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.


Deletion Review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there was a substantive procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion Review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
  2. 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;
  3. to point out other pages that have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. 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);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
  8. 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.


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 reviewಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

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 undeletionಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

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 reviewsಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

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 process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. 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 reviewಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ


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.


Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

}} ~~~~

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, 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:

|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
}} ~~~~

Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~

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.


Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=೨೦೨೦ ಅಕ್ಟೋಬರ್ ೨೮}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=೨೦೨೦ ಅಕ್ಟೋಬರ್ ೨೮|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 discussionsಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

23 March 2014ಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

22 March 2014ಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

Lyndsey Turner (stage director)ಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

I am requesting this page to be unprotected and reinstated. Ms Turner is a notable theatrical director in the UK. She won the best director award at the 2014 Critics' Circle Theatre Awards, which is one of the top awards in the industry alongside the Olivier and the Evening Standard Awards. Link for her award is here: [೧]. She is the only award-winning director in the last 30 years who's been denied her own page. I strongly believe that she is notable and deserving of reinstatement. Thanks. Peripatetic (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The article has been re-created several times using multiple sockpuppets by an abusive obsessed individual. Now is a great time not to do this. There are strong reasons for not having an article at this time. It is worrying that this particular round of requests was catalysed by yet another sockpuppet recreating the article at yet another title. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I confess I am totally puzzled by this reply. I thought the only rationale behind the existence of an article was the subject's notability. This has been conclusively shown in Ms Turner's case. I am obviously not spending enough time in the right parts of Wikipedia. Oh well. Peripatetic (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
There may be strong reasons for not having an article and there may be strong reasons for not announcing what these reasons are. Being created under different titles seems no sort of reason at all. Could an admin who knows nothing about this consult Guy, look at the article's (articles') history and see what might best be done? Is a (protected?) draft of some sort a possibility? Thincat (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
If there is a serious problem, surely this, fully protected, with edit requests allowed on the talk page, would deal with the situation. No? Thincat (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I took a look through the history. The key item is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lyndsey_Turner_(2nd_nomination) (which has since been administratively blanked), where it says, The result was Delete OTRS ticket:2014012210016753 applies. [...] There are legal issues. I think we need to just leave it at that. If the OTRS folks stepped in with a deletion and history blanking, there's a good reason. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


Customs4U (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page was speedily deleted under G11 and A7 criteria. The topic has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources including mainstream media[೨] which bears at least minimum notability to discuss in Afd rather than a CSD. For the G11 criteria, this can be checked with {{advert}} and re-written as G11 states If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. I have already contacted the closing admin[೩] who advised me DRV[೪]. Thank you Talpatra (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Overturn - the writing style isn't particularly spamming (a little copyediting may be needed, but not a fundamental rewrite), and the Huffington Post reference (for example) makes the A7 claim laughable on it's face. WilyD 13:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Also this CNBC news[೫] which I used in the article makes the CSD A7 criteria inapplicable.--Talpatra (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion on the grounds of spam. No prejudice against a genuinely independent re-creation from sources. Talpatra, what is your connection with the subject? You have few or no other interests. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing out the WP:SPA but I do have contributions in other areas[೬]. Please, allow me more time to become familiar with all editing guidelines and I will pick a particular job on Wikipedia.--Talpatra (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • But the G11 itself prefers cleanup than deletion for notable organizations.--Talpatra (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    • That's a misreading of the criterion. "If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view" is the operative clause, emphasis mine. The first sentence really clarifies this, G11 only applies when the entire text would need to be more or less completely rewritten. In that case, deleting the article does little harm, since a neutral article will have to be written from scratch in any case. It is my view that that is the case here. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

21 March 2014ಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

Blue Morpho Ayahuasca centerಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

