problem is with this article, but they're shopping around every avenue possible to get it blanked. Blanking it undiscussed, canvassing a closing admin to change an AfD a month after it closed (we so do not do that) and now trying to DRV it. The one thing they haven't tried is to start a real merge discussion. What is the policy-based reason to discount a valid AfD? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC) ? "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly", with which the closing admin agreed. Your other claims are gross misinterpretations that, despite your continued hostility, I'd be happy to discuss but are impertinent to this DRV's purpose: to get outside opinions on whether the AfD close was accurate. czar 22:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Merge to Josiah Warren. I'm fine with the first redirect by User talk:Czar, per WP:BOLD and all that. After that, the whole process went off into the weeds. I don't understand why the AfDs were opened in the first place. Clearly the AfD nominator wanted the article to be kept. And, the second redirect was (as noted in the edit comments) just a slow-motion edit war. All that being said, my own searching doesn't show Cincinnati Time Store as having any notability independent of Josiah Warren, so a merge makes sense. This is really a discussion that should have happened on the article talk pages, but here we are. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Reclose as no consensus. It doesn't seem like a clear consensus to merge has emerged at the time of the close, though the argument in favor of the merge seems more specific. A merge seems appropriate, per RoySmith and the AfD, but a proposed merge discussion can be started if necessary, but it seems more expedient to discuss it here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse keep That's a reasonable outcome. And looking at sources, most are in the context of the creator, but it's become a big enough part of business education that it gets references on its own (e.g. [2]). Hobit (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Eh, change to overturn to NC. That probably better represents the discussion. Hobit (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Can we void the whole thing? Reading the talk page where Czar asked Tone to change the close, Tone admitted the close was a close to "not delete" (which was an accurate close) and was fine with a change to a merge the day after the AfD closed, then apparently forgot about it for three weeks. As noted, what's extremely confusing about this is the AfD was brought by a user who did not want the article deleted, which I've never seen before until now, and who has done this twice in an attempt to not get the article redirected. It's also clear that some of the voters were voting to not delete the article instead of to merge the article. I would have done the same myself. I'd personally either close as merge, but what I think would be better (possibly too creative?) would be to void the whole AfD as if it never happened and start a merge discussion, which is what should have happened in the first place. SportingFlyer talk 12:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Thinking about it, a void is probably a bit over the top. The original close was: The result was keep. No consensus to delete, therefore default keep. A merge is possible. so we can either leave this as is and open a merge discussion, or accept the change to merge to agree with the closer once they realised the options were between keep and merge. It's probably easiest to just open up a merge discussion as the closer's "keep" is pretty meaningless when viewed in the "keep vs merge" context. SportingFlyer talk 12:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Reclose as NC (and open a merge) - consensus should be best read as NC (the ambiguity makes both K and M reasonable, but NC is most suited). Given the squabbling it would probably be beneficial for the closing admin to set up a merge chat and ping the appropriates just to get the ball rolling, but obviously thats optional. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Is no consensus technically correct? There was clearly a consensus to not delete the article, and I don't know how often I see no consensus between keep and merge - isn't it usually "keep the article, a separate merge discussion should take place" when there's no consensus between keep/merge? SportingFlyer talk 22:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse Reasonable close. The best way to challenge a reasonable Keep close is to wait a few months and bring another afd. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Really, this DRV should be WP:SNOW closed at this point and an RfC opened. Neither AfD nor DRV are the right place to get consensus to merge an article, which appears to be the overall intent of both nominations. Nathan2055talk - contribs 04:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Substantively: Whatever this afd was, it's no excuse to shut down a merge proposal on the talk page. Closing as merge is reasonable; closing as no consensus is reasonable; closing as keep-as-in-not-delete-but-no-prejudice-to-redirecting-or-merging-or-whatever is reasonable. Closing as a consensus to keep the current content of the article at this title isn't supported by the discussion. Procedurally, there's some interesting questions here. Does an AFD closer have the authority to change his close? And does it matter how long a time elapses between the original close and the change? I think the answer to the first has to be yes, if for no other reason than that we regularly demand that you discuss with the AFD closer before taking a discussion to DRV. To the second, I'm not sure. If there was an obvious error - say, an article deleted with a 7-2 headcount, where it's later discovered that all seven of the delete-voters were socks of the same user - I'd have no problem with the closer unilaterally overturning himself, even months or perhaps years later. Here, it's less clear-cut on the one hand; on the other, a month still isn't so long, and the closer actually agreed to change the close on the day after the AFD: that the AFD wasn't updated immediately amounts to a clerical error. Gripping hand, Andy's twice reverted redirection and twice tried to bring this to AFD when he wanted it kept. What he hasn't once done is provide a single substantive argument why we should keep this content, just said that redirections and merges must be discussed first. There is no such requirement. Reverting in such a case isn't consensus-building; it's obstructionism. Overturn to merge, or at worst open a merge discussion on the talk page and transclude the AFD there to start it off. —Cryptic 05:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse. Could not be closed as "delete". No consensus to merge, yet. Merge discussions belong on the talk page. This should not go back to AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse the original close. But the updates made weeks later should be reverted as the discussion was clearly closed and archived, "The following discussion is an archived debate ... Please do not modify it. ... No further edits should be made to this page." Andrew D. (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 November 2018

Michael_Sayman – Resolved: The draft has been moved to mainspace, from where a new AfD is possible if anybody wants to challenge the article. Sandstein 10:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Michael_Sayman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) There are many credible sources to this person's notability. The previous article was poorly written, biased, subjective, and greatly lacked citations. I've created a draft for a new, revised article of this guy's life with greater detail, stripped of the subjective content, and an abundance of citations: Draft:Michael Sayman Purplehippo458 (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC) I consider the draft version still promotional. The language is typical for an informal press release, not an encyclopedia article. e.g. "Sayman attributes much of his success in mobile app development to his childhood circumstances. In an interview with Insider, he said "the necessity to generate income, to create something big and to kind of take things onto [himself] were huge." and many other similar sentences. This is not encyclopedic writing. He might indeed be notable, but it is not yet ready for mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Sources appear quite good. Only real issue is previous AfD (and the SPA status of the creator). move to mainspace without prejudice to a new AfD, though honestly I can't see how much an AfD could be successful. Hobit (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Move draft to mainspace per Hobit once existing comments on the draft are addressed. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 08:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Seeing that the comments on the draft have been addressed, I've gone ahead and boldly accepted it. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 07:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 November 2018

