Administrator instructions

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]

Instructions[edit]

Before listing a review request, please:

1. 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.
2. please 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]

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Active discussions[edit]

10 January 2015[edit]

8 January 2015[edit]

Template:Infobox academic division[edit]

Template:Infobox academic division (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Poor non-admin closure, with no explanation of the reasons for reaching the declared conclusion; appears to simply count !votes rather than weigh up arguments. The editor concerned was requested to reconsider, but - after having to be prompted - has refused. This should at least have been "no consensus", if not relisted for further discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn to whatever the first passing admin re-closes as. Agree with the nomination. The discussion on the closer's talk page is below standard for a closer. The closer is an experienced Wikipedian, but I guess he lacks experience in closing contested discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn or just relist. Not a suitable discussion for closure by a non-admin, not a suitable non-admin closure and not a suitable response when the closure was queried. Experience is one thing, judgement is another and that response demonstrates a lack of the sort of judgement required to determine consensus and close discussions. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, inappropriate non-admin closure. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Kirby Delauter[edit]

Kirby Delauter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Referenced to BBC and Washington Post (among others). Deleted (and salted) "per IAR" by admin to prevent discussion of how to handle it. At a minimum, should be a redirect to the article on the county where he is a councillor (though with more and more and more sources continuing to appear, it remains to be seen whether a full article is merited. WilyD 15:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note from deleting admin: This is, IMHO, a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. Speedying it was an application of WP:IAR, rather than having a policy-violating article lying around for 7 days while an AFD is undertaken. This was not a WP:CSD#G10 deletion, it's just an attempt to apply common sense and BLP. Just because social media has latched onto this guy as the patsy du jour, and there are lots of editorials floating around out there about the editorial that started all this, it still clearly meets all three criteria of BLP1E.

It is simply an unfair smear to say I did this to prevent discussion; I made it clear to WilyD and another editor on my talk page that a DRV would be a reasonable way to approach this if WilyD disagreed, or he could undelete the article and I'd file an AFD. I've suggested to someone on my talk page that Talk:Kirby Delauter would be a reasonable place to have a discussion on whether it should be a redirect to the applicable government article, or WilyD could do that himself.

I'll happily respond further to anyone who asks a question (please ping me), but I think I've had enough of accusations of "bullying", "admin abuse", and "attempt to prevent discussion", so I won't be responding to WilyD anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse, no true notability established in article. As above, textbook case of meeting all three conditions of BLP1E. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. What we have here is a very minor local official saying something incredibly stupid on Facebook, getting (rightfully) reamed by the full power of the Internet, then apologizing for the stupid thing and skulking away. It's the very definition of WP:BLP1E. There are plenty of websites around who will never let the guy forget his moment of stupidity; Wikipedia is not (or at least should not be) in that business. I realize that saying so might be more germane in an AfD than a DRV, but frankly DRV is one of our saner processes, and has been generally quite good about ensuring that process-for-process's-sake doesn't trump what we as an encyclopedia are about: I hope it stays that way. 28bytes (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Also deleted and salted at Kirby delauter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore). I can't help thinking that protecting a redirect or two would be preferable, so we can know which article to watch and revert instead of playing guess-the-title. —Cryptic 17:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. Good call by Floquenbeam. There's no continuing notability here. He said a dumb thing, the Internet took notice, and he recanted. There's no continuing notability here. This is exactly what BLP1E is for. Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn. List at AfD and discuss properly. Taking administrative shortcuts in the name of sensitivity is self-defeating. BLP1E is not even, per se, a reason for deletion. In this case, a merge and redirect to Streisand effect might be in order, supported by at least one source.[1]. WP:CSD is way overdue in documenting when BLP concerns justify speedy deletion, but I don't think this is the sort of case to make the cut. There are no real privacy concerns, his name and actions are already fully exposed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Other !voters here appear to be casting AfD-style !votes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse, process is important, but not important enough to overturn this correct end outcome. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Snowballs chance, but overturn I spent far too much time thinking about this. I too agree this should be deleted. But there isn't a pressing enough reason to do so in this way. If this was a person without wide coverage doing something stupid as a BLP1E, I'd endorse the speedy as the harm to the person could be significant. But the coverage is so broad, I don't think we'll be adding to the problems by having this for a week. Further, it's quite possible the coverage is broad enough we should have an article on the event. I think it's a NOTNEWS case, but that's not utterly clear at this time. Are we going to speedy thatarticle too? Just a bad precedent. And while we aren't a bureaucracy, we also aren't an "adminocrasy". Content (and deletion is a content call) shouldn't be being made by a single admin. IAR is a core policy, but it should be used sparingly when it involves the tools. Hobit (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to Frederick News-Post, which will probably win some sort of award for this, and semi-protect or apply pending changes to that article. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and Floq's actions in this case as a perfectly acceptable invocation of WP:IAR due to valid WP:BLP1E concerns.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting that all BLP1E concerns should result in IAR deletion? If not, could you explain why this case is special? Hobit (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn. If I were reasonably sure the deletion was meant as a parody of Delauter's own behaviour I could have gone along with it as "within discretion". However, I'm not sure so I'll take things at face value. No assertion has been made that the article met any of the criteria for speedy deletion so the deletion must be overturned. Thincat (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  *points upward to where I asserted that it easily met all three of them* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  You mentioned above blp1e criteria. These are not CSD criteria. They are not even deletion criteria where there is a viable merge option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  You are correct, I misread what you were saying. However, I would argue that the article did not have a credible claim of significance, thus meeting A7. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse - wrong function, right result. That's kind of the point of WP:IAR. It is acknowledged that such an action is "against the rules" but that breaking said rule produces a result that is in the best interests of the project. So we ignore the "rule-breaking" to implement the result. But it's been speedy-deleted and hasn't been deleted as a result of a discussion, so G4 basically won't apply if someone wants to re-create it for the sole purpose of having it listed at AFD (and probably deleted again). But that seems overly bureaucratic and not what OP is suggesting (unless I've misread something). St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