Blue Morpho Ayahuasca center (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I guess part of this was my fault for being too busy to pay attention to the AfD and not providing sources when requested, but I'm flabbergasted to see an AfD closed as delete (by an arb no less!) when so many reliable sources on the subject are available. I hadn't been tracking it that closely, but it seems like absolutely no one involved in the AfD actually bothered to use google. Here are a bunch of results from the first few pages of Google that clearly indicate Blue Morpho exceeds the GNG by a pretty massive margin. The solution to an underdeveloped article is not to delete it, most Wikipedia articles started off underdeveloped - it's to source it. Articles that make non-trivial mentions of Blue Morpho Ayahuasca Center (with some differences in naming as is typical) taken from the first five pages of google: Time Magazine talking about it, Peru This Week with a whole article focused on it, Houston Chronicle article primarily focused around Blue Morpho, Nat Geo talking about ayahuasca that talks a lot about Blue Morpho, NPR talking quite a bit about Blue Morpho, The New York Times talking quite a bit about Blue Morpho, and Fox News even talks a bit about Blue Morpho. And that's just from the first five pages of Google, I'm sure there's plenty more past that (or in gbook, gscholar, etc.) It's honestly just kind of disappointing to see an AfD with so many easily available sources closed as delete - it seems like literally not a single participant bothered to open google. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Endorse and consider early closure. Nominator is misusing DRV as a platform to attack other participants in the AFD with whom they disagreed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Starblind, please explain to me how delete is an appropriate outcome about a business that has at least seven sources, some of very high quality, that appear to easily sail above the GNG. Please note that the coverage I mentioned here was also mentioned in the original AfD, I just didn't see a need to hyperlink it at the time (and missed the later request for me to do so, because I've both been busy and have a rather extensive watchlist) since every article I've linked was found within the first five pages of a google search for "Blue Morpho ayahuasca." There's only two remotely reasonably policy compliant outcomes here: restore the article and relist the AfD for future discussion, or just change the AfD to 'keep,' since that way we'll have to spend less time discussing it. And yes, frankly I am disappointed that it appears that no other participant but myself in the entire AfD bothered to even google the article they were voting about, and no, stating that disappointment doesn't automagically invalidate the very valid points I raised in the DRV. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Two people specifically said they could not find sources (one even specifically said they googled), yet you're saying that "not a single participant bothered to open google". Why are you accusing these editors of lying, entirely without evidence? That's a totally unacceptable personal attack. Please refer to the top of this very page, where it says "Deletion Review should not be used... to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed)." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you like me to link you to each explicit Google page that has the hyperlinks I included in this DRV? If others Googled, they didn't Google very carefully. The links were there when I made my comment, and they are still there today. If you're seriously suggesting that this DRV should be closed because of something that falls fall short of NPA when it's abundantly clear Blue Morpho exceeds the GNG by miles, I'm honestly just confused. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse but allow recreation - there's nothing wrong with the close, even if there might be something wrong with the result. Admins shouldn't be searching for sources themselves and then super-voting AFDs closed against consensus. Consensus was to delete. An experienced editor tried to find the sources you said you could find but failed and asked if you would provide links. You didn't. That's unfortunate but that's not a failure of the closer. You've provided now what you didn't provided then and you should absolutely be allowed to use those sources to create a new article. Hell, I'd venture to suggest the closing admin would be happy to send a copy of the article to your userspace to facilitate that. Your anger here is understandable but entirely misdirected. Stalwart111 21:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse as the only possible option that the closing administrator had given what he had to work with in the AFD. With that said, minimal participation in AFD discussions is an increasingly large problem for admins working in the space, and I suspect there will be more and more discussions like these where issues are not raised within the limited timeframe of a discussion. It is beyond the scope of DRV, but we need to have a discussion as a community about this. In this particular case, given the low level of participation, I think it makes sense to treat it as a soft delete and allow recreation, with a proviso to the recreator that they must include the additional sources into the article and not expect someone else to do it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC).
    As an aside, the instructions for DRV make it quite clear that you're expected to discuss the outcome with the closing admin before taking a discussion here. I don't see anything on Silvio's talk page. Kevin, did you discuss this with Silvio and if you did, what reason did he give for not overturning his own close? Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC).
  • Endorse and speedy close this absurd nomination The only other action the closing admin could have possibly taken, given the discussion that existed, was to relist this for a third week, but was certainly under no obligation to do so. The close was totally correct. And slap @Kevin Gorman: with a WP:TROUT for thinking that his failure to either edit the article to include better sources, or participate in the AfD, in any way justifies this abuse of the deletion review process. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse but permit recreation- Based on the discussion, I don't think the closer could have done differently. This is a perfect example of why it's better to provide sources instead of just asserting they exist. But, since the necessary sources have come to light the article can be re-created. Reyk YO! 03:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Japanese Invasion of Batan Island (closed)ಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

20 March 2014ಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ


AlphaCom (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I will improve on the article to add more references and history, and then reference this article from the "List of Terminal Emulators" page. (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Could you please list sources you plan on using for this? This was deleted due to a lack of reliable sources and without finding at least a few sources that are independent of the source and provide some meaningful description, you're not going to be able to create an article which can be kept here. If you have questions or doubts about what counts as a reliable source, you could post things here or discuss things on my talk page--I'd be happy to help. Hobit (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The only mention I see of AlphaCom is vendor advertisements TEDickey (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

