Cannabis Indica

Shortcuts: WP:DRV WP:DELREV

This page deals with the Deletion discussion process. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

Administrator instructions

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all closing
Templates
today all closing holding
Files
today all closing
Possibly unfree files (PUF)
today all closing
Categories
today all closing speedy
Redirects
today all closing log
Miscellany
today all closing
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all books BLPs
Policy Process Guide Administrator guidelines

Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose[edit]

Shortcut: WP:DRVPURPOSE

Deletion Review may be used:

if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion Review should not be used:

because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Shortcut: WP:DELREVD

Instructions[edit]

Before listing a review request, please:

Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See § Purpose.
Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

In the deletion review discussion, please:

Endorse the original closing decision; or
Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion[edit]

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]


1.	Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.
2.	Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:drv2 \|page= \|xfd_page= \|reason= }} ~~~~ Copy this template skeleton for files: {{subst:drv2 \|page= \|xfd_page= \|article= \|reason= }} ~~~~
3.	Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in `page` with the name of the deleted page, `xfd_page` with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and `reason` with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, `article` is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 \|page=File:Foo.png \|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png \|article=Foo \|reason= }} ~~~~
4.	Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page: `{{subst:DRVNote\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~`
5.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach `<noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude>` to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
6.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2016 March 29}}</noinclude>`, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2016 March 29\|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>`, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is different than the deletion review's section header:

Active discussions[edit]

29 March 2016[edit]

Austin Wade Petersen[edit]

This article was originally deleted because the person the article was about was not notable enough. Since the original deletion, a new article was rewritten with additional content and additional sources, but was still speedily deleted (and redirected) for WP:G4. Petersen has since gained more notability and gained support as shown by primary election results. He is also going to appear in a nationally televised debate with two other top contenders for the Libertarian Party nomination, which was sourced in the newly rewritten article that was speedily deleted. This demonstrates his viability to be a serious contender for the party nomination, and thus a notable public figure.

Comparing the last revision of the old article with the newly rewritten article, I don't feel like these are "substantially identical" to justify a speedy deletion of the new article. --Hamez0 (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

25 March 2016[edit]

Joseph Atwill[edit]

New references available to support notability JerryRussell (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Since the 2007 decision, Atwill has continued to accumulate references in reputable sources as well as individual blogs, and his book was translated into German and published by Ullstein Buchverlage. Contrary to the original decision, Ulysses Press is also a reputable publisher in the field of spirituality. Atwill's book, Caesar's Messiah, continues to be a best-seller in its category, and it is covered in an article in German Wikipedia. While many reviews are negative, the importance of his work is in some ways vindicated by the vehemence of the opposition.

Here are links to secondary sources on Atwill's work.

'Reputable Sources'

http://www.villagevoice.com/film/caesars-messiah-rome-invented-jesus-new-doc-claims-6436318

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/story-of-jesus-christ-was-fabricated-to-pacify-the-poor-claims-controversial-biblical-scholar-8870879.html

http://www.focus.de/wissen/mensch/geschichte/interview-jesus-war-den-kaisern-eine-hilfe_aid_356977.html

http://www.neues-deutschland.de/artikel/146983.das-kreuz-mit-dem-heiland.html

http://community.zeit.de/user/berndkoch/beitrag/2008/12/25/das-christentum-eine-propagandaluege-der-flavier

http://www.ullsteinbuchverlage.de/nc/buch/details/das-messias-raetsel-9783793420910.html

'Notable Critics' (That is, these critics have their own Wikipedia bio articles)

http://ehrmanblog.org/conspiracy-nonsense/

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_atwill.htm

http://freethoughtnation.com/a-conversation-on-the-caesars-messiah-thesis/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4664

Atwill citations already on Wikipedia --

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Messias-Rätsel (nice article in German)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_conspiracy_theory (link in 'other reading' section)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilia_Lanier (link in footnotes)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory (bullet point, but no link, in 'Documentaries' section)

The original delete decision was entered by BorgQueen. I posted a deletion review request to her user talk page six days ago, and there has been no response, although BorgQueen has been active on Wikipedia editing other articles since then.

Thank you for your attention, JerryRussell (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Still no comments? My understanding was that this article was put on the list of items protected against creation, but now I have also read here that the pre-2008 protection system may be deprecated, and I don't know if it's still in effect. Wikipedia editorial policy as discussed here would permit the article to be re-created without administrative action. I suppose if I don't hear from anyone, I'll try to create the page and see if the system will permit it. JerryRussell (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Allow recreation of Caesar's Messiah and redirect Joseph Atwill to Caesar's Messiah.
Author Joseph Atwill's book Caesar's Messiah was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar's Messiah in 2008.

This article from The Independent, this article from the Discovery Channel, this article from the International Business Times, this article from The Christian Post, and this article from The Huffington Post are primarily about the subject's book. Since most of the sources discuss the book and its ideas, I recommend allowing recreation of Caesar's Messiah and redirecting Joseph Atwill to Caesar's Messiah until there is significant biographical information about Atwill.

Cunard (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Remove protection. It's been long enough. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment after 8 years this should pretty much automatically be unprotected, I can't really understand why it was protected in the first place, one recreation and instant long term protection I would certainly hope wouldn't happen today. That said I'd note Cunard's comments above on what the appropriate article should be, and of course any created article is still subject to further deletion scrutiny. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Unrprotect, Hullaballoo makes the case more directly than I might have. It's my guess that Cunard's suggestion will be the final outcome, but that would best be left to a discussion at the article after recreation. --joe decker ^talk 21:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments If we undelete one article , it should be the article on the person. If someone is known primarily for one book, there's a chance for expanding the bio, for they may write another, but the book article has no real prospect of expansion . I also point out that blog postings about a book or an author are not published book reviews, no matter who wrote them. The deWP article is in my opinion a disgrace, for it is totally without 3rd party sources -- what I think it shows is that they never noticed it, for they usually do very much better than that. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Archaeological Society of Slovenia[edit]

The AfD was closed as no consensus, but the article still has the notability tag. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there a specific request you're making? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, AfD showed that the article topic meets the GNG but the article itself is in a bad shape and should be improved. Still, this is not a reason for deletion. --Tone 18:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe you may be mistaken: the AfD was closed as "no consensus" (no decision on notability), not "keep" (subject is notable). Anyway, as the AfD is closed, I can't see a looming deletion threat. Rebb ing 05:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Endorse. Constant relisting is a bad idea, and the participants were unsure about whether there were more sources in Slovenian, so no consensus was the appropriate decision, as it allows time for editors to find sources. Esquivalience ^t 20:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Can the nominator clarify what precisely he/she wants done here? Stifle (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

24 March 2016[edit]

Power Rangers Ninja Steel (closed)[edit]