Draft:OurPath – Nobody wants to restore this speedily deleted draft. Sandstein 18:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:OurPath (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore) Speed Deletion Sdfish78 (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Hi there - I'd like to contest the deletion of this page, which was deleted under section G11 of speedy deletion - saying that it is unambiguous advertising. I'd like to understand how this page could be both rejected and deleted (especially when I have updated the page based on revisions - the revisions of which have not been reviewed). There are various other pages of UK SMEs with similar notability, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purplebricks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexoo Including health specific startups, that have not had the same criteria of mandating medical journal references (despite the fact that there are actually medical journal references in the article I wrote): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_Health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_Surgery There are doubtless many more, but this is just a cursory search. If there are objective measures for reviewing pages, then clearly stating why these pages pass the acceptance criteria and mine does not would help improve the article. Sdfish78 (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC) I don't know for sure if I'd have deleted this under WP:G11. Probably, but possibly not. But, my real reason for responding here is to talk about how collaborative projects like Wikipedia work. You stated earlier that you are a student journalist. An important part of journalism is listening. In the talk page thread linked to above, it was explained to you that using the existence of other wikipedia articles is not a useful argument. So, why do you make that same argument here? Surely you don't expect a different result? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Why does my background have anything to do with this? That seems like a an arbitrary comment - followed by what I presume is a rhetorical question? If someone is looking to understand the truth and learn, then they will ask questions. The response I received did not make sense to me. The answer wasn't satisfactory. I'm not saying that to be inflammatory - I'm saying that because I do not understand. I spent a long time writing that article, so regardless of any outcome of this - I would really appreciate learning how I can get access to the original material at the very least. It was also disappointing that my resubmission was not reviewed and it was then deleted. Hopefully you can understand why that's confusing for someone new to Wikipedia. Thank you Sdfish78 (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC) I think deleting that under G11 in draft space was a bit harsh, but it was definitely heading that way and it would qualify for G11 in mainspace. @Sdfish78: I've sent you an email with the draft contents. Hut 8.5 19:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC) I too am not sure it was a G11, but it certainly would be unlikely to pass AfD if it were in mainspace. It is possible to get around the MEDRS requirement by not making any claims for its effectiveness in human medicine, but of course that makes it harder to show notability . DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Thank you both! I received your email, Hut. As far as I can understand, there aren't any medical claims in the draft article. A medical claim would be "the product reduces HbA1c by 14 mmol" or "prevents type 2 diabetes". Stating that the company has a TechCrunch article with the headline "raises $3m to reverse type 2 diabetes" isn't a medical claim, but a quotation of a media outlet. I'm sure I'm wrong, but it is really helpful for me to understand! Sdfish78 (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC) The draft did claim (first sentence of "media attention") that the company's services could reduce type 2 diabetes. That's definitely a medical claim. Hut 8.5 07:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 November 2018

List of Xbox games with HD support – Speedily closed. No intelligible reason is provided for this review request. Sandstein 18:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of Xbox games with HD support (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) <the page is for original xbox players (OG Xbox Fans) to know witch games support HD and it should have not been deleted, would like the page to be restored or moved to another site> MechWarriorZero (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC) MechWarriorZero, it probably would have been easiest to request a copy of the article from the deleting admin or another one. It's unlikely that the page will be restored because it doesn't really fit with our content policy, but you can usually get a copy emailed to you that you can host elsewhere (assuming compliance with Wikipedia's license, or if the major contributors agree to it). Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Alpha3031, I dont know why its doesn't fit with yaws policy? all it shows is witch games support HD Endorse and speedy close. Deletion review is a location where we address failures to follow the deletion process correctly. It is not a location where someone to "appeal" and get a "new hearing" if a properly run deletion discussion didn't go their way. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 November 2018

Ethics of animal research – Moot. The article has been undeleted so there is nothing for DRV to consider. Discussion regarding the redirect can take place at Talk:Animal testing. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ethics of animal research (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I am asking that this page be undeleted on the premises that the conditions it was deleted were inaccurate. It was deleted under section A10 (for the criteria of a speedy deletion): "This applies to any recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect." I believe that the article I submitted greatly expanded on the philosophical debates surrounding the ethics of animal testing. I went into sufficient detail only from the philosophical side with plenty of references to show that this is a stem of ethics within the philosophical community. When the article was deleted under A10 I was redirected to "Animal Testing #ethics" which only offers a few sentences on the viewpoints of a few philosophers (and only ones against animal testing) and the rest about different types of experimentation and animals that were used that sparked protest- a different angle to the one that i provided; which focused purely on going into depth on the philosophical moral arguments. I believe at minimum that the content i provided would have fit under content to be merged: "This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, merge able material. It also does not include disambiguation pages." I opened up a discussion on the talk page of the article as soon as it was published in the main space after being a draft. This was done in the hopes of editing with other wiki contributers. But instead it was speedy deleted without discussion. The structure of the article was in accordance with the philosophy guidelines. Thank you for your time. --ExistentialMariachi (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) ExistentialMariachi (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC) comment I contacted the closing admin who said the page was restored. But I could not locate the actual article, instead I was redirected to "animal testing: Ethics". ExistentialMariachi (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn in a general sense although the speedy deletion has already been undone. The article before it was changed to a redirect is in its history here but the redirect to Animal testing#Ethics has been protected from being changed. When requesting undeletion here you were advised to take the matter to DRV (I think rightly). The WP:A10 (and the earlier WP:A11) were wrong (the existing section was at the very least expanded upon by the article; the subject was not "obviously invented"). Also, animal research is a very much broader topic that "Animal testing". For example, there are ethical considerations concerning research into the effect on polar bears of changes in Arctic ice, but (probably) this has nothing whatever to do with "animal testing". The advice the deleting admin gives at User talk:RHaworth#Ethics of animal research article deletion is very poor and should only be construed as advice, not to be enforced by article protection. The article is suitable for normal discussion in main space. Thincat (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Michael Mills (musician) – Draftify. I've restored this to Draft:Michael Mills (musician). The general opinion here is that the sources in the article now, and those presented at User_talk:Joe_Decker#Re-creating_Michael_Mills_(musician), are insufficient to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Please keep looking for good sources and when you think you've got enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO, resubmit it for review. Be aware, however, that people here are not optimistic that sufficient sources exist. Your task is to prove them wrong. To do so, please read WP:MUSICBIO carefully, understand what it's asking for, and be diligent about finding good solid sources that meet the requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Michael Mills (musician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The page was deleted in 2014 because there was no evidence the subject passed the WP:MUSICIAN criteria. I presented the evidence I collected to the closing admin - User_talk:Joe_Decker#Re-creating_Michael_Mills_(musician), but he seems to be taking some time off. asqueella (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Comment looking at your post and reviewing the sources, I'm not sure under what WP:MUSIC criteria he would now fall under/how he passes WP:MUSICBIO. I don't see any harm in allowing a draft article to be written, though I think it's an uphill battle to show notability. SportingFlyer talk 16:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Restore to draft I'm not sure the sources presented amount to evidence of notability (indeed one of them was actually in the previous version), but it was a sparsely attended AfD four years ago and the bar to draftifying should be low. Hut 8.5 19:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Comment @SportingFlyer: and @Hut 8.5:, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this! I gather a draft would eventually have to go through another review of its sources to determine which WP:MUSICBIO criteria are met. If so, I'm still hoping someone would clarify what's wrong with the sources I've found and if I'm misapplying the criteria, as that would help me determine if it can be fixed by finding more/better sources -- otherwise there's little point in working on an article, is there? I didn't just post random links from Google, I picked a few independent and not self-published (and not WP:UGC), as "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have .. considered the musician .. notable enough that they have .. published non-trivial works". (Arjen reportedly said that he found out about Toehider via one such publication.) Definitely not a WP:GARAGEBAND, while obviously