19 March 2014ಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

Semir Osmanagić (closed)ಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ


Template:GovLinks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Premature deletion by Plastikspork (see discussion on User_talk:Plastikspork, because simultaneous discussion was occurring on Template:CongLinks. Deleter of GovLinks says to discuss reversal here; proposed deleters of CongLinks have agreed to re-open a discussion. Requesting a Relist while CongLinks discussion is ongoing; I will inform CongLinks participants that GovLinks discussion is separate (i.e. recommend posting comments there too) JesseAlanGordon (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Thargor suggests on the CongLinks discussion that I request restoring individual links rather than suggest restoring GovLinks as a whole. That is indeed my intent, but evidently I have not followed the process to do so properly, since that is not what people are commenting on. My understanding of the restoration process is that the template would be restored so that we could have a discussion on each individual link within it -- as was occurring for CongLinks at the time of GovLinks deletion. Please advise me what I am misunderstanding, since clearly I am misunderstanding the process. I would like to discuss restoration for these links in particular, as I discussed on the original CongLinks discussion before GovLinks was deleted, and which several other Wiki editors also discussed: The links are: Ballotpedia; FEC; VoteSmart; OnTheIssues; NYTimes; WashPost; and perhaps a few others. I do not know how to look at GovLinks to see what the actual links were, since it is deleted; the deletion review guidelines state that I should request that here, so I am requesting it -- please advise me if this does not constitute a formal request. My rationale for each of the above links is that they are immensely useful; they are reliable; and they follow all the purposes of Wikipedia. My detailed case for each link are on the CongLinks page; I'd like to re-open a discussion on individual links. I'm happy to post those here if requested, plus the same repeated from other editors on the CongLinks discussion that apply to GovLinks. Sincerely, JesseAlanGordon (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as nominator for deletion. Consensus was clear, the discussion was open for three weeks, and the template clearly facilitated violation of our external links guideline. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. The template violated WP:EL by shoehorning a number of links into articles without subjecting each new one to increasing scrutiny. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Thargor Orlando (it was procedurally valid) and Binksternet (it was a crappy template anyway). --BDD (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse Valid close, as Thargor notes. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse Clearly valid close within policy and consensus. --Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse, and also a {{trout}} to the OP who has stated their intent to flout consensus. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Un-endorse closure: The "consensus" for closure of GovLinks ignored a simultaneous discussion on CongLinks, for the same links. Could someone please advise me of the proper procedure to incorporate that discussion here? I see that no one is reading the discussion at CongLinks -- I like to it in my opening arguments -- should I post them all here? JesseAlanGordon (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    I've struck through your !vote, as the nominator your position is already known, you don't get to !vote twice. FWIW overturn would be the opposite of endorse at DRV. I looked at CongLinks and there appears to have been a consensus to remove many, a consensus you seem to be saying you'll ignore and restore the removed stuff because of the DRV here. Your last comment there states "I am proposing to discuss them further once GovLinks is un-deleted.", well I guess if this DRV doesn't result in the undeletion there won't be any further discussion there, presumably you'll drop the stick there? -- (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Belle Knoxಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