Power Rangers Ninja Steel – Procedurally closed. This request looks like an exercise in sock- or meatpuppetry. The article was salted because of sock recreations, and now only IPs and a checkuser-blocked editor have joined this request. Any future request should be made by a registered editor in good standing. – Sandstein 10:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Page was deleted by someone who believes the person who wrote the article was banned. I think the article should be reviewed and not deleted until it's proven that they're indeed banned. 50.74.207.50 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC) 50.74.207.50 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

undelete. Don't know made the article, but it should be restored at least for the length of this discussion. After all this is confirmed by reliable source to be the next Power Ranger season. 38.86.168.55 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Overturn per above. Not only did the banned person get the article deleted, but now it can't be created again despite legitimate sources. 166.171.184.177 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Overturn. I'd be willing to write the article, but the article is indeed blocked from creation. I'll try WP:RFPP and see if someone can undo the protection se we can write it. Sales Actor MSK (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC). User was blocked.
comment: I'm restoring this discussion as only the above use was blocked, not the person who started it.47.23.36.122 (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth[edit]

We didn't discuss it for 12 hours. Heavily debated deletion on policy grounds,no support for a U5 claim. 166.176.57.187 (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The deletion review process requires you to consult with the administrator who deleted a page before lodging a request here. Can you please advise why you chose not to do this? Stifle (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

That'll be because it's the IP with the weird crush on Ricky81682. I doubt we should feed their infatuation. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Endorse closure by default due to the nominator failing to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I suggest this is speedily closed as the obvious trolling it is. This is an unsourced promotional biography which was the sole contribution of the editor who created it over five years ago, and who has not been seen since. WP:CSD#U5. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Overturn. Misuse of WP:CSD#U5. Leaving that aside, this XfD was obviously controversial, the outcome non-obvious, and the deletion non-urgent, so speedy deleting the page while the XfD was in progress was a poor decision - the ultimate supervote. Thparkth (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Endorse. Good call. Drafts should not remain in userspace indefinitely even if they are not BLP/overly promotional/unsourced. This should have been deleted years ago. Opposition during AfD has no solid basis in policy, speedy deletion has. --Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Endorse, U5 seems to fit the case here. I find the idea that BLP provisions should not apply in the draft space to be disturbing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
I can't see the article. But if it's been around for years it's not clear why a speedy for U5 was appropriate or needed. BLP issues were raised at the MfD but not settled. overturn and (re)list at MfD unless someone has a claim that there is a true BLP violation (attack page, etc.) here. Draft articles are not U5 targets, they are for MfD. Hobit (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact that it was not noticed for years is not really relevant. Remember, we're building an encyclopaedia. This article would be instantly deleted as WP:CSD#A7 in mainspace, creation of the user page is the sole contribution of the editor (whose only two edits, ever, were to this page) and that user has not been back in over five years. There is no conceivable encyclopaedic purpose to this page. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What a wreck. Between its age (the only non-minor edits were over a two-day period in January 2010), the quality of its content (it would have been an A7 in articlespace, and barely skirts G11 outside it), and the quality of its MFD (where I can't find even one edit that was both accurate and primarily about this draft), I don't object to its deletion. On the other hand, there's no way this was a U5 - U5 does not apply to drafts of articles, or anything that even looks like a draft of an article. Gripping hand, the nominator here is a banned user, and should have just been reverted instead of indulged. Take no action. —Cryptic 03:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Overturn, or rather relist at MfD. This was an attempt to write an encyclopedia article. U5 is for "writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals", and producing encyclopedia articles is one of Wikipedia's goals. Admittedly the resulting article is unsuitable for mainspace for a variety of reasons, but WP:NOT isn't one of them. Hut 8.5 07:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment - User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp was deleted by the same administrator under the same speedy deletion criteria even though Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Knapp resulted in userification prior that day. It had previously survived Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp. This is the proper place to challenge the result of a close; improper unilateral action should not be taken. Furthermore, and more on point to this discussion, WP:U5 doesn't apply to pages that have survived deletion discussions.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to raise a DRV on this other article then you are free to do so, adding it here as a different case seems to be little more than muddying the water. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Just showing the event isn't isolated and drawing a comparison. Not sure about personally opening a DRV on it at this time, though someone else potentially could, it's being a discussed at other places at this time as well.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Relist. Even though it's unlikely to survive MfD, a contentious debate shouldn't be short-circuited with fallacious reasoning as appears to have happened here. Rebb ing 06:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The DRV regulars had a very recent policy discussion about this exact subject here. I have nothing to add to what I said in that venue.—S Marshall T/C 09:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment If this page is too abusive to be temporarily undeleted can there be clarification on some relevant matters. Which user created it? When was it last edited? Was deletion urgent? Did it have an AFC header? Did it say it was a draft? Was it a BLP? If so did it have any references at all or contentious claims or was it entirely contentious or exclusively promotional? Thincat (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's not too abusive; it's just that nobody asked. I've tempundeleted it. —Cryptic 15:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  - Thank you. I was wondering if the strong antipathy to the page is because it was in some way abusive. I now understand that it is because it is an edge case. Thincat (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Overturn. as obvious misuse of WP:CSD#U5. It may be a lousy article draft. but lousy article drafts on plausible article subjects simply don't qualify for speedy deletion, especially since there was a good faith, guideline-based XFD debate in progress. Completely unjustified. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Endorse deletionU5 says "Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, (#1 goal is writing articles-this was hopeless) where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages (check), with the exception of plausible drafts (it was not a plausable draft of an article for mainspace) and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?. (does not meet anything on that list)" Legacypac (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a plausible draft to me. By that I mean, it looks like the early stages of a good-faith attempt to write an encyclopedia article about a topic that is not obviously inappropriate. Can you please explain the thought process that leads you to conclude it is not a plausible draft? Thparkth (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Overturn. This was a clear attempt at a draft; it does not qualify for WP:U5. Whether intentional or not, the speedy deletion during an MfD amounted to a supervote. VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Then move it to mainspace (where it will be deleted as WP:CSD#A7) or leave it deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, articles abandoned years ago in user space by users who basically never edited at all, form no obvious part of that endeavour. We currently have a very stupid circular argument where people say you can't delete no-hope "drafts" in user space because they are drafts, you can't move them to main space where they will inevitably be nuked because that is "disruptive", so basically all crap must be preserved in perpetuity in order to save the feelings of editors-in-name-only. It's bonkers. Crap should be tidied up. Requiring people to bring A SHRUBBERY! in order to do so, and then saying it's is the wrong kind of shrubbery, is really not a good use of anybody's time here. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think were that article in mainspace today, it would not be a good candidate for an A7. Photographers are sometimes notable, so being a photographer whose work has been published in several well-known magazines is a WP:CCS. It probably would not meet GNG and would be deleted after discussion, though. Are you saying that this was an IAR delete, not a U5? If we want to decide as a community that user space is to be cleaned up, then we should do so by documenting the new consensus at WP:UP and WP:CSD - not by applying CSD criteria in ways we personally believe they should be applied. VQuakr (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