(I !voted above). Yes, yes, I entirely agree the encyclopedia is improved by not having an article on this topic. However, the environment for maintaining WP is not improved by rather flagrantly ignoring the criteria when performing speedy deletions for non-urgent reasons. Thincat (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Relist. I will ask for the article to be deleted, but I think there's enough noise here that it requires a proper discussion. This sort of case is why I feel that taking shortcuts with the deletion process under the banner of IAR is almost never worth it; if we'd just gone by the book we'd be a lot closer to having this conclusively deleted quietly, rather than creating a Streisand effect and bringing all of the Wikilawyers out of the woodwork. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC).

7 January 2015[edit]

Arthur Mamou-Mani[edit]

Arthur Mamou-Mani (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Request relist of this AFD that was closed as no consensus; perhaps the admin did not realize that one of two Keep !votes was from the SPA/COI creator of the article. The closing admin has not responded to a request for clarification. Vrac (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion wasn't really an option here. There was no consensus to do so in the AfD and the sources in the article (including one solely about him and a number that discuss his work) would appear to meet the GNG, so there is no overriding BLP or related reason to force a delete. Hobit (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse - headcount is a bit small, there's perhaps an argument to overturn to keep given the relative unambiguity of meeting WP:N, but it's a difference without a distinction, so I don't see why you'd bother. WilyD 09:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse, after three relists, you're really just wasting everyone's time asking for a fourth. Participation was only modest, but clearly you can't get a consensus to delete out of that discussion, and the admin can only work with what they're given. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC).
• I apologise to the OP as I forgot to respond to their request. I would, in any case, have suggested bringing the issue to DRV, as I don't really see what else I could do with this AfD. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Singapore[edit]

List of bus routes in Singapore (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin seems to have given too little weight to policy based argument.

At the admin's talk page reversion was declined with the comment "There were arguments from the sources, and potential sources, in the keep camp, as well as them being in the majority, so yes, I did give due weight to policy based argument."

There were 5 !Votes to delete, nominator included. There were 5 !Votes to keep. There was 1 !Vote to keep/merge which seemed to argue for merging rather than keeping.

That is not much of a majority even before considering that two keep voters only gave vague reasoning when prompted to do so and one vaguely referred to reasons given above without specifying which. User:Notforlackofeffort has since been indefinitely blocked. All of those wanting to delete gave policy-based arguments but on the other side no evidence has been produced of how the subject of the list meets WP:GNG. The closest to a secondary source that has been suggested is a bus route guide which just reproduces primary source information without any analysis of the article subject. Reasons given for keeping consist mainly of "other stuff exists" together with irrelevant stuff about editors' other work.