not high profile - I wouldn't waste everyone's time if I didn't think the criteria were met... Perhaps DRV is not the best place for this kind of discussion? (I assumed that my case fell under "new information has come to light since a deletion" - since the original AfD didn't discuss any specific sources.) Is there a better one? --asqueella (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC) In my opinion: the Beat article violates MUSIC #1, since it's a good article but not for notability: advertisement for a gig/interview with Mills himself, same with the Brag article. The Background Magazine review is difficult to tell whether it's self-published or not, though it may be okay (perhaps I'm put off by the website's layout?), and the Huffington Post's article is not substantive coverage - it's a brief mention of his recording, and the headline calls him a "man," which isn't a good sign. He hasn't toured Australia as a solo artist and the coverage of his bands which have toured isn't substantial, and the coverage of him performing nationally isn't independent (Australian Musician is a promotional tool) and J-Play is about his band. I don't see any other prongs of MUSIC he would fall under. SportingFlyer talk 03:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC) SportingFlyer, I appreciate you taking time to share this; very helpful to see the details. Not to argue with you, but to clarify some points: - I picked Beat/Brag as the 50/50 or so split between the original text and supporting quotations felt like a feature, rather than "Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". And I judged Background based on their About page, not the layout ;) - HuffPost used "man" to indicate this is a male singer, as the song is a bit out of range for a typical male vocalist, and vocals is one of Toehider's strengths. I included it to probe what kind of coverage is expected for MUSICBIO#1, since I can't think of other types of in-depth coverage other than features and reviews, and it isn't "trivial" in the WP:GNG's "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." sense - it's what the whole short piece is about. - On touring: if by "solo" you mean performing alone on stage that would be hard to pull off as a rock band... (Toehider studio records are him alone, which he can do in the studio thanks to being a multi-instrumentalist.) I already acknowledged the disagreement as to what constitutes "touring" and "non-trivial coverage" and only included this bit in hopes of getting clarification of how this policiy is usually applied - there doesn't seem to be a value in mentioning tours explicitly in the policy if tours need the same type of coverage as for WP:GNG. Same reasoning for the TV/radio bits. Anyway, thanks again for your time. --asqueella (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC) To be fair, headlining a band that doesn't appear notable (I haven't spent any time looking at this apart from checking to see if they have an article) will almost certainly not be notable enough on his own without some sort of other notable career, unfortunately, and his band is the context of most of the sources. SportingFlyer talk 00:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Sure. I treat Toehider more like a pseudonym for Mills than a separate entity, but I realize how that might have been confusing. --asqueella (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ryan Worsley – This is difficult-to-close DRV about a difficult-to-close AfD. The crux of the debate is whether Sandstein was correct in discounting so many keep arguments. After a month of discussion, I cannot see a consensus on that issue. What then is the result? Overturning commands a slight numerical majority and would be favoured by WP:PRESERVE, but a more honest (if wordy) summary is that there is no consensus to endorse the determination of a consensus. Either way, the outcome is the same: the article is not deleted at this time. The instructions at the top of the page tell me that in these circumstances I should relist, but I'll go out on a limb and say that a third month of discussions would not be productive. – Joe (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC) Sandstein has objected to my invoking WP:IAR to ignore the instruction to relist discussions where there is no consensus at DRV, so I have relisted the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Worsley (2nd nomination). – Joe (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ryan Worsley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) 6 to 3 in favor of keep (including nominator default delete vote) and there was good arguments provided by keep voters (the amount of sources mentioned some of which are reliable and more than in passing) at worst this was a no consensus. This AFD close in short made no sense. JC7V-talk 16:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Comment Reading through the AFD, I'm not sure how I would have closed this. I agree that the sources don't seem very good, but we generally allow reviewers at AfD a fair bit of latitude on evaluating the quality of sources. There was a certain amount of obvious socking going on, and some of the arguments to keep were clearly non policy-based, but there were also some reasonable keep arguments from established editors. I've tempundeleted this for review here. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Change to no consensus The close is a little to close to a supervote. The view that the sources are as good as can be expected for the subject may or may not be correct (it is not my field) but is a reasonable keep argument, and some of the people making the argument are knowledgable WPedians. (I would say quite the opposite if they were SPAs--a proper role of a closing admin is to partially disregard SPAs, but not to evaluate whether other WPedians are correct. That decision needs to be made by the consensus, not by the admin. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse considering there were a couple SPAs, it's not a !vote, and the two best keep arguments were generally rebutted (whether the award passed WP:NMUSIC, whether the sources passed WP:GNG) by the other delete votes. It's a tough call but this is one of those where either no consensus or delete would have been appropriate, and nowhere near a supervote. SportingFlyer talk 20:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Overturn to NC. I agree the sourcing isn't the greatest (and I'm pretty far on the inclusion spectrum), but as far as I could tell, there were a number of editors in good standing who felt the sourcing was enough given the nature of the person's work. And there are enough sources that keeping isn't crazy. I don't see a consensus to delete here. The closer probably should have !voted instead. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. Try as I may I cannot find a consensus to delete here. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Delete. None of the sources are both independent and contain more than a mention, if that. Interviews are not independent sources and don’t count towards demonstrating notability. I don’t know what the Keep !voters were looking at. Beware WP:Reference bombing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Relist. The discussion needed more source analysis. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Overturn to NC Regardless of what I might have done had I voted, I don't see a meeting of the minds favoring deletion, nor can I discern a reason in policy requiring it in light of the discussion here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Overturn to NC not enough consensus for delete Atlantic306 (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Closer's comment: I maintain the view expressed in the closure, which is also reflected in Seraphimblade's second relisting comment. The "delete" arguments were, in my view, stronger here. I wouldn't relist the discussion because it has been relisted twice already. Sandstein 17:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC) I.e. WP:Supervote. It would be good if you reverted your close and !voted. These discussions are a community process with important learning aspects, the casual observer needs to be able to understand what happened. It is not just about the right result. Resisting is irrelevant, more a negative distraction than anything. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC) The small number of sources the keep !voters used to establish notability were called out by the delete voters, and many of the keep votes weren't even grounded in policy. One keep !voter even admitted the referencing was bad. I don't think it's reasonable at all to claim this was a supervote. SportingFlyer talk 01:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Despite multiple points of similarity? I think your denial of reason behind the observation of supervote is absurd. The seriousness of this review in considering an overturn is a compelling point for labelling the close a supervote. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Which similarity? It appears to me this is the inverse of a "pile-on supervote," where there's an "emotive majority." I don't think the Keep !votes had any grounding in policy, though, something noted by Seraphimblade, who relisted instead of closing. I think a relist would have been appropriate if there hadn't already been two relists, but here we are. SportingFlyer talk 09:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC) SportingFlyer, Points of similarity with a supervote? (1) the close is against the numbers; (2) the close asserts opinion but does not explicitly cite discussion points; (3) the XfD goes to DRV suffers multiple "overturn" !votes from experienced editors. (1) is not much a point, except that it signals a need for a very good explanation. (2) is about that explanation not being very good. (3) is proof by hindsight. NB. I agree that the page should be deleted, and that some super-experienced closers Spartaz & Seraphimblade agree, but I dispute the correctness of the close because the typical Wikipedia editor can't be expected to understand that close, and the advice at WP:Supervote should be heeded. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC) I still disagree. There's a big difference between an incorrect close and a supervote. As I've noted above, this doesn't really fit into any of the supervote categories. SportingFlyer talk 23:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Endorse, AfD is not a vote. The reason I relisted, which Sandstein alluded to, is that many of the arguments preceded by a bolded "Keep" were actually delete arguments, in the vein of "I know there aren't enough sources, but...". Stop there, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, no sources, no article, no but. Some arguments were also irrelevant, such as that it's difficult to find sources on people with a given profession. If that's so, well, then we won't have many articles about people who do that job; that's true of the vast majority of occupations from doctors to software engineers to postal carriers. AfD isn't a vote, and since no further sources were introduced after the relist, I believe Sandstein interpreted it correctly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC) endorse keep votes based on opinion or sources that are clearly not good enough are never enough. Spartaz Humbug! 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC) Overturn The close failed to address the argument made by multiple Keep !voters – that the awards won by the subject were sufficient to establish notability. The closer's own argument was a supervote which was erroneous in its reading of the notability guideline which is not a policy and so allows for exceptions and flexible interpretation. It is not the closer's job to pick the interpretation that they personally favour. Andrew D. (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC) I went through the entire AfD text and found every place where somebody specifically talks about the awards. Here's what I found: User:Wiseseven (keep) Worsley won the 2018 Producer of the Year award at the Western Canadian Music Awards this past week Under WP:ANYBIO (see 2.1) winning an award and/or being nominated multiple times is likely to be notable. User:David notMD (keep) WCMAs are Grammys if you live in western Canada. User:JC7V7DC5768 (keep) He won multiple awards User:Clarityfiend (delete) The Western Canadian Music Awards are not the Grammys by a long shot. User:Bearcat (delete) winning a Western Canadian Music Award is not a notability freebie under NMUSIC #8 WCMAs may be Grammys if you live in western Canada, but they ain't Grammys when it comes to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria I apologize if I missed any; there was an amazing amount of drek to wade through to sift out these nuggets. The bottom line is that we've got three people arguing that the awards are sufficiently important to meet WP:N, and two people arguing that they're not. There's other issues to be considered, but on the specific question of the awards, I'd say we have no consensus on their significance. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Comment, I believe the sources provided shows this person passes WP:GNG. It would be unfortunate if it was closed as no consensus to overturn. A better opinion would be relisting or allowing recreation. I am confident with further participation a keep outcome is inevitable at AfD. Valoem talk contrib 15:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Speedy overturn to no consensus. Besides the reasons for overturning already stated here (with the supervote issue being more than enough), I have to say that I find User:Bearcat's comments at the AfD very troubling. Now I freely admit that I do not have much experience with WP:NMUSIC specifically, but there were multiple assertions made that are simply not true per policy, e.g. that podcasts cannot be reliable sources, or that only so-called "major" sources qualify. And then there is this rather chilling sentence: If an occupation "doesn't have enough mainstream interest in general", then that in and of itself is a reason why a Wikipedia article shouldn't exist. Let's not mince words here: without exaggeration, the vast majority of Wikipedia articles would need to be deleted to satisfy such a high standard. WP:NOTPAPER is just as much policy as WP:N (in fact arguably more so, as the latter is a guideline). In light of all of this, I find it quite probable that the closer was swayed by the presence of so many seemingly valid arguments for deletion, and as such I have added "speedy" to my !vote. Modernponderer (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC) Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is defined as the presence or absence of reliable source coverage in media — there is nobody in the world who is so critically important for us to have an article about that we waive the requirement for reliable source coverage. The way it works is not that some occupations are exempt from having to show quality sources just because it would be hard for them to get into Wikipedia otherwise — the whole point of Wikipedia having inclusion standards at all is that getting an article is not supposed to be "easy" or unregulated: reliable source coverage is what tells us whether somebody is important enough to have an article on here or not. Nobody, but nobody, ever gets to claim that having a Wikipedia article about him is so important that the requirement for reliable source coverage is waived — reliable source coverage is non-negotiable and the need for an article to exist at all is what's up for debate, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC) All of that is absolutely correct of course, per policy. The primary area of disagreement is over what qualifies as reliable sourcing. Modernponderer (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC) Sources in which people are talking about themselves in Q&A format don't. It doesn't matter whether they're on the radio, in podcasts, or in print — Q&A interviews can be used as supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by stronger sources, but they cannot be used as data points toward the initial matter of getting the person over GNG in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Actually, even people being interviewed about themselves can contribute to notability, depending on the interview. WP:NOR is explicitly vague on this, singling them out compared to other sources: (depending on context) interviews I would argue that there was a consensus established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saffron Henderson that as long as an interview is published by a reliable source, it can count for WP:GNG – though obviously a global consensus would override that. But that isn't even the main issue here. I was referring to the (apparent?) assertion that all podcasts are inherently unreliable, even if they are done by other people. That is clearly incorrect. Modernponderer (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Actually, no, you were the only person in that discussion who argued that interviews counted toward GNG per se — and even if anybody else had, consensus is not established by just one example of something happening, it's established by many repeated examples of the same thing happening. There are a considerable number of AFD discussions that were closed counter to actual consensus on the matters at hand, because the discussion got overrun by enough people who either didn't know or didn't care what the state of consensus actually is — AFD boils down a lot of the time to a debating chamber, completely at the mercy of who shows up rather than actually or consistently following the real rules. So one discussion closing as a keep does not automatically translate into a binding precedent, especially when you're citing it as a precedent for something that doesn't even have anything to do with how the article got kept in the first place. People can and do make false claims about themselves in interviews — musicians claiming hit singles they never really had, writers bluffing the distinction between "nominated for award" and "submitted to award committee by publisher for consideration" so that they can claim award nominations they don't really have, and on and so forth — so people do not get into Wikipedia by talking about themselves in Q&A format, they get into Wikipedia by being the subject of coverage written by other people in the third person. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Interviews cannot contribute to meeting the GNG because they are not independent of the subject. The subject participated in creating the interview. The GNG requires independent sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC) User:SmokeyJoe, that is a simple misreading of WP:GNG. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. Interviews are neither – unless they are WP:SPS or otherwise affiliated. Modernponderer (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Patently not. The interview is a product of the interviewee. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC) The interview is not made by the interviewee. They are merely a participant. They do not normally have any editorial control or even influence over it – and in those cases where they somehow do, then the interview is certainly affiliated and not independent. Modernponderer (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Merely a participant? How about: A participant! Influence? Preparation! Creation of everything in the interview that is going to be used! (Only comedy interviews feature the performance of the interviewer). Clearly this needs clarification, lets go to WT:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC) Your concerns are quite valid, but the problem is that those things happen all the time in third-party sources as well. Wikipedia cannot guarantee the veracity of any statements made by sources used here. We don't have WP:RS to determine truth, we have it to keep the "sources made up in one day" at bay. Regarding interviews specifically, I see it this way: once a reliable source chooses to conduct and publish an interview, even one with the subject of said interview, that source is asserting the standard of reliability that is generally associated with it. In other words, it is entirely different from "just a conversation someone might have had", which is what we often think of when we think about interviews. Re: AfD, I agree in principle, but the issue is that we clearly do not have a global consensus on this, so that is all I have to work with right now. If you know of a different local consensus on this issue, please do link to it. Modernponderer (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Endorse the keep !votes had no basis in policy or guidelines, and Sandstein was correct to ignore them. Interviews (which podcasts are) do not count as independent coverage. This has long been our standard for interpreting the meaning of "independent" in the relevant notability guidelines, and just because users who don't know how our guidelines work think it means something else doesn't meant we keep the article. Beyond the interview thing, which was what led me to comment, I agree with Seraphimblade that most of the other keep !votes gave good reasons to delete the article based on policy and guidelines. I'm about as SNG friendly a person as you can get, but Bearcat's arguments here were spot on and no one was able to successfully counter them. This close was correct. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC) User:TonyBallioni, if you are so certain about this notability standard for interviews that you go so far as to completely discount the numerous opposing views, why not cite a policy that supports that? Because I have done exactly that for my arguments, and what I have found in doing so is that the only actual policy on the matter is deliberately vague, and that no community consensus has been reached on the issue. On top of that, both you and User:Seraphimblade essentially assert that the notion of what constitutes reliable sourcing in general is anywhere near a settled issue, and that any opinions to the contrary are to be disregarded. As I pointed out above, such a standard if applied objectively (but of course it would not be) would result in the deletion of most of Wikipedia. It obviously follows from the fact that that has not happened that your views are simply not representative of the average AfD participant's. Modernponderer (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC) It fails the independence requirement of WP:N. That is the clear policy. We always interpret it this way at AfD, which is what matters, not how we document it. Practice is policy, and Sandstein got it right. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC) Comment: There is now a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Interviews are not independent sources, and cannot be used to satisfy the WP:GNG. Modernponderer (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dollshot – No consensus to undelete. There's limited discussion, but nobody apart from the DRV nominator wants to restore this. It can be userfied or draftified via WP:REFUND if desired. Sandstein 17:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dollshot (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Dollshot was deleted at AfD, then recreated as a virtually identical copy. SportingFlyer brought this to my attention on my talk page and I ended up deleting it under WP:G4. Artaria195 disagreed with my deletion, but has resisted my suggestions that DRV would be a better forum to argue their case than my talk page, so I'm opening this on their behalf. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Comment I was doing AfC patrolling and noticed a bluelink to this page. It sounded familiar to me, so I followed it and remembered I had been involved in an XfD. I checked the page and it didn't appear to contain much if any new information since the date of the XfD, but I can't view history to check for G4 (non-admin) so asked RoySmith in an attempt to continue learning Wikipedia procedure, who confirmed and deleted per G4. SportingFlyer talk 02:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC) The new sources are [3] and [4]. The first is primary. While the second is something, it's not much; between that and the lack of substantial change to the content, this shouldn't be overturned outright. I'm not in favor of another AFD, either, given the transparent and completely unrepentant sockpuppetry at the first one. —Cryptic 03:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Comment Thank you for your comments. This article was updated with two new sources that when added to WNYC and NPR easily pass WP:NBAND #1: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." The first new source is an interview with the band which helps the case for notability based on the fact that its an interview by an independent third party. According to WP:USEPRIMARY: "Again, "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad". Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources." In this case, both The Annie O interview and the New Music Box article are highly reputable, reliable, note self-published, and independent sources. In addition, they are clearly not the only sources being cited, as I also understand that on their own they do not pass WP:NBAND #1. What does that mean that the BlackBook source isn't much? It's a detailed feature in a prominent music magazine and blog with a distribution of 150,000. It seems like editors commenting on source quality are not familiar enough with the press outlets and their importance in the music scene. NPR and WNYC are nationally broadcast, major media outlets (Dollshot was featured alongside Kesha in this source). BlackBook is a very prominent magazine and blog that recently did a feature on the band (see above). NewMusicBox is the foremost publication in New Music, and they commissioned a full piece by Dollshot asking the band to talk about their music. The band was interviewed and presented by a 'venerable' music presenter (BlackBook's words not mine, so independent and objective). Not to mention the many in print album reviews and concert listings Dollshot has received (NYC Jazz Record, TimeOut NY, Red Hook Star Revue to name just a few). It's frustrating to me that standards are being applied to this article that aren't being applied elsewhere, stemming from objections early on from a couple of editors. Artaria195 (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC) If the consensus is that my article on Dollshot is not ready to be published in the mainspace, would someone be willing to return it to my sandbox for future editing? I will wait until I can find more sources to prove notability before resubmitting, if the consensus is against it this time. Thank you, Artaria195 (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse, can't see this surviving Afd. No problem with draftifying. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

StarForce – Moot; article restored to what appears to be general agreement. Sandstein 18:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
StarForce (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This page was deleted by Dlohcierekim as unambiguous promotion, then restored by Nyttend per request at WP:AN, and finally re-deleted by PresN. The user Shortspecialbus wanted to find a non-spammy revision, but failed to do so. To have another chance, we should try DRV. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC) The AN discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive303#StarForce, to save other folks the trouble of looking for it. It doesn't contain anything about the merits of the content. As to those merits, the only thing I find objectionably spammy about the most recent non-redirect version is the Products section. That could've just been removed entirely without harming the rest of the article a bit. —Cryptic 02:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC) To be honest, the main reason I re-deleted the article is because Nyttend had restored it as a cross-namespace redirect to userspace (and not even a user page that had anything to do with the subject), which is not a valid state of existence. It should either exist as an article or not. --PresN 02:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Yeah, absolutely nothing wrong with your redeletion. —Cryptic 02:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Oh God. 1300 revisions. I asked for help restoring it when I found I could not myself. I guess someone redirected after restoration? Not at all opposed to restoration.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Is there any way to restore with a single mouse click? The aalternative is 1300 mouse clicks. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC) My first thought was WP:AutoWikiBrowser, but reviewing the docs, I don't think it supports undeletion. Anybody with stronger AWB-fu than mine know for sure? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC) ...you know that it defaults to all revisions if you don't specifically enable any, right? And if it's not that, and the transaction times out if you try to restore all at once, any reasonable browser will let you left-click the first checkbox of a range and shift-left-click the last, and it'll check all the boxes. —Cryptic 20:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Thanks @Cryptic: I'll remember if that if something like this comes up again. They're all restored now.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC) 'restoring-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC) If I'd looked before deleting in the first place, I'd have seen 1300+ revisions and balked at the idea. May need clean up.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC) The article has been restored. Now someone should restore the talk page too, Talk:StarForce. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 November 2018

DevSecOps – Consensus not to unsalt or recreate at this time. Interested editors should submit a fully sourced draft to DRV. Sandstein 14:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