To clarify JzG, the reason we are at DRV is because using your bit to supervote is not the intended purpose of the mop. You clearly feel that MfD should be used to keep user space tidy, but opinions on the subject are running both ways and enforcing your opinion via deletion while the subject is under discussion seems inappropriate. VQuakr (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Overturn. U5 does not apply to a draft article, no matter how unsourced it is. It is best to let the discussion run its course. Esquivalience ^t 20:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Overturn It was a draft and so not U5 and since deletion wasn't urgent it shouldn't have been speedied during an MFD anyway. Poor behaviour by the closer. If the MFD had been allowed to continue I would have been sympathetic to it being deleted because it a "no-hope draft" (no indication of importance) which hasn't been edited for a long time. I don't at all agree with the suggestion above that MFD can't delete on such grounds if there is consensus for that. Such a deletion would in my view be very different from deleting a seemingly abandoned draft of worthwhile quality or deleting a recent poor draft. If there are a lot of such drafts and if there is a consistency of decision then a new speedy criterion could be proposed. Thincat (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment WOW the amount of words here compared to the actual draft is incredible. We have what reads like a vanity piece, the apparent sole contribution of an editor 5 years ago, nominated by a banned user as part of a campaign against a specific editor. Good to see we all have our priorities straight. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I see two reasons why this is actually important:
  - CSD is easily open to abuse where the only meaningful check-and-balance is DRV. As such, it's important we get this right.
  - IMO, deleting "stale" drafts and stuff is yet another way to drive away potential contributors. Sure, 95% of these folks are never going to contribute usefully. But when doing this for 1000 users, that might be a significant number of contributors we've driven away. And, again IMO, all for no significant benefit.

So yeah, to me this is an important issue. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You are right it's important that we have checks and balances such that those wishing to troll other editors can get a fair hearing, and that contributor (who isn't present here or indeed anywhere it appears) with these two edits five years ago we might be driving off. It's that significant that these few words get such coverage and so many words from so many wikipedians, whilst real articles etc. with real editors at DRV/MFD/XFD can barely raise a comment, whilst those articles/drafts get no improvements. Yep you've convinced me that this is all totally in perspective.

You know if this troll hadn't bothered listing this here for their alternative motive, this likely would never have even been considered, so declaring this as something significant overall to wikipedia is somewhat hollow. Don't get me wrong, I think both sides of this have a loss of perspective, those going and spending times even listing this sort of stuff for deletion (and those pressing the button), this should be of so little real significance. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make isn't that this page is particularly special. It's all the other pages that will and/or are seeing the same outcome that I'm worried about. In the same way, some court cases are pretty minor for the specific case, but important overall. e.g., Roe vs. Wade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 02:31, 29 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Clay J. Cockerell[edit]

I created this article last year and it was deleted for what the administrator says was too promotional. I requested that the article be undeleted and I was told that it was definiately promotional and that it would not be restored and that I would have to come here. According to the reason the administrator says it was deleted, the page would have to be "fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." The criteria also says "if a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." The subject is a scholar and doctor and is notable (please see his references in Google Scholar). I would request that the article be undeleted as it is not promotional in my opinion. If it is considered promotional by others, I am not sure that it is such that it would need to be completely rewritten. Thank you for your consideration. Studenttopics (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we get a temp. undelete here or could someone otherwise provide a copy of the article? Hobit (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

temporarily restored history for discussison here. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Endorse I was the editor who nominated it for deletion. It is possible that the individual is notable, and that a new article can be written. But this one is an advertisement. Encyclopedia articles don;'t continually referto the subject as Dr., don't emphasise the person's hobbies, don't contain text like "He is married to his high school sweetheart, ..., also a native Texan and they wed in..." , don't advertise the person's products that they sell to their patient, don't list things like "being named as an honoree for Who's Who in Health Care by the Dallas Business Journal" as notable awards. What does show these features is a person's web page, and that's where this sort of content belongs. The puffery here extends to giving local newspaper references for ""Abilenian enters medical school" and "Exam Lets Abilenian Skip Sophomore Year". That;s the kind of thing a fond parent puts in the family Christmas card--or that a promotional WP editor puts in when trying to add every scrap possible Yes, I could conceivably have rewritten it & tried to show notability, but it would have meant rewriting from scratch, for I consider not a single one of the paragraphs usable as they stand. But I've done too much helping promotional editors earn their pay at my expense, by substituting my proper work for their bad work. I'll still do it for an article someone really famous, for that serves the interests of the `encyclopedia and its readers. (In case it applies, I also would like to remind the editor of our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. We at this time have no rule calling for the deletion of articles on the basis that they might violate the terms of use, but only do so on the article oontent. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Endorse. This was a good speedy deletion. Maybe an article can be written about this person in an appropriate tone, but it would indeed require a fundamental rewrite. Thparkth (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Endorse, this was a terrible article. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
~~not endorse~~ I understand why it was deleted, but I think creating a stub based on the article would have been just as easy as deletion (the first paragraph would be a reasonable, if not ideal, stub). At the same time, I don't think we want this article as-it-is around, so I can't !vote to overturn. So... Once the DRV is done I'll try to create a new article based on the old one and then I'll ask for a history undelete to keep attribution. It will be a lot shorter, but meet our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Allow the recreation. I generally worry about editing an article that has been temp undeleted so I was going to wait until we are done here. But HW did a better job than I would have, so net win! Hobit (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Endorse, the article in question was intensely promotional and there is no way it could be "fixed", you'd have to start from scratch. However, permit creation of a stub or other article on the topic if it can be well sourced and non-promotional. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
With respect to Hobit, even the first paragraph is so full of puffery that it would need a fundamental rewrite. The last sentence is ok, but a single sentence does not an article make. This solidly meets both the letter and intent of G11; endorse. —Cryptic 03:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes, Wikipedians decide that an article on a topic would be acceptable but we don't want this article. The relevant essay is WP:TNT. This is slightly at odds with our deletion policy at WP:ATD, which says: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Historically this used to be a contradiction which we resolved by refusing to delete fixable content, demanding that the content was fixed instead. However, nowadays this has been considerably simplified by the addition of a paragraph to WP:ATD lower down on the same page, which reads: "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." This appears to be what has happened and it appears to have been done in accordance with consensus and policy. A neutral, encyclopaedic article about Mr Cockerell would be acceptable. The deleted content was a vanity advertisement of the kind that does not belong on Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." This appears to be what has happened and it appears to have been done in accordance with consensus and policy. – the article never was taken to AfD. It was speedy deleted, so the "completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD" clause does not apply here. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cunard, I stand corrected. My position is that I have no objection to an article with this title existing if a user in good standing takes responsibility for it, and Hullaballoo appears to have done so.—S Marshall T/C 10:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Overturn. The article is ghastly, but cleanup would require extensive pruning/stubbing rather than a fundamental rewrite. Whacking about two-thirds of the text and light copyediting would be sufficient. That wouldn't be a fundamental rewrite, just about two minutes' editing at most. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Userfy to Hullaballoo so he can edit it for a couple of minutes and then restore when he feels it's ready. Don't mind it being restored if an editor in good standing takes responsibility for it.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