Given the weakness of argument on the keep side of the discussion I believe there is a consensus to delete. Charles (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete - The nom's spot on - 3 of the Keep !votes were "per X" (which IMHO there was no weight to as none were expanded on that), the other by an indef'd editor who only based his !vote on making a point to the world, Personally I think there was more of a consensus to Delete than anything. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 03:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Weak endorse, start RfC I think the delete arguments were stronger, but the close was probably within admin discretion. The argument for WP:NOT I found to be pretty effectively countered by the fact we have, and keep, similar articles for other places. But for me, the key issue is a lack of independent sources. Now I'm nearly certain that there will be solid independent sources for this--I've read at least 5 articles discussing my much smaller city's bus routes in the last year due to a millage vote. I can't imagine a place this large wouldn't have similar sources--at least about certain routes or groups of routes. But the article doesn't have much in the way of independent sources and no one seemed to provide much of anything. FWIW, I would have endorsed a delete outcome too given that discussion.

Now, all that said, I think the right venue is an RfC on articles like this. IMO either these fall under WP:NOT or, for larger cities, we should have them. I'm nearly certain one could meet WP:N for basically any town or city with non-trivial bus service in the US, and I'd guess the same is true elsewhere. I get the sense that at least some of the delete !voters would prefer we delete them all and picked on this (surprisingly) weak one. Instead of doing that, let's discuss the issue and (hopefully) find consensus. Hobit (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse - both deletion arguments are obvious bunk - there's no original research (as least, that I can find, or that anyone identified). This isn't a directory (in particular, it's both not useful as a directory, and contains historical routes which a directory wouldn't). Balanced head count, policy entirely favours keep, should be a keep, but this is a content organisation issue, in which headcount should carry some weight, unless it can be shown to be fraudulent. WilyD 09:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse, but relist, about the only argument worth a damn there is the one by User:slakr, but it's not enough to base a delete decision on. Otherwise, there wasn't much to either side's arguments that was strongly based in policy. It was reasonable for the admin to close given the poor quality of argument they were given to work with, but at the same time relisting may produce a more decisive result the second time around. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC).
• Overturn and delete. The closer failed to give appropriate weight to the various contributions, such as Andrew D who partially addressed the OR concerns but not the NOTDIR, and Nha Trang who raised the "other stuff exists" canard. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's true that there are a number of articles like this, some of which have made it through AfD. So I don't think it's a "an unfounded rumor or story" that they exist. Nor do I think it's a poor argument when it comes to WP:NOT. What is and isn't a directory is determined by the community. There is some sense of the community that this type of listing doesn't fall under WP:NOT which I think is quite relevant. WP:NOT is necessarily vague and previous precedents are helpful. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes similar articles do exist and many have also been deleted including those for large cities such as Manchester in England. There is no generic precedent for keeping or deleting.Charles (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

6 January 2015[edit]

Ryan Martin (boxer)[edit]

Ryan Martin (boxer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

From the closing admin's talk page:

The closing admin collapsed this comment (along with two others) with the heading "Repeat of arguments presented during AfD":

Request to all: please don't repeat the whole AfD discussion here... I am going to stick to the close. Anybody disagreeing is welcome to start a discussion at WP:DRV (but please read closely the instructions on how to do that, just repeating the AfD will not get you anywhere at DRV). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Applicable policies and guidelines says:

Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline.

This principle has been upheld at numerous AfDs and DRVs. Two sports–related DRVs upheld it: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 9#Matt Kassel and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 20#Zach Collier.

The closing admin did not address Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline in his close and declined to discuss it on his talk page. There was no consensus in the AfD that the subject failed GNG because only three editors discussed the sources I listed. One supported deletion and two supported retention. The closer erred in disregarding the GNG arguments.

Overturn to no consensus.

Cunard (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to point out that the editor C.dunkin you note above as established has only edited for about a month, and the overwhelming body of edits (using that account) have been to establish and prevent this article being deleted, due to what was described at irc as their personal involvement with the subject of the article. I think you are on your own with this one. --_nonsense ferret 00:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I see C.dunkin as a good faith new editor, a boxing enthusiast who has become entangled in Wikipedia's byzantine deletion processes. Many new editors have unpleasant first experiences with Wikipedia when their articles are nominated for deletion. Too many are chased away.