Belle Knox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This close was clearly a supervotd and the admin used his opinion instead of reading consensus. Beerest 2 Talk page 14:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: Could an admin restore the page so non-admins can see the current available reporting and sourcing? Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
(Note: I've posted it off-project here:[೯]]. Feel free to remove this note when its back for the DRV.--Milowenthasspoken 03:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC))
Milowent, are you still copying deleted pages without attribution to that Blogspot site? I suggested that you review WP:Reusing Wikipedia content back in May 2011. Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I always make clear they came from wikipedia, no one has ever complained, in 5 years. No one has even resurrected this one for the DRV? I thought this link would be removed by now.--Milowenthasspoken 05:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No it wasn't and no he didn't. Endorse.—S Marshall T/C 16:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC. There is a real debate if BLP1E applies. Two arguments were made that it does not. The strongest is that she's not a low-profile individual at this point. She's been on The View and Piers Morgan's show on CNN (if I understand correctly) and certainly has not been attempting to have a low profile. The second was that she has sparked a larger debate about a number of issues. There wasn't much from the delete side countering either of those. The second one I'd argue is a reason for having an event article and so mostly irrelevant to this BLP, but the first one is a reasonable argument with significant support and very little in the way of counter arguments. In fact it goes at the heart of BLP1E. I don't see how there can be said to have consensus to delete when there is such strong support for a reasonable policy-based view. Hobit (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. The close decision was based on the policy arguments presented, which favored deleting the article. AfD is not a vote. And regardless of the intensity of the media frenzy, she is still only notable for a single event that has no lasting historical significance. This is exactly the situation that BLP1E is designed to address. Kaldari (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear, are you saying that per WP:LOWPROFILE she is a low-profile person? I'd say there is at the least a solid argument that she is not low profile, but I'd like to hear why you disagree. Per WP:BLP1E "...WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals". Hobit (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
      • As WP:LOWPROFILE states: "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event." Clearly Belle Knox did not seek this attention. She was thrust into the spotlight by her outing and made the decision to defend herself. This may have caused her to be momentarily high profile, but she is back to being low profile at this point. As WP:LOWPROFILE states, "High- and low-profile status can change over time". I don't see any reason to believe that Belle Knox will continue to seek media attention now that this particular event has run its course. Many of the keep votes were arguing that the article should be kept because Belle Knox might turn out to be a prominent activist. To quote one particularly extreme example: "For all we know, she could become the next Gloria Steinem". If and when that happens, a new article can be created. In the meantime, the BLP policy dictates that we wait and see. Kaldari (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd say someone who chooses to show up on major TV show like The View and other media outlets is seeking out such attention, but I suppose it depends on your definition of seeking out. I think the keep !voters, at the least, have a pretty reasonable point and policy doesn't firmly stand for deleting this. Hobit (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll grant this is a pretty good argument, and it's possible you can prevail with it, but this looks like it's still at a pretty early stage. For the policy to mean something, we can't say someone is "high profile" the moment they snap back at a reporter and thereby "voluntarily" appear on the air, but at the same time, we can't give someone a lifetime pass as low profile either. But at first glance my overall feeling, skimming a couple of the sources that pop up in a news source, is that we're still more interested in her as an example than as a person, which means, try to work her into an article about something. Wnt (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
She has made at least a dozen national media appearance that i count so far, this is in addition to many on web blogs that are likely not to be needed, or count, toward reliable sourcing, as they don't seem to cover new ground. They are interviews with her however. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorsement (but nothing else): it seems undeniable at this point that BLP1E still applies; she's still in an initial burst of publicity. She is still only interesting (so far as the sources I've seen tell us) as a case of the unofficial policy of harassment and intimidation of pornography performers that undermines their legal rights. It is appropriate for an admin to uphold the clear letter of WP:BLP1E when many voters have made a strong case for it. However, the flip side of this is that nothing in BLP1E prohibits her from being mentioned in articles about the topic. For example, Belle Knox can and probably should be made a redirect to something like Sex workers' rights (while I'm hesitant to blur the legal distinction between that and porn performance in a BLP, there are sources using that term [೧೦]). Most if not all of the article about her (minus some duplications of content imposed by a standalone biography format) can be integrated into a section of that article about the controversy, and appears to be presently available at and It's OK to honor the AfD so long as it is not interpreted to interfere with any of that. Wnt (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I think the BLP1E arguments were sufficiently responded to in the discussion, I have also detailed why none of the three BLP1E points, and all are required, has been met. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus. It's true that a closer should make closes based on policy rather than plurality of opinions, but the policy as applied by many delete voters and the closer seems transparently wrong. That's my opinion, of course. I agree with Kaldari that Knox didn't initially seek this attention, but it's pretty clear that once the story broke, that was no longer the case (I'm sorry if that sounds like judgment; she dealt with the controversy proactively, so more power to her). It's also a novel interpretation of policy to call a pornographic actress who has appeared in films from major porn studios a "low-profile individual." (I'm sorry if that sounds like a judgment on the porn industry; it's not meant as such.) If Belle Knox were just a person who had appeared in a leaked sex tape or something, sure, you could call that low profile. A pornographic actress, though? No way. --BDD (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I could be persuaded by this opinion. But can you cite some sources about the films she starred in? I mean, $1600 sounds like a lot of money, but she's not exactly Tom Cruise. If the actors and actresses in the films are notable, we should cover them all. Wnt (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
It's already been established that she doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. See the deletion discussion. Kaldari (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's kind of a red herring. The commenters there were speaking of the "additional criteria" which are supposed to be an alternative to WP:GNG, not a replacement for it. (Which, if it is the deciding factor, would justify an overturn due to incorrect interpretation of policy) Besides, in this case, she's primarily known for the political/social issue rather than for her work, and the issue is only if we have a second event. That said, I'm still a bit skeptical that she really has GNG-worthy sources covering her acting career independently of the recent news flap. (I mean put it this way: "How Do You Like It" and "Lick My Lips" only seem to turn up hits about the news, torrents, and reviews of movies by those names made before she was born) So I'm open, but not convinced, at this point. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think anyone's seriously arguing that she meets PORNBIO, which is probably our silliest notability standard anyway. But GNG is a pretty clear-cut case. Has she been the subject of significant coverage in (multiple) reliable sources independent of her? Absolutely. I'm not sure what you mean by "GNG-worthy sources covering her acting career," however. Editors aren't really arguing for WP:NACTOR either. When you have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, you have GNG regardless of the specific context in which the subject is covered. Does that make sense? --BDD (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • endorse The nominator said on the ed's tp that they don't agree with the close but no policy based reason to overturn the close has been presented. This was well within discretion and "I don't agree" is empatically not a reason to overturn a close. Spartaz Humbug! 21:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    • While the nomination did suck, I think many of the arguments above raise the issue that BLP1E didn't apply here. That the first person to list it at DRV made terrible arguments isn't overly relevant. Hobit (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't agree that BLP1E doesn't apply and its within the closers discretion to consider that against the strength of arguments. The question for us is surely did the closing admin have discretion to apply BLP1E given the state of the discussion and was their decision to do so so unreasonable it can't be allowed to stand. I think the answer to that is yes and no. Spartaz Humbug! 13:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus, I don't feel the discussion could reasonably be closed as anything but a non-consensus. The case centered on WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. The subject flies over GNG, and, for those unaware, the subject is a 18/19-year old college student who started doing pornography films in 2013 to pay for her college tuition. She was outed as a pornography film star, but defended her choices, and brought up several related ideas that sparked new, or renewed national conversations:
    • Women cast, or caught in, the virgin-whore dichotomy;
    • College students doing porn work to pay for tuition is a subject that she has brought new attention to, including the issues of tuition being prohibitively high for students;
    • Consumer's of porn, men in particular, condemning those who participate in making the movies, and images, they are themselves consuming.
  • There are other ideas she was bringing up in her national appearances but these are the main ons I recall without being able to see the article itself. To address BLP1E: many votes were citing BLP1E, but those citing it were directly addressed several times.