97 seconds work with my machete. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The old version of the article was WP:ADMASQ but not to a horrible degree so it should've been cleaned up instead of G11ed, saving time. Nonetheless, the article is fine now, and the subject is most likely notable (h = 40) so no concerns. Esquivalience ^t 21:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Overturn. WP:CSD#G11 says:

This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.

The deleted revision did not require a fundamental rewrite as demonstrated by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's cleanup here.
Cunard (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

22 March 2016[edit]

Whirling (closed)[edit]

Whirling – Endorse But, reading deeper, it's clear that there's room for further discussion, and that can continue on the article talk page. I get the impression that if better sources were found, at least some of the people who argued to merge during the AfD (and argued to endorse, here), would be more willing go along with splitting this back out into its own article. So, go research sources, and then try to build consensus for the split on the talk page once you've found them. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Many reasons against deletion, and the merger. Please review the AfD discussion page first and foremost to get a flavor of what went down. In summary form: Whirling is a dance genre and a dance technique. A well-sourced page was created, in contrast to existing pages for Sufi spinning and Tanoura, a separate style of dance originating in Egypt. The discussion seemed to be leading to consensus that improvement to all three was necessary, and compelling arguments were made against merger of the three (one of the editors' suggestions). The merger resulted in incoherence. This is a request for a neutral review and thorough/impartial discussion. A related discussion regarding NPOV is afoot at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Strange controversy over Whirling. This is an important topic in the contemporary dance and visual arts community. Thank you for your help ahead of time. Viapastrengo (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I was the nominator in this AfD. I nominated the article over a lack of sources per WP:GNG, not the content of the topic itself. Viapastrengo's defense of the article was based on the latter. For what it's worth, I was surprised that the discussion was closed without being relisted, given that it had re-scoped to include the merge of a third article, which had only had a few days' notice. Also, for full disclosure, I should mention that I reported Viapastrengo for sockpuppetry during the AfD, for apparently contributing to the discussion from multiple IPs. Ibadibam (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the candor, and the good faith that was evident in the original set of exchanges between all of us on the AfD page. For what it's worth, I was perhaps quite surprised by the vigorous nature of the AfD arguments on a topic that in earlier times would have been very uncontroversial and a perfect candidate for incubation. Hence, when I was asking everyone to give time and was making a sincere request to entertain this in good faith, because sourcing continued throughout. If the tone came across as brusque, that's one thing, but I trust it would have been clear to anyone who was reading the sources being provided that the typology of whirling was not merely some academic shell game, but had real life/death implications. I don't know how to get this across any more plainly, but characterizing Sufi whirling as giving rise to (and still subsuming wholly) a modern dance tradition with stage performances by women, in dress costumes, just paints with a huuuuuge and grossly inaccurate brush. The images that emerge from these brushstrokes include a larger target on the backs of Sufi practitioners in modern-day Turkey; incomprehensible and unnecessary associational links between an apolitical dance and/or dance technique and particular spiritual traditions; general confusion. What was meant to be captured by the original whirling article was a dance style/genre/technique -- with no particular predicate connections to a Western or Oriental or Fusion or other dance tradition. It captured a dance that is performed on many stages all over the world, and in popular media (Dr. Oz) and in fictionalized accounts (Katniss Everdeen's Girl on Fire scene). In the course of the discussion, it was made clear that substantiating a particular genre of dance would be slightly more different than substantiating the notability of, say, a political figure, because it'd be significantly easier to flesh out the textual authorities for the latter. With respect to the former, as was made clear with reference to dances like Dub (dance), sourcing would necessarily include non-textual authorities, in addition to traditional sources. In the tradition of describing a musical genre, and any other non-textual artistic genre. This required nurturing, support, incubation. Instead, there emerged a strange, classically Western, textual fetish in the AfD discussion. This resulted in merge suggestions that then had to be counteracted, which raised all sorts of new issues. Long story short, the merger was very sudden and grossly ill-conceived. This should have been incubated, relisted, developed ... wikified ... as a set of disparate concepts/traditions. This much was obvious from the discussion.Viapastrengo (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I read all the sources, and stated the problems with them during the AfD. Most of them were exclusively about Sufi whirling and did not support the topic previously covered at whirling. Others were primary-source examples of particular performers and performances that did not include information about a broader movement, genre or school of dance. To infer from these isolated examples a broader trend is original research, something that's outside the scope of this encyclopedia. I can appreciate and respect that, as an academic, original research is your line of work, but there are already other venues and platforms for that. Wikipedia does not draw conclusions; it restates the conclusions of secondary sources. Were you, or a colleague, to author a paper on this topic and get it peer-reviewed and published, I would be happy—proud—to cite it here. In the meantime, if you would like to "incubate" the topic, I invite you to continue working on the article as a draft. And please, please do make sourced contributions to Sufi whirling, as your contributions are still needed to improve Wikipedia. Ibadibam (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not original research. Take a look at the original article. Take a look at the sources that were offered. Original research and sui generis arguments were raised in the XfD discussion, not in the article, and it is wrong to mischaracterize the stem article as original research. Take a look at the Dr. Oz clip. Whirling as dancing is discussed as a stress relief technique for, say, menopausal women. Then the globally-syndicated show pans to women whirling in choreographed dances. How this belongs in Sufi spinning is beyond me; how the noms can continue to maintain this as a non-notable dance or dance technique is beyond me, when the sources pointed to the contrary ... beyond me; how anyone following this discussion fails to see the epistemic danger of lumping these disparate practices together ... beyond me. So, Ibadibam, I appreciate you imploring others to continue contributing, but if a genuine good faith contribution is going to be met with this level of hostility, intellectual insensitivity, and outright DP violations (no-notice merges, discussion closures, three-way mergers because someone feels they got the gist on what is and isn't a particular dance, then frankly, this form of WP is ... beyond me. I hope everyone gets a chance to revisit their own implicit biases and to shift some paradigms as a result of this. Because nobody on the nom side should feel comfortable with the way this discussion went down. I realize that our coding fingers are typically used to cursory arguments. But the level of discourse here should have alerted everyone to the stakes in the discussion. I'm just disappointed so few of the editors took time to connect the dots on the real-world implications of this.Viapastrengo (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Endorse. Not an obvious close, but it feels correct. The Keep !votes failed to argue notability of the topic. Reverse the redirect only if there is clear repudiation of the merge at Talk:Sufi_whirling, or if there is demonstrated consensus for a spinout. Whirling looks to be definitely a variation based on Sufi_whirling, and should be mentioned in that article first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Closer's comment: Apart from the "keep" opinions not making a serious notability-based (i.e., sources-based) argument, another factor that led me to largely discount them was the fact that the "keep" opinions were made by one registered editor and a bunch of IPs, which is often a sign of canvassing, meat- or sockpuppetry. Sandstein 10:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Endorse Closure was correct given the discussion. As SmokyJoe says, it may well be that the merge target folks find the merge to be untenable, in which case we'll have to figure out what to do. But we need sources to keep this as a stand alone article. I don't think we have them. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Endorse without sourcing strong enough to support a standalone article there are really two options - No article or proportionate coverage in another article. The argument that we should somehow apply a different standard for substantiating notability because a topic is somehow a special case is not an uncommon argument in DRV and usually read to meant the standard can't be met. I'd also note a common mistake is conflating volume of argument with quality of argument --82.14.37.32 (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Overturn to no consensus. I do not know whether ofr not there was the making of an article here, but I can tell that there was no consensus in the discussion. the reason given by the closer should have been given in the discussion, for it represents , not the view of the consensus, but their own view of what should be done, which is sometimes called a "supervote". DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Endorse. This doesn't feel "supervotey" to me. Although there was considerable strength of feeling on the "keep" side, it wasn't backed up by either evidence of notability, or by an argument that an exception to the regular guidelines should apply. The closer is entitled (and in fact, required) to consider the weight of the arguments advanced by each side. In this case I think the close was well-considered and reasonable. Thparkth (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Since when did feelings become a legitimate basis for voting? Moments earlier, and on a different topic, Thparkth felt that "[...] this XfD was obviously controversial, the outcome non-obvious, and the deletion non-urgent, so speedy deleting the page while the XfD was in progress was a poor decision - the ultimate supervote." Thparkth then goes on to note the considerable strength of feeling on the keep side. Not really. There was considerable strength of argumentation for why the two, then THREE, articles should not be merged. The result wasn't just a supervote, but a super-duper-vote, with a resulting article that is super-duper confusing and dangerous in light of all of the arguments that were raised. The discussion was not true to the original ethos of WP, and if there's a lesson here, it is that super-feelings can apparently pass for serious argument. More importantly, I urge everyone to take a look at the related NPOV discussion because the deletion noms made clear what their real beef with the original article was, and it seems that notability was pretextual. The real motivation was Ibadibam frank admission that Western whirling didn't deserve to be at the same level as centuries-old Sufi spinning. I thanked Ibadibam for the honesty there, and everyone should have clued in to the good faith nature of the discussion that was developing. But that was not a notability critique. It was a deeply dangerous exercise of editorial discretion against strong arguments to the contrary. The attempt to then develop post-hoc rationalizations for a merge of THREE (3) articles, one of which had practically nothing to do with the discussion, and was merged with little to no notice nonetheless, shows not just supervoting, but the exercise of superpower, which is unfaithful to the credo of WP. Original research, sockpuppetry, quantity ≠ quality, and other afterthought rationales are disingenuous and completely misrepresent the essence, and consequences, of the XfD discussion.Viapastrengo (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Recent discussions[edit]