C.dunkin, I hope this experience doesn't WP:BITE you away from Wikipedia. Your contributions to Wikipedia's boxing articles are invaluable. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Cunard thank you for noticing my attempted contributions to Wikipedia's boxing articles. C.dunkin (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ provides an instructive read on how subject specific notability guidelines like WP:NBOX (a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (sports)) are meant to complement—not replace—Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn to NC - a little over-zealous in trying to discount new/inexperienced users, I think. Perhaps fails NBOX#4, but is at least marginal for WP:N, and a balanced headcount (with the votes swinging towards more "keeps" as more sources were presented/discussed - particularly after Cunard's listing of sources, only one user still argues delete (and thinks the article is falling just short of WP:N, not miles short of it). WilyD 09:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Contrary to what may seem to be implied above, I did NOT collapse comments HERE. The above DRV nom is copied wholesale from my talk page, where I asked people not to re-play the AfD. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn to NC- I notified user:mdtemp (AFD creator) and user:Randykitty (closer) because I felt the sources weren't discussed at AFD. Hence, asking them about reconsidering their move/close. I did't get too far... Thankfully, an experienced editor in the wiki community was able to notice this; I felt defeated beforehand. In good faith users can see the Subject should meet WP:N through WP:V and WP:RS.C.dunkin (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse I think the decision was a correct one. I think there was agreement he didn't meet WP:NBOX which leaves WP:GNG. Repeated articles in the local (Chattanooga) paper seem like local sports coverage and insufficient to meet GNG and I believe that mentions on boxing websites (which were pointed out as being of uncertain reliability) of being a top prospect are unconvincing since prospects, by definition, are not yet at the peak of their profession. I think the closing admin's decision was justified by the existing arguments. I have no objections to the article being userfied and reintroduced in the future. Papaursa (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• The flaw in this reasoning is that none of the AfD participants expressed an opinion at the AfD that "Repeated articles in the local (Chattanooga) paper seem like local sports coverage and insufficient to meet GNG". The sources I posted were discussed by only three established editors (as well as several new accounts). Although I disagree with this position, I will not argue that here because DRV is not the place to make novel arguments not made in the AfD. If the closer relied on arguments not made in the AfD, that would be a substantial error. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn- The afd was about 7-6 so really no consensus was reached. We should over turn it and then put it on AFD again if you are so inclined to delete it. Are we going to arbitrarily and selectively going to delete articles now just because we ourselves do not know the subject? Antonio The Knuckle Sandwich Martin (dime) 02:07, 8 January, 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse as closer. The argument given just above is invalid: WP:NOTAVOTE. It's policy-based arguments that count, not numbers of !votes. If that were true, we could just have a bot close these debates. --Randykitty (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn to NC I agree that the SPAs needed to be discounted. But there was reasonable disagreement about how NBOX#4 applies among established editors. And the GNG argument wasn't really addressed by the delete !voters. Hobit (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse As per closer and Papaursa. It is a bit much to expect every contributer to try and counter every argument made by a single expansive editor - I reject the idea that which editor discussed what during the AfD has any relevance. Although I personally did not add further comments beyond WP:NBOX it is incorrect to say the GNG argument was not discussed by the Delete voters.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • First, are you saying there was consensus on WP:NBOX#4? I really don't see that, but I'd be curious why you see it that way. Secondly, could you point out any reasonable argument in the discussion that he doesn't meet the GNG? As I read it, we've got reliable independent sources, which cover him in detail, and no one really addressed those sources (though they did address other ones like twitter and a PR release). It should be pretty hard to delete an article that meets a literal reading of the GNG and I don't see any of those arguments coming close to being strong enough to do so. But obviously at least a few people disagree with me, and I'd like to understand why. Hobit (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I was only addressing the DRV issue. What my opinion is regarding WP:NBOX or GNG, or whether consensus on either was reached I don't think is important to this discussion so I did not mention it. What I was agreeing with was the common statements between the two that I mentioned decision was justified by the existing arguments (perhaps I should have been clearer).Peter Rehse (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
      • What my opinion is regarding WP:NBOX or GNG, or whether consensus on either was reached I don't think is important to this discussion so I did not mention it. – whether there was consensus on GNG is at the heart of this DRV nomination. If no consensus was reached on GNG (because the sources were discussed by three editors only), then a "delete" close is indefensible. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • From my perspective, there was consensus on NBOX, because none of the editors who claimed it was met addressed the presented argument that is long established by precedent that junior competitions do not qualify in the same way as senior competitions. You could only give weight to an argument on NBOX if it addressed this key question: what precedent is there for the guideline to be used in this way? This question was asked several times in the dicussion and received no answer. --_nonsense ferret 18:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse the closer presented a clear and sensible appraisal of the strengths of the various arguments presented. There is a clear consensus that this boxer as yet is not notable. We have all seen many times before, for example with the footballer Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hólmbert_Aron_Friðjónsson even where there are numerous examples of routine coverage of a sportsman, and in that case it was relatively detailed national newspaper and flagship national news program coverage, this is rarely sufficient to render them notable per WP:GNG notwithstanding that they fail the sports specific guidelines, so a very strong argument acknowledging relevant precendents, in this respect would have been required and no such argument was forthcoming. There was no need to raise this point at the original discussion as it is already widely known and accepted. I would also alternatively support a relist due to the significant new evidence arising from the sockpuppet investigation currently ongoing at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/C.dunkin which may be considered to have significantly tainted the progress of the discussion due to the conntection that has been drawn between the two most emphatic posters arguing for notability in this case. There may be a clearer picture at the conclusion of that case. --_nonsense ferret 18:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with your relist suggestion but for an additional reason: The sources I posted were discussed by only three editors.