    BLP1E states that each of three conditions is met:

1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

Reliable sources covered Belle Knox, A) in context of the outing itself, B) that she was a college student paying for tuition with porn work, C) That she was getting death threats for doing pornography, D) That she was unapologetic about her work, and E) Her views on being a sex-positive feminist and pornography star. Some of these were in combination but all of these were death with independently and solely to one subject. So this point is not met.

2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.

As Belle Knox has been, and continues to make online films, available internationally, that alone may not rise her past being low-profile, but we may not have to argue that as she has done, and continues to do national television, and online appearances, discussing many of the issues. This point is also not met

3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.

She was the center of the reliable sourcing on the events, and many aspects were very well documented. This point is also not met.

In essence BLP1E concerns were considered and answered, what remained was GNG, which was also met. The remaining concerns were the ongoing issues of not outing Knox's real name, which editors were doing. A WP:BLPN report was opened to specifically find consensus on this. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, these online films are available to who? I mean, if someone ran a search on one site for girls from Duke University, watched the film and figured out who she is, that's not the same as genuine fame. We wouldn't call everyone with an Encyclopedia Dramatica page about them "high-profile". I suppose I'm still going by an overall sniff test here. Does anyone care where this girl grew up, who her father/brother/sister is? If the biographical details are totally irrelevant for someone we're considering only as the ball in a political game, let's just focus on the game. Wnt (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The films are available to anyone in the world with an online connection. The distinction should be made that Belle Knox is her chosen stage name, and the one she uses in all her interviews. She was outed as Bell Knox by a male student who either recognized her from films, or in his side of the events, she confided her work secret to him - and he agreed to keep it secret - but in both cases he revealed that Belle Knox porn star is student X. She then started doing interviews but has kept her personal life generally private. Our article avoided any identifying information, if, and when she reveals her real name, that bio information can be included. If anyone seeks that information they won't have our assistance, at least for now, until Knox outs her own name. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
My talk page is available to anyone in the world with an online connection. Does that make me notable? I don't really think I'm asking for much here, just a "secondary source independent of the subject" that describes a Belle Knox film independently of the present news story. I don't know if you can do that or not. Wnt (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • <ec>It's fairly rare anyone cares where BLP subjects grew up etc. More they want to know what this person has done and understand more fully their role in a subject they care about. For example, I might look to see what a previous director has done when he gets selected as a director for some property I care about. In this case, biographical details like where she went to school and how she paid for it are clearly relevant. Learning about how society reacted to her might also be interesting--very much a biographical topic. She passes WP:1E and has a high enough profile she probably passes WP:BLP1E. And certainly there is an interest in who she is, why she made the choices she did in the past and what discussions this outing have prompted in society. Hobit (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn to keep and strongly reprimand closing admin for a blatantly improper close. The outcome of the discussion was obviously keep; the closer effectively acknowledges it himself in his closing statement. Everyking (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Let's assume better faith. And the votes were split enough that a keep would be unlikely. I think a "non-consensus," which results in the article being kept, was the most likely outcome. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
      • The correct outcome of the discussion was consensus to keep. Both the numbers and the strength of arguments was overwhelmingly in favor of keep. To judge otherwise, to call the matter in favor of a minority viewpoint that was thoroughly rebutted in the discussion—and then most astonishingly of all, to claim that the minority viewpoint is a "consensus"—is simply disgraceful. We allow some limited discretion in closing AfDs, but to allow someone to turn the whole thing upside down goes well beyond that. It's simple fiat—in essence, "the community disagrees with me, but so what; whatever I think is right shall be defined as consensus". Everyking (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The closing admin explained exactly what he did; he refused to play "count the votes" and instead used his best judgment to weigh the strength of the policy-based arguments. I object to Beerest 2 (talk · contribs)'s statement that, This close was clearly a supervotd and the admin used his opinion instead of reading consensus.. WP:AGF applies to admins too. It's fair game to disagree with the admin's judgement call, but there's a big distance between I disagree with the judgement call, and it's a supervote. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't dispute the admin using their judgement here, I do think they erred, citing BLP1E which was refuted, and has been spelled out, in the AFD, and here, as poorly applied. BLP1E was simply not met, there are three components, all which must apply, and none do. Overturn to non-consensus without prejudice to the close is all that I think is needed here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus. Article should then be moved to something like 2014 Duke student porn controversy as we do all the time for big events like this. Yes, we've been here before, many, manytimes. Controversial event involves sex. An admin swoops in to make the "difficult decision" in the face of a messy debate with no consensus. The chivalric intentions in a delete close are understandable (Ed once tried to save, I mean remove, Linda Tripp!), despite failing to respect the lack of consensus in the discussion (and the irony of "Belle Knox" 's points about feminism). As an aside, I truly believe the subject is actually harmed by deletion in these cases, because searching the subject or her stage name "Belle Knox" will lead the world to sources far worse than the product normally produced by Wikipedia policies. E.g., right now the second google hit for Belle Knox is not us but a Huffpo article titled "I Watched Duke Porn Star Belle Knox Strip At A Gentlemen's Club". No matter the outcome here, let's not delude ourselves into thinking there was a consensus to delete.--Milowenthasspoken 03:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I think renaming, refocussing the article is a bit premature. I do agree that having a Wikipedia article serves her better than not. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Milowent, I haven't thought about Linda Tripp in years. That was prompted by a talk page thread that argued essentially what I did. Obviously that view wasn't widely shared. ;-) Still, I think you'll find that these are the only two articles in my entire eight-year history that fit this profile, so your attempt to ascribe a pattern to me doesn't exactly work very well. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus. I believe the closing admin erred in deleting this article, and I think we have gone far past a BLP1E rationale for deleting this article, as others have noted in the vast amount of media coverage surrounding her. If the article is restored, also consider a possible renaming, per Milowent. Canuck89 (chat with me) 04:48, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Repeating the weak arguments for keeping does not strengthen them and is against WP:DRVPURPOSE. The closing admin made a difficult call and explained the reasoning behind it. Suggestions that the closing admin ignored consensus or supervoted are not called for. Lagrange613 05:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Suggestions that the arguments for keeping are weak, is not supported by the evidence at hand. BLP1E is the main reason for deleting and that was disputed thoroughly at the discussion and here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I see you're still insisting on having the last word with everyone you disagree with. We'll see whether it's any more effective here. Lagrange613 05:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