20 March 2016[edit]

Dartmouth Winter Carnival – Moot. I'm not exactly sure what's being requested here. I suspect all that's going on is some content that appears to be deleted is really just obscured by redirects which have been layered on top of it. And, that can certainly be confusing to sort through (it took me a while to trace it all out, and I've been doing this forever). But, all the various articles mentioned here still exist, and have full histories which can still be viewed (and mined for redirect purposes) by any user. So, my suggestion is 1) Be WP:BOLD and go ahead and merge whatever you think is worth merging. If people get upset by this, they'll let you know, and you can sort it out then :-) 2) When you perform your merge, make sure you leave a detailed edit comment and/or note on the target talk page explaining where the material came from. This will help us comply with our licensing, which requires that we preserve attribution for all contributions. 3) If you have trouble finding the particular bit of material you're looking for, just ask for help. Ping me or any admin, and we'll be glad to help you navigate the maze of history. – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Please restore former article Winter Carnival as Dartmouth Winter Carnival, to subsequently merge in Dartmouth College traditions#Winter Carnival.
One of the main arguments in the 2004 AfD discussion was that the article on the Dartmouth carnival tradition was mistitled under an all too generic title Winter Carnival. The other main argument was its supposed non-notability. While the current text isn't sufficiently sourced either, it contains a number of notability claims. Furthermore Google books lists quite a number of relevant hits, even including a few of books specifically covering the tradition of the Dartmouth Winter Carnival. --PanchoS (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I am being dumb, but a have a couple of questions:

Given this was deleted some 11 years ago, before you apparently started editing, what makes you believe there is useful information above and beyond what is already in the merge target?

How is this request different to what was already done a couple of weeks ago? --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment Yes, The earlier text is available here if anything should be merged. Thincat (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The outcome of the 2004 deletion discussion was a merge to Dartmouth College and my reading of the histories is that this was done on 21 August 2004. In June 2006, the Dartmouth College traditions page was created with, it seems, a copy&paste from the Dartmouth College page. Things have been complicated by a couple of moves of the merged from page and a recent split of the history with oldest edits moved to Dartmouth Winter Carnival, which I really don't think was necessary. Better to leave those edits with the original page, which is now at Winter festival, and make sure attribution is in place, and to make sure attribution is in place between Dartmouth College and Dartmouth College traditions--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess the short form of what I'm saying is that there was no deletion so the OP's request is moot (but there is a bit of a mess and attribution required). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Allow recreation it's been a long time and there does appear to be coverage that at least approaches the GNG. This of course provides no protection from future AfDs. Hobit (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Thincat and Malcolmxl5: Indeed, as Hobit stated, the content is already there in the history, so this is all about getting consensus for restoring that content. But what's the big surprise? Finally, AfDs and DRVs are all about obtaining consensus for a requested action. The actual action is just what follows from the result. However, I should have pointed it out better. --PanchoS (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you need prior permission to merge this content anywhere else (or, indeed, to recreate the article with improvements) but, if you do, I think this DRV should agree to provide it. Thincat (talk) 09:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Restore per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Sheehan, Larry (December 1991). "Dartmouth's Carnival". Snow Country (The New York Times Company). pp. 135–139. ISSN 0896-758X. Retrieved 2016-03-27.
  This 1988 article^WebCite from The New York Times about the magazine Snow Country notes:
  
  While most skiing magazines cover only skiing, here comes a magazine called Snow Country that will also report on off-season activities in its monthly issues.
  