DevSecOps (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) DevSecOps is a very significant thing now, with 1500 Linkedin job listings for the field, 46 matches on Amazon, and 800,000 Google matches. Kermit2 (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Keep protected in mainspace, allow draft. It's probably a notable concept, but given the history of the article, starting fresh in draft space might be the way to go (and DRV approval isn't required for that). The criteria cited in the nom (job listings, amazon matches, ghits) are meaningless for our purposes. The most recently deleted version is pretty crappy; I'm not sure it's quite WP:G11 material, but it's certainly no great piece of writing. I wouldn't be terribly opposed to restoring it to draft, but WP:TNT might be a better plan. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC) I actually did make a draft but accidentally moved it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devsecops without the correct capitalization then realized I couldn't move it to DevSecOps. What sort of criteria of significance are not meaningless for our purposes? Kermit2 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Ah, you should have mentioned that earlier :-) For the moment, I'm going to move this back to draft space, pending the outcome of this discussion. What's meaningless is how many LinkedIn job postings, or how many Amazon matches, or how many Google hits there are. Those are not how we determine notability. What we're looking for are reliable sources; none of those qualify. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC) I will vote with allow re-creation possibly from draft. When I look online there is plenty of material available to show GNG would apply. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC) It is likely notable and it's never been to AfD, the only deletions in the log are for G11 (advertising). If someone can come up with a neutrally worded draft I'd be happy for it to be moved to mainspace. I don't think Draft:DevSecOps gets that far, it basically consists of a definition of the subject which manages to emphasise how great it is. Hut 8.5 22:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Maintain the salting on mainspace. The editor should continue working on the draft and should submit it for independent review to AfC. Currently I believe no reviewer will accept that draft as it is not clear how it's notable but it shows clear start of a promotional article even without looking at the deletion log which will only reinforce that view. Your examples of LinkedIn listings, Amazon and Google search results are nothing more than vindication of how all the previous G11 deletions were correct.–Ammarpad (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Keep in draft and try to find additional references,. But in practice the relative importance of ac ompany within its line of business does amount to common sense importance, and even with our conventional artificial view of notability as dependent only of sources, we do take it into account in afd discussions. In practice, we are much more likely to find reason to delete the article of a minor firm, using the logic that in such a case the references could only be promotional. (Myself, I am firmly more and more of the opinion that it's time we recognized the way importance is determined in the real world and abandoned our artificial substitutes that may have made sense 10 years ago when we had not yet realized our own importance, and could adopt whatever rules we liked for our game here. . Like it or not, we're now in too responsible a position to continue that sort of artificiality. . ) DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Continue working on the draft and bring back here when it has been fleshed out and referenced fully. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mt Washington Fire Protection District – Speedy deletion endorsed. Sandstein 14:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mt Washington Fire Protection District (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) User:Fram prod'd the page claiming it was not notable. When I deproded it noting it is autonotable as a taxing district and populated place just like a school district, they unilaterally deleted the article citing G12. They then threated me on my talkpage - which is not appreciated at all especially from an Admin. I know this is not a copyvio because I checked it with Earwig on approval, and later reworked portions of the page that were poorly written after removing the PROD. If there are still sections that are too close to the sources they can be easily reworded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 08:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC) I didn't "threaten" them, I said that I would start a section on their talk page about the repeated cases of copyright violations (and plagiarism) they accepted from AfC. Discussing concerns with an editor on their own talk page is not threatening them, and being an admin or not has nothing to do with this. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with this DRV. Fram (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC) As for the actual copyvio, an edit like this (your "reworked portions") does nothing to address copyvio, and older copyvios would still need to be deleted anyway, not accepted and then rewritten. Example sentences: Source[5]: "In 1952 Roy Tinsley allowed the department to build its first 2-bay fire house on the Porter Street property. The labor and much of the material was donated. In 1970 the department became a tax district for the first time it could develop a long range plan for upgrading fire protection. " Accepted version: "In 1952, Roy Tinsley allowed the department to build its first 2-bay fire house on Porter Street. Much of the material and labor was donated. In 1970, the department became a Tax District, and for the first time, the department could make a long-range plan for upgrading Fire Protection." Reworked version: "In 1952, Roy Tinsley allowed the department to build its first 2-bay fire house on Porter Street. Much of the material and labor was donated. In 1970, the department became a Tax District, and for the first time, the organization could make a long-range plan for upgrading Fire Protection." "I know this is not a copyvio because I checked it with Earwig on approval" should be grounds for instant dismissal as an AfC checker or new page reviewer. Fram (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse deletion, obvious copyright violation. Fish+Karate 11:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse deletion - clearly copyvio, the content would need to be fundamentally rewritten and then the history would need to be purged anyway. Fram's analysis shows why one cannot rely on Earwig's tool exclusively in detecting copyvio, the tool cannot prove a negative and is not designed to. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse. Looking at the accepted version in the history, I see additional copyvios from http://www.mtwashingtonfire.com/history.html, in addition to the one cited above. The amount of copyvio seems so extensive, the work to purge the history outweighs the value of the article. There's wiggle room around WP:N, but WP:CV is a bright line. Questions about qualifications to review drafts belong in other fora. I have no opinion on the fundamental notability of the subject, so see no reason a new draft couldn't be started from scratch (i.e. WP:TNT). -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse- This was a copyvio, so it isn't coming back. No opinion about allowing re-creation, except to point out that there is no such thing as "autonotable". Reyk YO! 17:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC) The "History" section, which comprised most of the prose in the article, was a blatant copyvio of the source cited. There had been some attempts to rephrase it but they were very superficial and it was still a blatant copyvio. We could get rid of that section and leave the rest, which would leave the couple of sentences in the lead and a list of the district's command structure and equipment. That isn't much of an article but it isn't nothing either. Automated copyvio tools aren't infallible, as anybody who uses them should know, and the idea that fire departments are inherently notable strikes me as rather odd. Hut 8.5 21:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC) The problem with Earwig is that it only (AFAICT) compares the text to the sources in the article. I run Earwig, but I also pick a few passages that look suspicious and copy-paste them into a google search to see what that finds. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse deletion - The example of "reworked" material above is blatantly not acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC) This was a copyright infringement from the first non-empty revision, still plainly infringing as of the last one, and contained no non-infringing content from other authors. Speedy deletion is the appropriate remedy. Rewording from the infringement, as opposed to writing an entirely new article from the sources, is not. Endorse. That said, it's unfair and misleading to hold up Legacypac's edit above as an inadequate attempt to fix the copyvio. It is inadequate, but it wasn't meant to be - the infringement hadn't been identified at that point, and his edit summary ("Trim out excess detail on equipment, clarify this is a District not a fire departmsnt of the town and other style changes") makes it clear that he was tweaking what he thought was free content. —Cryptic 04:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Correct I was unaware of any copyvio (which earwig did not find, nor did 2 or 3 other reviewers that had handled the draft) when I edited the page to address wording issues. Because I edited the content somewhat heavily the claim that it was copyvio raised doubt in my mind, given I had reworded it personally. Fram's attitude toward me around this draft did not give me confidence that they were correct that there was a copyvio and I could not compare the deleted page to anything, hence the filing. Thank-you to the other Admins for taking a look at this and confirming the new editor copied inappropriately. Fram's assertion above around my handling of copyvio is highly misleading and hostile. I CSD a lot of copyvio and no one should accuse me of being soft on it. Legacypac (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Legacypac, you wrote " I know this is not a copyvio because I checked it with Earwig on approval, and later reworked portions of the page that were poorly written after removing the PROD. " The way you wrote that sentence is "I know it is not a copyvio because A and B", where B is "I later reworked portions of the page". So you claimed, while filing this DRV, that it was not a copyvio in part because you reworked portions of the page. It is obvious that your reworking of the page had no influence on the copyvio status at all, so your claim was incorrect. You can try to put the blame on me as much as you want, but if the above is not what you meant, then you shouldn't have stated it like this. And if it is what you meant, then you shouldn't try to deny it now. Fram (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 November 2018