It won't be. Spartaz Humbug! 06:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. All three conditions of BLP1E have been met. 1) Knox is known for being an "outed" porn star. That's it. That she has gone on a publicity tour to talk about the event is irrelevant. All the coverage is related to that one event. 2) She is likely to remain a low profile individual, i.e. she's probably on minute 14 of her 15 minutes. 3) this event has NO significance. As Langrange pointed out, this is DOGBITESMAN, not MANBITESDOG. College kids have been raising funds by stripping, prostitution, drug dealing and other various forms of "filthy lucre" for as long as there have been colleges. Someone else noted that the 90's tabloids couldn't get enough of these types of stories. Unless something else happens (get out your crystal balls) this story has smaller legs than Herve Villechaize.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The ed17 clearly combed through the various arguments and found the strongest ones pointed to delete. If Knox demonstrates lasting notability in the future then the article can be built again, from whatever future sources. Binksternet (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Userfy. I'm still somewhat undecided about all of this, although I lean more towards it surpassing one event at this point in time. However in the spirit of compromise, I would say that it would probably be a good idea to allow an interested party to userfy the data and work on it until more coverage has been received. However as userspace copies do show up in Google search results, I'd probably recommend renaming it something else like "userspace draft 2014" to avoid any vandalism. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've had someone request a copy, so there's a userspace copy out there and I've added that tag to it. Thanks! Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 13:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The history-less copy at User:Ktr101/Untitled currently violates WP:Copying within Wikipedia, Reusing deleted material and Userfication. Usual DRV practice is to restore in place, blank, and tag with {{TempUndelete}}. Userfication can wait until the DRV concludes. Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Kaldari. The ed17 based his call on Lagrange613's argument. As a matter of boomerang, I think Everyking deserves to be led to the proverbial yardarm for principle's-sake. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Yes, AfDs are not voter counts and sometimes the numbers won't carry the day. If a BLP1E-related article cannot be argued for with anything other than BUBUTBUTSOURCES, then those arguments are weighted less. This is solidly within admin discretion. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    • What should we use to judge besides reliable sources? Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
      • You would have to show that this person is notable for something other than the event in question. Piece of advice; don't be the guy who responds to every DRV weigh-in that is in opposition to your own p.o.v.; it never ends well. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. There was a long and contentious discussion and nobody would have faulted Ed to cop out with a "no consensus". Instead, they carefully weighed the arguments and decided that policy favored deletion. This is within admin discretion and, as pointed out above by Binksternet, if ever at some point in the more distant future it turns out that this person does have lasting notability (something impossible to say just yet), recreating a bio will be possible. --Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. This is the kind of closing analysis we want administrators to perform in controversial cases. I happen to believe that according full policy weight to all aspects of BLP1E is inappropriate, and greater deference should be given to community sentiment in many cases -- but community consensus holds otherwise, and we don't make exceptions to BLP-related policies on a case-by-case basis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Apology I didn't realize the deletion discussion shouldn't be rehashed here. I'll try and do better the next time around. Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I would have favoured no consensus but I think delete was within discretion. My understanding of WP:BLP1E is that articles may be deleted even if the subject is high profile but only when that publicity concerns a "single event". The word "otherwise" is important in the second condition of BLP1E. In this case the individual is clearly high profile for the event but is arguably low profile otherwise. It depends on what is regarded as the event. So, a legitimate argument on both sides. Thincat (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse - the outcome was within the bounds of reasonable discretion and we shouldn't be "re-trying" matters because a different outcome might also have been reasonable. Thincat is right, though I would argue the subject is zero-profile without this one event. But those are matters for AFD. The question here is whether the closer got it right and I think he did. Stalwart111 23:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. AfD is {{notavote}}. BLP1E is applicable (one event does not mean one day) and the closure was appropriate. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Arg. This is clearly going to stay deleted and I was tempted to let your comment go. But that was a heck of a strawman there. There are questions of being low-profile and what exactly makes a chain of events a single event. Hobit (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse Ordinarily, I would say that a discussion such as this should have been closed as "no consensus". However, this case is exceptional in terms of the BLP considerations presented. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse, proper application of admin discretion in the spirit of BLP. Fut.Perf. 07:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse The closing statement shows no supervote, and the reasons advanced here to claim that BLP1E does not apply are not convincing—come back in a year and recreate the article if the event is still notable. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse, a rational, correct (and brave) close, especially given the sensitive BLP nature of the topic. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC).
  • Endorse - per Tarc and others; Ed was well within normal discretion to make the delete call. Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn to No consensus. I !voted delete at the AfD , but re-reading the article and the sources convinces me I was wrong. This is not tabloid material, nor ephemeral news. The has been continuing fairly intensive coverage, and based on what's in the article, it will probably continue. Predicting the future is difficult, but I think this will continue to be cited as a classic instances of several things: the impossibility of internet privacy, the intolerance exhibited towards sex workers, higher education costs, and things radiating from there. I do not thing BLP applies: the basic principle is do not harm, and the continuing publicity makes further harm from WP quite unlikely. the subject may have originally not wanted publicity, but once it has happened, it appears from the sources that in self-defense, she's continuing to make use of it. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • While I agree that having a Wikipedia article is unlikely to do additional harm in the short term, we should remember that Wikipedia articles have a very long-term impact. Having an article on Wikipedia means that everything you do for the rest of your life is open to vigorous public scrutiny for inclusion in your "permanent record". For people who want to live a private life, that can be a nightmare. Once you are deemed "notable", pretty much anything is fair game: arrests, employment termination, blurry flickr photos with free licenses, etc. Obviously Belle Knox isn't seeking the private life right now, but we should still give her that option once this has blown over, especially since her current notoriety was due to outing. Even if it can be argued that BLP doesn't require deleting this article, I still think the spirit of the BLP policy clearly supports deletion in this case. Regardless, this is all just rehashing the deletion debate. The real issue to be determined here is did the closer exercise proper discretion or did they overturn consensus based on their own opinion. Kaldari (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse because AfD was closed properly. This DRV is degenerating into AfD round 2. jni (delete)...just not interested 18:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse Although I don't necessarily agree with the result of the discussion, Ed made the right call here and I endorse his decision. That said, there is still the possibility that down the road, she will gain more importance, so we can revisit the topic when that time comes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse Judging from the news cycle pretty much moving far from the subject since it was brought to AfD as I thought it would, closure based on BLP1E was appropriate. If we went by voter count, every insufferable AfD with canvassed SPA's voting "do not delete" would pass, but that's not how the process works. Nate (chatter) 00:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Favorite betrayal criterion (closed)ಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