  The premier issue of Snow Country will come out in March. The magazine is a product of Golf Digest/Tennis Inc., part of The New York Times Company's Magazine Group. Regular monthly publication will begin in September.
  
  The article notes:
  
  If I'm no longer the picture of youthful abandon, neither is the Dartmouth Winter Carnival. Mounting concerns about alcohol abuse, sexism and vandalism—the cornerstones of adolescent development in my time—have forced college officials to put a lid on things. Visitors from other schools, who swarmed here to chug beer and ogle coeds in earlier decades, are now greeted by locks on dorm buildings and bouncers at frat parties. Revels continue, but with less fervor. Dartmouth's Animal House days, upon which screenplay writer (and Dartmouth graduate) Chris Miller based his script, are all but gone.
  
  The first winter carnival was organized in 1910 by the Dartmouth Outing Club as a field day to help students break the routine of the northern winter with hearty outdoor exercises. Physical fitness had long been a Dartmouth obsession, and even today wimps and couch potatoes are barely tolerated. In the first year, interclass competitions were held in ski jumping, cross-country ski racing and snowshoeing. A few years later, other colleges were invited to participate, and soon the event began to, well, snowball.
  
  As the carnival grew to become one of the premier intercollegiate winter sports competitions in the country, so did Dartmouth. A story in the February 1920 issue of National Geographic, hailing the carnival as the "Mardi Gras of the North," was credited with increasing admission applications threefold.
  
  The school received national attention again in 1939 when Hollywood released a comedy about the weekend called Winter Carnival. The movie was not a commercial hit, but it did capture the eliquishness of the Ivy League social experience. It starred Ann Sheridan as a glamorous former co-ed who happens on the campus in flight from an unhappy marriage. She takes up with a young Dartmouth instructor and competes with women from Smith and Vassar for the carnival's "Queen of the Snows" title.
2. "Life Goes to a Party: At Dartmouth's Winter Carnival with a Snow Queen from Alabama, and 1,200 other girls". Life. 1937-02-22. pp. 62–64. Retrieved 2016-03-27.
  The article notes:
  
  Major annual event at the country's No. 1 winter-sports college is the Dartmouth Winter Carnival. This year the 27th annual carnival week end of sports and fun was inaugurated early in the afternoon of Friday, Feb. 5, when virtually the entire Dartmouth student body of 2,500 gathered at the Norwich-Hanover railroad station. In chugged two special trains bringing some 1,200 girl guests as well as representatives of nine other college teams which had come to challenge Dartmouth's skiing supremacy. Scattering their belongings in the 22 fraternity houses which had been vacated for them the girls settled down for a breathless week end of outdoor and indoor merriment, saw one one of their number who came from Alabama chosen Carnival Queen of the Snows for 1937.
  
  Besides providing a week end of sport and pleasure for several thousand boys and girls, Dartmouth's 27th annual Winter Carnival reestablished for the third year the college's skiing supremacy over nine other teams, including Yale, Harvard, Williams, Canada's McGill, and a group representing the skiing cream of several Swiss universities. Second to McGill in the ski jump, Dartmouth won the downhill ski race, the cross-country, the slalom, and the combined downhill and jump.
3. Townsend, Reginald T. (1921). "Dartmouth's Great Winter Carnival". Country Life. Vol. 41 (Doubleday). pp. 50–51. Retrieved 2016-03-27.
  The article was published in 1921 so is in the public domain. The article notes:
  
  MOST of our colleges have a great many things in common; their courses, their buildings, their athletics are more or less similar. Yet each has achieved a certain distinction which has accrued to it for some special reason or other. Princeton perhaps is renowned for the beauty of its rounds and a builings, Harvard for its age and aristocracy, and Williams for its collegiate atmosphere. But Dartmouth College in New Hampshire is fast becoming famous for a novel and unusual reason—its winter carnival. Dartmouth is one of the few colleges fortunate enough to be situated where it can best turn to account our rigorous winter climate and it has been far-sighted enough to make good use of this fact. So each year Dartmouth holds a winter carnival.
  
  It was back in 1911 that a certain Fred Harris, a student of that year, formed the Dartmouth Outing Club for the purpose of developing winter sports at the college. At first the Club contented itself with taking long snowshoe and ski tramps into the country; but as interest was aroused and more students joined, the Club, through the financial aid of a generous alumnus, expanded rapidly and the idea of having a winter carnival was taken up and adopted.
  
  The carnival as a rule lasts for three days and enough is crowded into this short space to leave one gasping for breath at the end. For not content with holding outdoor meets, there are also basketball games, glee club concerts, dramatics, and a ball—in fact all the paraphernalia of the regular college prom. One dashes from one event to another until far into the night to a point of utter exhaustion. For the carnival is essentially a festival of youth, and youth will be served—at least on this occasion. You wonder where all the older people disappear to during the carnival, for all you are conscious of are hordes of pretty girls in sport costumes, with bobbed hair, accompanied by youngsters not yet out of their teens. Said one fair young carnival maid behind me at the Dramatic Club's play to her escort, in speaking of a professor and his wife, "They're not really as old as you make them out. Of course they are old—twenty-eight or thirty—but they are not decrepit yet.
  
  Now, to be a success a winter carnival must have snow and ice. So all the way up from New York we looked eagerly out of the car windows for snow. Nor were we disappointed, for snow covered the ground when we arrived at Hanover. But alas for our hopes! The following day the mercury climbed up to forty degrees and as it climbed the snow disappeared and the brown earth came through. Then indeed was there wailing and gnashing of teeth! Hastily the freshmen were banded together and with sleighs and teams of horses set to work transporting snow to the ski jump so that anyway this piece de resistance might take place. Then the entire college: professors students and guests gave themselves over to solemn prayer. Dartmouth must be a very pious community, for if ever prayers were answered, theirs were. With nightfall the thermometer slid downward and snow began to fall, not fitfully but heavily. All night it snowed; all the next day and far into the night. With sighs of infinite relief we realized that the carnival was saved!
  