International Public Health Film Competition – Endorse. It's always possible that things change and new information becomes available. In that case, we can always revisit a decision, but you need to present your new information, not just assert that it exists while keeping the details a mystery. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
International Public Health Film Competition (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page; I acknowledge the copyright issues regarding the last version of this page and have made significant alterations to the wording of the page to address these comments. However I think that the International Public Health Film Competition is still notable in its own right and deserves to have a page separately from the Public Health Film Festival Uthoang (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse If I had discovered the page as recreated I would still have nominated it for deletion. I found nothing in my WP:BEFORE to indicate notability and there is no signal in the version made today to indicate I missed something. Given the meager participation I would understand if a decision to relist was made, though I do not think it currently justified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse I'm not sure what the significant new information would be, as no new information has been clearly presented (please let me know if I've missed something.) SportingFlyer talk 09:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse per Hitchens's razor. Nominator claims "significant new information" but gives no supporting proof or even a hint at what this significant new information might be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The Mountain Witch – Relisted, with the closer's consent. Sandstein 14:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The Mountain Witch (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The editor who closed this AfD (with whom I discussed the close) is an excellent closer and was, I think, faced with a difficult decision. Still, I think this might benefit from a relist to allow a stronger consensus to develop towards either Keep/Delete. There were three Keep !votes but I'm concerned that these largely did not present any valid argumentation / rationale and were merely WP:VAGUEWAVEs. One editor weighed in with a "template" !vote (it appears this is virtually identical text to their last 100 !votes - https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py?name=BOZ); in this case, especially, I think template !votes presented without rationale should be scrutinized since the editor in question is outside consensus on more than 80% of their AFD !votes. A second editor weighed in with a formulary "Keep per" which seems to be a copy/paste of 90% of their recent !votes (https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py?name=FreeKnowledgeCreator) The third editor did advance a rationale (namely, that two sources that they were able to find - a book mention and a post on "flamesrising.com" by "Clyde" - constitued WP:SIGCOV) which, while I disagree with, I accept as an argument/rationale for Keep rather than punch-card voting. Chetsford (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Comment - my "accuracy" rating is as irrelevant as yours. My Keep in this case was to support that of User:Newimpartial, as I assume was User:FreeKnowledgeCreator's. No delete or dissenting votes were provided, thus I feel we have a valid close. BOZ (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Relist. I really can't fault the closer; this sure looks like an obvious keep, at least at first glance. I wouldn't expect anybody (including myself) would have closed this any other way. But, the whole premise to keeping this is based on Flames Rising being a WP:RS, and I can't agree with that. The claim is that Flames Rising is an editorially vetted publication (as opposed to a blog). But, as a I read through http://www.flamesrising.com/about/ and http://www.flamesrising.com/submission-guidelines/, I'm not convinced that it is. The about page describes it as a fanzine. That doesn't (ahem) conjure up visions of strict editorial oversight. The submissions guidelines says: we encourage you to submit your content to our site in order to gain exposure and publicity for whatever it is you’re working on. typically, we only edit reviews for basic spelling and grammar and do not alter your written content They also allow the review author to retain copyright, and don't pay for reviews. These are not the sorts of things which scream out WP:RS. On the other hand, they do provide some editorial oversight, in that they describe the types of reviews and other content they want to publish, and reserve the right to reject those that don't fit their needs. So, not a totally anything-goes, hands-off WP:UGC blog. But, on the spectrum of reliable-sourcitude, more on the bloggy end of the spectrum. So, maybe the Flames Rising review isn't total garbage, but it also doesn't seem like enough to base a WP:GNG claim on all by itself. Overall, I think relisting this to get broader input would be a good idea. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC) My claim about Flame Rising is that it is vetted by a reliable editorial staff. They reserve the right to reject submitted content, and have attracted some of the best writers in the business, such as Kenneth Hite. There are plenty of other reviews of this multiply-award-nominated game out there, so I picked one that was in my personal opinion the best.Newimpartial (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Understood. Setting aside the larger question of whether the flamesrising.com fanzine is RS or whether it is enough to prove WP:SIGCOV for a moment, is the column by "Clyde" that of a professional staff member (insofar as any flamesrising.com fanzine staff are professional in that they are all unpaid) or that of a contributor? We, correctly, consider Forbes.com to be RS, but we don't consider Forbes.com contributors to be RS and I would be surprised at an argument that flamesrising.com fanzine contributors are inherently more reliable than Forbes contributors. Chetsford (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Chetsford, you are "repeating arguments already made in the deletion discussion", are you not? I do not see that any "significant new information has come to light" not any allegation of "substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion". Your contributions here read like IDONTLIKEIT, to be honest. That isn't what deletion review is for. Newimpartial (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Chetsford, you are "repeating arguments already made in the deletion discussion", are you not? No, I don't believe so. Chetsford (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse - this request for deletion review appears to be an inappropriate use of the process, as it seems to consist of "a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment", since the requestor simply states that the review "might benefit from a relist" - if this were the relevant criterion, then just about all non-speedy AfD closes might qualify. The arguments for this one were stale and the closer weighed policy considerations appropriately into the close. The requestor appears "to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion" (viz. point 3) and to "argue technicalities" (viz. points 1 and 2), which makes this an entirely out-of-scope request IMO. Let us not encourage this manipulation of process. Newimpartial (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Upon further investigation, I would also note that the requestor's interaction with the closer consisted in asking that the result be changed from "keep" to "no consensus", which would make no material difference whatever, but it would affect the Requestor's AfD statistics, with which he appears to be much concerned. That alone strikes me as a reason to refuse the request, as it appears quite frivolous in nature, given the full context. Newimpartial (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC) By "no consensus" I meant find that there was no consensus with the implication it would be relisted as per WP:RELIST. I apologize if I expressed myself imperfectly. Chetsford (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC) You expressed yourself using the words that you, yourself use to record closes of "no consensus" in AfDs, on the page you use to keep track of individual results and to calculate overall percentages of success (where you do not count "no consensus" results against your batting average, for some reason). If you meant something different from what you mean elsewhere, then yes, I'd say you expressed yourself imperfectly. Newimpartial (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC) OK. Chetsford (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Closer's comment - the nominator took this up with me on my talk page and they seem reasonable in their concerns as I doubt they're trying to manipulate the process as Newimpartial suggests. And BOZ seems to confirm that I interpreted their keep argument correctly. RoySmith (the only one who has commented here that didn't participate in the AFD) presents a compelling argument, despite the fact that this seemed to show The Mountain Witch was reviewed by an independent source (those seem to pass RS/GNG/NBOOK). Had Newimpartial not provided the source by Flames Rising, I wouldn't have closed this AFD (I avoid closing any AFD's without policy-based arguments even if all the arguments are for keep). Although I still think my closure was correct based on my initial observations, relisting wouldn't be a bad idea as RoySmith suggests, and any endorsement of my closure should come other than from those that participated in the AFD (essentially discounting Newimpartial's endorsement since they participated at the AFD).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC) A very reasonable response, thank you. BOZ (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse Enough votes had been placed to keep, with no support for delete at all, so the close seems to be justified. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Relist a technical reading of WP:DRVPURPOSE would suggest a renomination after a certain amount of time. I'm in favor of a relist per RoySmith, though - it's the easiest thing to do given the concerns raised with the one currently identified source and will allow for another week's worth of eyeballs. SportingFlyer talk 10:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Relist, or simply list again, with no fault to the closer. RoySmith found a pretty significant issue with the source that really does change things. Can't fault anyone for closing a unanimous consensus as keep, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Family Plastics – Endorse AfD, but allow recreation. It's obvious where this is going, so I'm going to close it early. Endorse, because everybody agrees the AfD was closed correctly. But, standard policy is that if an article is deleted for failing WP:N, and later events occur which would change that, then there's no reason a new article can't be created for the same topic. Any editor can do that; there's no need to go through a heavy-weight process like WP:DRV. Please keep in mind, however, that there's no guarantee that a new draft would be accepted. While it's perfectly fine to go ahead and write a new version, a major fire does not necessarily make the company notable (see WP:NOTNEWS). The applicable guideline is WP:NCORP, and in particular WP:CORPDEPTH; any new draft will need to meet those standards. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Family Plastics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) A page on Family Plastics was earlier in wikipedia and it got deleted. The recent fire accident happened in the same company has given the numero uno plastic products manufactures of Kerala has made the company 'notable' in India that has 'unfortunately' faced a loss of 500 crores. DennyKuriakose (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse The closer seemed to correctly evaluate the consensus and the consensus was reasoned and reasonable. While notability is not temporary, it can also be acquired. The article can simply be recreated if the company, which used not to be notable, has now become so. Chetsford (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC) References Endorse The close was proper and reflected the clear consensus. If the company has recently gained notability, then a new policy compliant article can be written. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse as above things can change and something may become notable later in which case recreation can occur, just start a new article. That said I don't think a massive fire necessarily makes the company notable, the fire as an event maybe notable (though it may merely be passings news also), but that doesn't make the underlying company noteworthy. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Restart in draft space. There's not that much in th original article worth reusing. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC) I found this link from net.[6]. Will this help someone? DennyKuriakose (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Family Plastics uses 'Virgin' plastics for manufacturing; a practice not followed by other plastic products manufacturers. https://localnews.manoramaonline.com/thiruvananthapuram/local-news/2018/11/01/all-local-tvm-family-plastics-owner-simson.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:7101:4903:7DE7:4B16:6B1A:2F79 (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse The closure was absolutely correct. Also, I did check user contributions and because of the promotional nature of the original article (at least alleged in the AfD, I can't see the history) - and I'm assuming good faith because the fire was a seemingly major intermediate event - I found this DRV was DennyKuriakose's first contribution. That being said, I have no problem with a new user trying to create a new article in draft space, to see if it passes notability now. SportingFlyer talk 12:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 November 2018

File:John Tavener Song for Athene.ogg – Speedy deletion endorsed. Sandstein 09:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:John Tavener Song for Athene.ogg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore) Mahagaja tagged this file for deletion with {{Di-no source}}. When I objected to the tag, Mahagaja proceeded to delete the page. Out of process/WP:INVOLVED deletion. -FASTILY 04:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC) Non-admins can't see much when you say you objected, what did you object to? was the tagging wrong, i.e. it had a source sufficient for us to determine copyright status? Or did you provide such a source as your objection? For me no-source seems pretty black and white, either there is or there isn't so I can't see a real world question on involved, it's not a subjective issue (though in terms of appearing to be fair, that's a different matter) so I'm not convinced that without a proper source there can be a compelling argument for undeletion, at best there is a bureaucratic argument for someone else to undelete and redelete for the same reason --81.108.53.238 (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC) Fastily's objection to the tag shows his/her misunderstanding of our policies regarding nonfree files. The file in question – a portion of a recording of "Song for Athene" by John Tavener – had no source information, though the file information page did mention Tavener as the composer. I tagged it as such on 20 October, meaning it had 7 days' grace period before it could be deleted. On 31 October, Fastily removed the tag with the edit summary "decline nsd - tagged non-free, author cited as John Tavener". However, the page really did not have sufficient source information and had been tagged as such for 11 days. As I explained on my talk page, "the fact that the words 'John Tavener' appeared on it is not sufficient source information. There was no information on the source of that particular recording, or who held the copyright on that particular recording. Recordings of music are classic examples of derivative works (see commons:Commons:Derivative works). There are two entities whose copyright claims need to be considered: the composer and the performer(s). Consider it this way: if this had been a recording of a modern orchestra playing a Mozart concerto, the file could not be called public domain just because Mozart's been dead for over 100 years. The performers would still hold the copyright to the recording. And in this case, since Tavener has been dead for only a few years, we have to consider both his copyright on the music itself (or rather, Chester Music's copyright, since they're the publisher [7]) and the performers' copyright on the recording." So writing the words "John Tavener" on the file description page isn't sufficient source information, and Fastily should have simply deleted the image on 31 October rather than removing a valid tag. But what makes this undeletion request particularly absurd is that Fastily doesn't even want the file kept! At the same time that he removed the perfectly valid "no source" tag, he tagged it for deletion himself on the grounds that it "fails WP:NFCC#8, no critical commentary in the article it is used in". So he apparently wants it undeleted now just so that it can be deleted again in 4 days' time on the grounds of violating NFCC-8 instead of NFCC-10a. That's ridiculous bureaucracy and process-wonkery which I decided to bypass by just deleting it myself. As for WP:INVOLVED, I'm not. I have no vested interest in whether this file is kept or deleted. If it had had correct source info, I wouldn't even have bothered tagging it for lack of critical commentary. This isn't a disputed topic; I have no conflict of interest; and my previous involvement with this file was purely administrative. I therefore request that the deletion be upheld. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 11:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse this looks like a perfectly valid F4 deletion. The file description page said who the composer of the piece was but there was nothing about who performed it, who published the recording or where the recording was sourced from. That information is essential for determining the copyright status of the recording and, for a fair use file, the file's market value (WP:NFCC#10a). Admittedly the deleting admin was also the tagger but I don't think that's enough to make the deletion inappropriate. Hut 8.5 16:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC) The status quo is correct. The file shouldn't be restored unless someone cares enough to both provide licensing info sufficient to fully verify the copyright status, and to put a modicum of sourced critical commentary into the article. Arguing about which of those needs to be done first, or whether the file should get another seven days' grace period after being tagged F4 for ten and a half days already, isn't going to help the encyclopedia in any way I can see. There's nothing technically wrong with Mahagaja both tagging and speedying the file, for exactly the same reason there's nothing wrong with an admin deleting an article as an A7 or G11 on sight without someone else tagging it first, but it's not best practice in either case. I can understand the reluctance to bring the file to FFD, as suggested by Fastily in his last edit summary - it'd get speedied as an F7 before being closed there - but couldn't you have worked this out on File talk: or each others' talk pages instead of jumping for your revert and delete buttons? —Cryptic 16:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC) Since Fastily is an admin who declined the delete, it is clearly controversial to just go and speedy delete after that. So it should have been taken to WP:FFD to discuss the issues. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Endorse. Maybe the process wasn't 100% perfect, but we're about building an encyclopedia, not haggling over the fine points of process. Fundamentally, the file had no known source, so it had to go. If people cared about fixing it, they had all the time it was tagged to fix it, and all the time this DRV has been going on to fix it too, and nobody did. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.