  Had I seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hólmbert Aron Friðjónsson, I would have supported retention. The sources you provided clearly established notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. It is disappointing that most of the participants there (as in this case) ignored the sources. I would take the AfD to DRV now since I think it was closed incorrectly, but the article has been recreated so it's now moot.

  There was no need to raise this point at the original discussion as it is already widely known and accepted. – it not acceptable not to raise a point at an AfD because in your opinion it is "already widely known and accepted" and expect this unraised point to form the basis of an AfD close.

  Had you raised that point, I would have directed you to Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ. In fact the closing admin of Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4#RfC: Promote Notability (sports) to a guideline wrote (my bolding):

  Echoing many of the participants' concerns though, consensus can not be considered in favor unless the new guideline clarifies that it does not replace WP:GNG but supplements it and that articles that do not meet this guideline may still be included if they satisfy WP:GNG.

  The GNG question was not thoroughly discussed at the AfD.

  Cunard (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• As it happens, although it is really a digression from the discussion here I now agree with the result of the Friðjónsson deletion debate. In the event the player never did set foot on the football field for the team he was signed for. I think it was reasonable and wise to interpret those sources as being routine coverage of a non notable sportsperson, and therefore insufficient to establish GNG. It was clear that this person was not well known as a footballer according to well established rules, and it is pointless in building an encyclopedia to make an argument that the junior footballer was known for something else (ie. being signed for a team), merely because that fact was reported in the press. There are of course many things that are reported in the press in this 24-7 live media blogathon world that should not make their way to an encyclopedia. --_nonsense ferret 01:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• The position that Wikipedia:Notability (sports) supersedes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline for athletes is against the closing admin's assessment of consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4#RfC: Promote Notability (sports) to a guideline, which is recorded at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ.

  Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ says:

  Q6: What constitutes "non-routine" secondary coverage for sports?

  A6: Routine news coverage of sporting events, such as descriptions of what occurred, is not considered to be sufficient basis for an article, following Wikipedia's policy of not being a place for routine news coverage. There should be significant coverage directly related to the subject. In addition to Wikipedia's guidance on reliable sources, also see Wikipedia's guidance on biographies of living persons for more information.

  Whether there is "significant coverage directly related to the subject" determines whether the coverage is "routine" or not. Not other criteria.

  If a source merely reports a junior footballer being signed for a team, that is routine coverage. But if the source goes further and provides "significant coverage directly related to the subject" (significant biographical information), then that cannot be considered routine coverage under Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ.

  Cunard (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Administrator note: C.dunkin and Boxexpo2015, accounts which participated in this AfD, were confirmed by checkuser to be related. Please see the SPI case for more information. Mike V • Talk 20:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your post here, Mike V.