  With the snow came the gathering of the clans. The house party guests—each fraternity had a house party—came on every train, and the students of the other colleges who were to compete put in their appearance. One saw familiar faces. Here on skis clad in a sort of Eskimo parka was Fred Harris, the founder of the Outing Club; as Johnny Carleton, the college champion long distance ski jumper, whose specialty is turning somersaults on skis; George Frost, president of the Dramatic Club, under whom the college players gave one of the best college plays ever staged; and Ellis O Briggs, the president of the Outing Club, to whose energy and resourcefulness was due the success of the carnival.
  
  For if there was one thing more noticeable than another it was the efficient and businesslike manner in which the carnival was conducted. Everything was run on schedule time with no unnecessary confusion or excitement.
  
  At the Saranac and Lake Placid carnivals the costume de rigeur for men and women alike is the sport suit. One puts it on in the morning and only takes it off to go to bed at night. At Dartmouth, it being a town, the costumes were different' few of the girls wore knickerbockers and those who did looked selfconscious. And no one wore them after sundown. Of course it would be absurd I suppose to attend a glee club concert or a frat dance in such a costume, but a change of clothes, especially to evening dress, tends toward formality, and one missed the easy informality of Lake Placid evenings. It was amusing to see a girl in evening dress with the sheerest of silk stockings, go clumping about the snowdrifts in arctics. That reminds me: to be in fashion at Dartmouth one must never fasten one's arctics. The students go about with them open flip-flopping at every step. This I am told is a labor-saving device invented by students hurrying from one class to another. Fired with ambition I determined to cast off the shackles and wear my arctics unbuttoned, too. At the first few steps two of the catches ripped off and at the third I went down for the count flat on my face in the snow. Having no classes to bother with, I hastily reversed the decision and fastened them up to remain that way from then on.
  
  THE carnival opened with a grand parade led by the student band and made up of the students and their guests. The college buildings were lit up with festoons of electric lights and the procession wound its way to the ice rink through lanes of red and green fire. Add to this the effect of countless Roman candles, held by the marchers against the white snow, and the blackness of the night, and you can imagine the weird beauty of the scene. The company seated itself around the ice to watch Mrs Charles Blanchard (Theresa Weld) do fancy skating. Now there may be something more graceful than Mrs Blanchard's figure skating, but if so we have yet to see it. The audience apparently was of like opinion, for they filled the air with enthusiastic "wah-whoo-wahs" of delight. Then came a tug-of-war wherein a dozen or so burly freshmen equipped with ice creepers, succeeded in pulling a like number of equally burly sophomores around the rink to the huge delight of the first-year men.
  
  As if this were not enough excitement for the start of a carnival, everyone swarmed around a huge bonfire and while rockets tore their hissing way through the air and bombs burst into myriads of colored lights, the crowd sang college songs until the flames burned low and the last Roman candle sputtered out.
  
  The intercollegiate aspect of the carnival began the next day in the midst of a driving snowstorm, five colleges participating—McGill University, brilliant birds of plumage in flaming red sweaters; Middlebury College, University of Vermont, Williams, and of course Dartmouth. As we came on to the field a panting figure on snowshoes and wearing a red sweater came staggering out of the woods on a neighboring hillside. Staggering is the only word to describe his method of locomotion With his head swinging from side to side and his face working convulsively, the runner lifted his heavy snowshoes painfully at each step and, spurred on by the cheers of the crowd, crossed the line, winning the snowshoe cross-country race for his alma mater, McGill. It was a dramatic finish of the ski cross-country race, when another McGill runner reached the final lines so exhausted that he could hardly guide his skis.
  
  ...
4. "Lift Your Spirits with a Winter Carnival". Skiing. December 1984. pp. 246–249. Retrieved 2016-03-27.
  The article notes:
  
  From the beginning, winter carnivals have been regarded as a sovereign cure for cabin fever. Thus it happened that, in 1910, a Dartmouth undergraduate named Fred Harris wrote a letter to the student newspaper, proposing that "a ski and snowshoe club be formed ... to hold a meet or field day during February." This would, he pointed out, provide an answer to that perennial question: "What is there to do at Dartmouth in the winter?"
  
  ...
  
  When Fred Harris wrote his letter to the student newspaper, he laid the foundation of those two durable Ivy League institutions, the Dartmouth Outing Club and the Dartmouth Winter Carnival, which this winter will celebrate their 76th and 75th birthdays, respectively. (Though there was in fact a competition in 1910, with ski jumping and races on skis and snowshoes, it was not until the following winter that Harris's brainchild reached its full potential. In 1911, the "field day" became a full-fledged bash. A dance was scheduled, and 50 females were imported from suitable colleges, making a truly significant break in the tedium of the New Hampshire winter.
  
  To this day, the Dartmouth Winter Carnival remains the very model of a collegiate winter weekend. It is so popular, in fact, that college authorities now do their level best to discourage interlopers, meaning not only the likes of you and me, but also the hordes of undergraduates who traditionally descend upon Hanover from institutions as far distant—in geography and style—as Southern Methodist Univ. Girls, generally, are more welcome than boys, even though Dartmouth went coed in 1972. The buses that bring in the dates from Wheaton and Wellesley are still ungallantly known as "meat wagons," but their cargoes are considered a cut above the brainy young women who actually matriculate at Dartmouth.
  
  The article discusses a 1939 film about the Dartmouth Winter Festival:
  
  There is even a movie about the February bash in Hanover, called (of course) Winter Carnival. It was made in 1939 and starred Ann Sheridan. It is of absolutely no importance as cinema, but it does happen to constitute one of the sadder footnotes in American literary history. Furthermore, the tale is a pretty fair instance of the mad-cap energy that traditionally has gone into this one weekend in February.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dartmouth Winter Festival to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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

19 March 2016[edit]

Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group[edit]

Notabilty rules disregarded. The article only gives:

a link to a link page of B'Tselem
a link to a hasbara organization with one sentence about the stated goals, a reference to a report of PHRMG itself, and one sentence about the funding, without references
a link to an article of an outspoken pro-Israel advocate on a Jewish opinion platform, with barely info about PHRMG
a link to the Washington Post, 1997, with merely the announcement of the foundation of PHRMG and a few citations from a PHRMG report.

While Bassam Eid is still sometimes mentioned as the founder of PHRMG, the organization itself has long ago ended its activities. See also: User talk:Sandstein#Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group. Qualitatis (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment. This is the litmus test for hypocrisy and double standards, because Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor was deleted. A comparable organization that is far more notable than the completely irrelevant PHRMG. I know that every article is reviewed independently, but there is a real problem if different criteria are applied to similar articles. --Qualitatis (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Endorse. I agree that the sources presented are not the best, but it's up to the participants in the AfD to evaluate the quality of the sources. A majority of them felt the sources were sufficient, and the close accurately reflects that. As for the organization itself has long ago ended its activities., that doesn't mean anything. We've got a whole set of categories about defunct organizations. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Endorse. The AfD close reflected the consensus of the discussion. The argument made by Qualitatis here, even if completely correct, does not show any grounds for overturning the AfD. Thparkth (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Endorse. The outcome was a reasonable assessment of the consensus. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Endorse. Deletion review is a venue where errors in the deletion process can be called out. An admin closing a deletion discussion in line with the consensus is not an error of the deletion process, even if you don't like the fact that it wasn't closed the way you wanted. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Errors in the deletion process include the considering of manipulative editing of the review page to create double voting, considering that only 4 voted to keep and 2 (including the nominator) to delete, and most importantly, considering the not upholding of Wikipedia rules. Nothing surprising. This puppet-show is only a confirmation of my already assumed policy of hypocrisy and double standards. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Qualitatis, deletion discussions are not closed by counting votes, but even if they were, four "keeps" versus two "deletes" would probably result in a "keep" outcome. There aren't really any "Wikipedia rules" on notability - only guidelines. A clear consensus at a well-attended AfD can absolutely override any notability guideline if the participants feel it is appropriate. That didn't even happen in this case though - the consensus seems to have been that the topic was sufficiently covered in reliable sources to demonstrate notability, which is the "normal" way notability is demonstrated according to the guidelines. I'm not sure what you mean by "manipulative editing of the review page" (assuming you mean the AfD page) - all I see is thoughtful commenting by experienced editors, some of whom specialize in the deletion process and very definitely have no personal agenda regarding the notability of a defunct Palestinian NGO. Thparkth (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The point is that it was not a well-attended AfD, just as with the previous deletion discussions. I referred to this edit from E.M.Gregory, where he turned a notice of Sir Joseph into a vote (Far too notable to delete). --Qualitatis (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion it was well-enough attended to reach a safe decision. There is nothing wrong that I can see with the edit you highlighted - you might disagree with his opinion or his argument, but it was evidently presented in good faith. Thparkth (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong and evidently presented in good faith? He put another's name under his opinion, although he had already voted. --Qualitatis (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

....? No he didn't. Thparkth (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Endorse Anything notable remains notable; WP is a permanent record, and additional material was found and added during the discussion. No other close would have been possible. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Endorse. Closer's evaluation of consensus was plainly accurate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

17 March 2016[edit]

Um Vichet – Undeleted – Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

According to this, Vichet has since played for the Cambodian national football team, meaning he now meets WP:NFOOTBALL. I've taken the issue up with the deleting administrator, but they've been inactive since November. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed by this as well - I've restored the article. Giant Snowman 08:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Gernot Wagner – Recreation is allowed if the article can be properly sourced. – Sandstein 10:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

<REASON> was deleted in 2012 for the reason that it was a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, as well as lack of primary sources. Many more primary sources exist now (or could be cited). German page by now exists as well. Restore prior page and provide better sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.133.162 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2016‎ (UTC)

The afd - especially since it was weak, with only one participant other than the nominator - is no barrier to a re-creation that explicitly overcomes its reasoning, which new sources would do. The ones at de:Gernot Wagner, though, don't: that article cites the publisher's page for one of his books, his personal homepage, http://www.universum.co.at/ (which doesn't mention him), and searches for his name at ft.com and nytimes.com (which either have zero results, or they're both paywalling even search results now; I'm not certain which). These are actually worse than the sources that were in the English Wikipedia article when it was deleted, so it shouldn't be restored on that basis. —Cryptic 01:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm a NYT subscriber, so I'm able to search behind the paywall. I found a couple of items that mention him ([1], [2]), an op-ed by him ([3]), and a letter from him ([4]). Hmmm, and another letter to the editor, about him [5]. The problem is, none of them are hard news stories. They're all op-eds, letters, blogs, and the like. Still, there are multiple sources, and it is the NY Times, so I think a reasonable notability argument can be made for allowing recreation, hopefully backed up by additional sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason for deletion given is incorrect: it was never deleted based on an earlier discussion. If this is to be recreated--which is fine with me--please cite SECONDARY sources, and rewrite the article in a more objective form. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The article was deleted first by proposed deletion and then following a deletion discussion, both in 2012. As this was over three years ago, there is nothing stopping a new page being created now except for the matter of sourcing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Allow recreation, provided that secondary sources are available. Primary sources are irreleveant in determining notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC).

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

15 March 2016[edit]

Ari Shaffir – Speedy close as No action required. As noted below, there's no need to come to DRV to recreate this, given how long ago the AfD was. See WP:RECREATE for guidance. Just go ahead and write the article. Be aware, of course, that another editor can propose it be deleted again if you don't provide the required sources to establish that the subject is notable today, even if he wasn't six years ago. – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Page was deleted in 2009 for failing WP:N. He now hosts a Comedy Central TV show, This Is Not Happening (TV series), and has a Comedy Central special X538 (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

X538, this was six years ago and is stale. You should simply recreate the article, taking care with the sourcing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Archive[edit]

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

2015
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2014
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2013
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2012
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2011
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2010
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2009
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2008
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2007
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2006
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

Wikipedia community

Welcome to Wikipedia	Community portal Job Center Regional notice boards News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Awards Reward board Statistics Milestones The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous

Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation Creation Help Vital articles Today's articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Portals Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors

WikiProjects and groups	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility

Maintenance tasks	Open tasks Cleanup Vandalism Database reports 'As of' Page Curation Recent changes Backlog Controversial issues Dusty articles

Administrators and noticeboards	Dashboard Admin Admin requests Administrators' Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Requests for closure Revision deletion Oversight Request Page protection Sockpuppets User permissions Open proxies Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship & bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement

Content dispute resolution	Editor assistance Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources Mediation

Other noticeboards and assistance	New contributors' Teahouse Asking questions Help desk Reference desk Requests for help Adopt-a-user Online Ambassadors Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Paid editors Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bot owners' Education Incidents New pages patrol General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse

Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Possibly unfree Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Books Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue

Elections and votings	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones

Directories and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Template messages Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wikis Wiki markup

source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160329221008/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Contents

Purpose[edit]

Instructions[edit]

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

Temporary undeletion[edit]

Closing reviews[edit]

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]

Active discussions[edit]

29 March 2016[edit]

Austin Wade Petersen[edit]

25 March 2016[edit]

Joseph Atwill[edit]

Archaeological Society of Slovenia[edit]

24 March 2016[edit]

Power Rangers Ninja Steel (closed)[edit]

User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth[edit]

Clay J. Cockerell[edit]

22 March 2016[edit]

Whirling (closed)[edit]

Recent discussions[edit]

20 March 2016[edit]

19 March 2016[edit]

Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group[edit]

17 March 2016[edit]

15 March 2016[edit]

Archive[edit]

Leave a Reply