  The checkuser results are disappointing but they do not affect my analysis in the DRV nomination since I already discounted Boxexpo2015 and the other new accounts. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews says:

  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.

  If the result of this DRV is "no consensus", I urge the closing admin to relist. The sources I listed at the AfD were discussed by three out of the thirteen established editors. A fresh AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) (2nd nomination) will be free of the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry and allow for a discussion about the sources. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment The AfD discussion went on for 3 weeks. I would have thought that was long enough for anyone swayed by the sources to change their vote, so I'm not sure what would be gained by a relist. Most of those advocating to keep the article were either involved in the aforementioned SPI or claimed his junior title was enough to show notability (an argument that has been soundly rejected in the past). Papaursa (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• That the sources were not discussed is the basis for a relist. The sources cannot be discounted implicitly through editors declining to discuss them. Cunard (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Neither are editors required to explicitly respond to every argument they find unpersuasive. I believe editors will vote as they determine best and do not think they need to keep rejustifying their votes, although they can if they want. In addition, it seems presumptuous that you claim a new listing will be free of meat and sock puppetry. However, I'm now finished with this discussion. Papaursa (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

5 January 2015[edit]

Chulbul Pandey[edit]

Chulbul Pandey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Consensus wasn't determined. Plus the discussion was indicating to keep the article. So re-opening this discussion to get a clean and final consensus. Derevation^{Give Me Five} 16:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I've fixed the listing for you. I am having a little difficulty working out just what your request is. The article has never been deleted. The only deletion discussion here resulted in no-consensus, defaulting to keep, but that was 6 months ago. So just what are you asking for here? The content was merged as a result of this discussion though it wasn't very heavily attended. As this is an editorial decision not a deletion decision, the way to discuss unmerging would be to conduct a discussion on that talk page and see if a consensus can be reached. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There was a merge "discussion" here Talk:Dabangg#Proposed_merge_with_Chulbul_Pandey, which is what I believe they're objecting to. WilyD 09:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy close. I have restored the article for review at Talk:Dabangg#Proposed merge with Chulbul Pandey, where I have started an RfC and notified the AfD participants to hopefully attract wider participation. Cunard (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

4 January 2015[edit]

Shawn Oakman[edit]

Shawn Oakman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

unjustifiably deleted. Admin decided to take it into his/her own hands to decide who's notable or not. There were numerous sources provided in the article, that suggest an AFD would be the more logical move than to just flat out delete. Yankees10 03:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn - Certainly doesn't qualify as an A7. Multiple sources and media coverage, particularly in the last couple days. Should go through AfD if there is the desire to delete it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Participants should read the deleting admin Nyttend's rationale at WP:REFUND#Shawn Oakman before discussing overturning here. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Also see my extended rationale at Yankees10's talk page; Yankees10 refuses or is unable to understand that there are no secondary sources, insisting (like SuperHamster) that news articles about the guy are secondary sources. Please read primary source and secondary source, and you'll see why news articles about the guy's recent activities are primary sources, and why simply being a college football player is no indication of importance. Nyttend (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Putting all the other reasons why you are wrong, since i'm not repeating them again, I am gong to repeat this one: Just because the sources you were looking for were not in the article or were not found by me, does not mean they do not exist. An AFD would would allow others a chance to find these sources. But you took it upon yourself to make this decision. This is not how Wikipedia works.--Yankees10 18:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks for the links to the discussions - though I never insisted anything about the sources, other than that sources exist (which I've only glanced at, because notability isn't the question here). What I would like to insist on is that there is the presence of even a bit of importance (the mention and coverage of college football + meme shenanigans), and that this whole debate about sources and notability should have been going on at an AfD discussion, not after a speedy deletion. The fact that there is any debate in the first place indicates that this is not an uncontroversial deletion, as any speedy deletion should be. I'm not saying that your rationale for deletion is necessarily wrong, Nyttend - but I see this as a case where A7 does not apply, and that an AfD discussion where all these issues could have been discussed has been circumvented. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Nyttend, you are mistaken in what primary and secondary sources mean in the sense used by Wikipedia to assess notability. Wikipedia:No original research provides a different definition of primary and secondary sources than the standard non-Wikipedia definitions given in the articles primary source and secondary source. Specifically, WP:OR defines a primary source as one made by a participant or direct witness in a event, and a secondary source as one made by someone at least one level removed from an event. This is in keeping with the fact that Wikipedia uses the terms primary and secondary sources in the context of original research. The idea is that if someone writes about something they did themselves, then what they say about it isn't necessarily trustworthy, and also it doesn't show any interest from the world at large about that subject. However, if someone writes about something they weren't involved in, then they are more likely to give an unbiased account, and it also shows interest from the world at large. This is different from how primary sources and secondary sources are used in the study of history, where a primary source is generally one from the time of the event providing information from the writer's own experience, and a secondary source is something written at a later time based on primary sources (in historical study, primary sources would often be preferred to secondary sources). It is also different than the context used in medical research or such, where a primary source is an original research paper and a secondary source is a review or meta-analysis of many such papers (secondary sources in that sense are preferred for certain types of Wikipedia articles as stated in places like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) since they represent the best scientific information on a subject, but that sense isn't used outside of articles on scientific subjects). In the sense used by Wikipedia for showing notability, news articles would generally be secondary sources, provided that the author is reporting on an event they didn't participate in. Furthermore, news articles are routinely taken to show notability in AFD discussions, and articles are routinely kept based on news coverage if the coverage is of sufficient duration to pass guidelines like WP:LASTING and WP:BIO1E (which might not be the case here, but that is an issue for AFD to decide). Calathan (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• What User:Calathan says about WP:NOR providing novel definitions of primary and secondary sources is substantially wrong. Please read WP:NOR more carefully. Note that it explicitly references the mainspace articles. A secondary source is not defined as a written by second hand accounts. The difference is whether there is transformation of the information from primary source sourced facts to commentary, analysis or opinion. Mere repetition does not convert primary source information to secondary source information. Whether "news articles" are primary or secondary is usually right on the line, and often determined by usage. If it is the facts, it is primary. If it confers information derived from the author's commentary, analysis or opinion, then this information is secondary source content. Generally, "reports" will be primary, and "stories" will be secondary. "Articles" could be either. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• While WP:NOR does describe secondary sources as including analysis, the main point is the separation from the event. I guess what comes off as the main point is a little different if you focus on WP:NOR's version of "primary sources", which focuses more on what I'm talking about, or on "secondary sources", which is more in line with what you are saying. However, I think my interpretation makes more sense in the context of the whole page (and is also more consistent with how AFD discussions use news sources). Again, you have to consider that those definitions are given in a page titled "No original research". A news outlet with a reputation for fact checking can be assumed have only included verified facts, and to be providing a non-biased account. A news outlet writing about an event also shows interest from the world at large. Thus, they are not providing original research, and can be used as a good source for information about a subject and to show notability of the subject. The reason those passages refer to the main definitions of primary and secondary sources is that they are similar to those definitions, and those definitions provide additional context, yet the differences with Wikipedia's own definitions are still essential to their use. Calathan (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn A7. The deleting admin's rationale, that recent news stories are primary sources, is dubious on its face, and even a cursory review of GNews results in this case turns up multiple secondary sources. Even if the nature of such sources were debatable, that would require a standard, not speedy, deletion process, because they raise issues of notability, not the lower standard of significance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn Regardless of whether the article would survive an AfD on notability grounds, the multiple news sources provide an assertion of importance, which is enough to make A7 non-applicable. Speedy deletion isn't supposed to circumvent a discussion of notability, especially when the deleting admin is using a somewhat questionable definition of what constitutes a secondary source; news articles can and often do include synthesis and analysis of a topic. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn I can't see the article and haven't previously heard of the subject, but if there was news coverage of the subject then that is a claim to notability sufficient to prevent an A7 speedy deletion and require an AFD. Calathan (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn. Even if the secondary sources were inadequate before, the subject has received a bunch of coverage in the last few days. For example: Dallas Morning News, NBC Sports, Fox Sports, Deadspin, Bleacher Report, Delaware County Daily Times. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn - doesn't remotely qualify for A7, and deleting admin offers only jibberish in response to questions. WilyD 09:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn Speedy and List at AfD, contested speedy deletions belong at AfD; No comment on the merits of the article as DRV is NOT AfD. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• List at AfD, as should be done for any reasonable contest of a WP:CSD#A7 deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• List because of a reasonable request. I do not find the "primary" line of thought utterly compelling but anyway that would be a matter for AFD. However, I have more sympathy for the "no indication of importance" speedy than most people here. Going from memory the article and its sources only explained to me what Oakman hadn't done, which left me wondering what it was that he had done to support any claim to importance. But you have to be a celebrity for the press to report what you haven't done. However, Google now tells me Oakman is an internet meme and I find that a fully satisfying explanation for this whole situation. Thincat (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overturn, a terrible A7. The fact that multiple news stories exist, regardless of whether they're considered primary or secondary, is a clear indication of importance, which disqualifies the article from A7. A7 is intended for slam dunk cases, and this isn't a slam dunk case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

3 January 2015[edit]

Cassandra Saturn[edit]

Cassandra Saturn (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I want to Contest the Speedy Deletion of Cassandra Saturn Article. I vote Allow recreation. because it was unfairly deleted for not good reason. and I was one that writed the Article. I wroted out the Reason for it before it was deleted. so I'm bringing this to the Deletion Review board. CassandraSaturn (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@CassandraSaturn: Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I am article writer, I also write biographies. I have done so in many wikia sites before thinking about expanding that biography to Wikipedia. I have problems with Wikipedia Staff for not clearly understanding or even ask before deletion. I'd recommend that you please see my sandbox which contains an biography of Cassandra Saturn and it is my biography I want to share within Wikipedia, the editors are free to edit it as an accurate respresentation of an celebrity on IMVU. so I wish this discussion of an Article to be talked about in due time. CassandraSaturn (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Do not delete other editors comments as you did here, I've now restored my endorsement of the deletion. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not wikia, this is wikipedia an attempt to write a free npov encyclopaedia. This project has various inclusion standards. You bio was deleted as a user page back in September via a discussion. What makes you think things would have changed between then and now so it would be acceptable? I'll also note you deleted a load of messages from you user talk page a few days ago here, the last of which would have been very relevant did you read and understand any of it? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse if the cached version is anything to go by, would appear to meet a variety of speedy deletion criteria and would stand a hope of passing xFD. A few searches in the normal places don't turn up any usable sources. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

  Also seems to be same as users sandbox --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The copy in CassandraSaturn's sandbox is largely promotional and has no sources to show notability. CassandraSaturn, I suggest you use the Article wizard to draft the article and get it reviewed by experienced volunteers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

sources? here are sources, the external links are links to social media pages, but I don't know how to list an link for my personal website as my official source, but like I said, it's not promotional. it's not finished by long run. I have very much more to add so they are added before I published it. as seeing the article was deleted for small reason like "promotional" when it's not. even Article Wizard might probably not help at all. I supposed I should take to just sandbox page then. I guess too much history might not be good for article like mine. CassandraSaturn (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

See reliable sources for wht is meant by sources. Your own pages are at best self published primary sources and so not of use for us to base an article on. If you want to just have said what you say about yourself, then that would make the encyclopedia article little more than a personal vanity piece. What we need is what third parties who have a reputation for fact checking have written about you. Are there any of those? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Links to your social media pages are not independent sources and do not show notability. And text like "...sex appeal, wonderful and nice personality, taking Cosplay work seriously, committed to her own outfit designs of cosplay" is exactly why WP:AUTO exists. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse. I'm not sure that G11 was the best rationale, as this seems curably puffish to me, but without any reliable third party references, and no reason to infer that any might exist, this looks like a clearcut A7. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse and salt - the community or an admin (on behalf of the community) should now be required to approve a draft before it is moved to article space. The draft is promotional because it makes self-aggrandising claims without a single secondary source to verify those claims. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Coverage by the subject's own Facebook account don't count. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse-ish - Wolfowitz is exactly right here; it requires a mild-moderate rewrite, not a fundamental rewrite, so G11 is not really applicable. But it would qualify for A7 deletion (doubly so once the promotional language bits are removed), so restoring it makes no sense. WilyD 11:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

2 January 2015[edit]

The Caraway Group (closed)[edit]

1 January 2015[edit]

30 December 2014[edit]

29 December 2014[edit]

Archive[edit]