Recent discussionsಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

14 March 2014ಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

12 March 2014ಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

9 March 2014ಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ

8 March 2014ಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿ


Indiggo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing administrator appears to have judged the article on its merits, rather than assessing the discussion for consensus. The closer's comment introduces new arguments (e.g. WP:MUSIC). While the administrator is welcome to contribute to the discussion, it's highly inappropriate for an administrator to close an AfD in this manner. The administrator has already declined another editor's request to relist, opining that "Leaving it open longer would appear to only result in more delete votes." How the administrator knows this is unclear. Pburka (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to check out the discussion on my talk page. Considering the overdue-for-close AfD had no votes for over a week, then two delete votes came in a day before I stumbled on it from WP:OLD, it's not a stretch of the imagination to assume that it wasn't trending favorably, but who knows *shrug*. --slakrtalk / 03:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus. While checking out the discussion on the closer's talkpage, which the closer pointed to, it is worth looking at the adjacent discussions by other editors of two other closes this week by this closer; discussions by another sysop here and by another editor here. In each case, it appears the closer was applying a super!vote, rather than judging consensus (writing in the talk page discussion he points to "relisting this AfD won't fix the issues people raised unless someone actually is able to fix the issues people raised."). The AfD was largely about a !vote as to whether the RSs were sufficient to meet GNG -- the closer should assess those !votes, many of which came before the bulk of the RS sources were added. And his crystal balling here at the talk page he links to ("Leaving it open longer would appear to only result in more delete votes"), the initial point he makes for his action, is odd. As he knows from the edit history of the article, many of the RS refs and more fulsome treatments of the subject came mid-AfD, after most of the delete !votes, which would lead one to suspect (if crystal balling were to be acceptable) that an extension would lead to more keep !votes. Finally, even without having extended the AfD for more discussion, I think a closer weighing the consensus would conclude "no consensus" here -- and not enter a supervote as the reason for closing it as the closer did here.Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn The closer seemed to pay no attention to the discussion, just giving his own opinion of the matter. Per WP:DGFA, the closer should "...respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants". Andrew (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    Although I appreciate the show of good faith, I read each one thoroughly, and even if you go by just the numbers (which you shouldn't, but whatever), it was most accurately 6:3 in favor of delete, given BigCat82's comments (e.g., "The article does meet the deletion criteria" and later explicit "delete" with deference to our guidelines. However, with tighter AfDs, I feel obligated to explain the guidelines. In retrospect, it would appear I should avoid doing so in the future, given how what I said seems to have been warped as an allegation of bias, but whatever... c'est la vie. :\ --slakrtalk / 12:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 09:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn my assessment of the discussion was also no consensus - say no to supervotes. Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse, this was a well-reasoned close that judged the discussion correctly.—S Marshall T/C 12:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse, closing is not just about counting heads. (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn to non-consensus Clearly a supervote. The argument used by the closer was possibly a good one, but it should have been contributed to the discussion. if opinion about an article is divided, and one has a definite view of one's own, it is generally a very poor idea to close according to that view. One should close the articles where one has a neutral view, or where one's personal view agrees with the consensus, or where the consensus is clearly against one's own view and one closes according to that consensus. Myself, I have no opinion on this sort of article, and if the closer had instead contributed to the discussion, I might possibly have closed as delete taking his argument into account, but if I cared about the topic & wanted to delete , I would not have closed or would have closed no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs)
  • endorse - it's just a spammy promo. I do agree that "The argument used by the closer was possibly a good one, but it should have been contributed to the discussion" - and the closer deserves trout. But it's still spam. (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC) (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I agree w/you that the closer deserves a trout, and his argument was that of one !voting on an AFD not one assessing consensus. And I also agree that at an earlier stage, the article was promotional. That was fixed, and the article was certainly not promotional. Mostly, it is blandly factual. And if anything, it leans the other way, reflecting RS coverage by the New York Times and others of negative reactions to the band. Anyway -- the issue here is not that, but whether the close was proper.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Endorse/Stay deleted- The Indiggo wikipedia article was properly deleted. For people to say others have "super-voted" is assuming bad faith. (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC) (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC) (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Overturn. WP:Supervote. Relist, convert the close to a !vote, give time for any response, then let someone else close. I read a "no consensus" heading towards a rough consensus to delete, but not quite there. Slakr (talk · contribs) close is not a fair close, but is a quality analysis that should help a later close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse and Salt - the article meets the requirements for deletion as a few genuine editors making lots of constrictive edits to save the article from deletion could only find sources with wider coverage incidentally and briefly mentioned the twins, and the information on them are in general quite negative. And article about how bad the living twins are shouldn't exist. And the the daily spamming and edit warring by the twins and their sock puppets were fully resolved only after the deletion. BigCat82 (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
There are a few mistakes in that statement. The sources range in size, but include full-length. Also, your suggestion that negative notability does not qualify as notability is incorrect. Third, any POV editing was addressed well before the close, and in any event that is not a reason to delete an article at AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
When the article was deleted, most of the full length ones were press releases, and the majority of independent ones barely mentioned them or were user generated. There were also still plenty of sources like that were of questionable reliability. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Closer understood that consensus is not democracy, but rather users have been saying in line with policies and guidelines. If only one person pushed for deletion but that person was the only one whose post reflected policies and guidelines; and a hundred people said keep the article for reasons that did not reflect policies and guidelines, consensus would call for deletion. Arguments for keeping the article seemed to reflect an article that did not yet exist. Time was given to turn that article into that purposed notable article, and if it wasn't enough that probably indicates that there really wasn't much out there to demonstrate notability. Many of the sources that might've worked to indicate notability, as BigCat82 said, negative. As a result, the girls, through their shared account and some sock-/meat-puppet accounts, tried censoring the article to not reflect the sources, even removing some of the sources that were beginning to support the idea that they might be notable. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. If admins were tasked with simply counting votes, then sure it should have been closed as "no consensus." But several of the arguments made for keeping were flat out wrong (saying it should be keep because the band may be notable in the future, for example). Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    Everything you've said is true, but the closer didn't just evaluate the arguments presented. Instead, he or she introduced new arguments. This steps well beyond the role of a neutral arbitrator. While the closer may have made the right decision, he or she made it for the wrong reason. This was a summary execution from the bench, rather than a sober evaluation of the defense and prosecution. Pburka (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    Everyone who voted to delete the article expressed concern that the band failed the general notability guidelines because all mentions in reliable sources were merely trivial ones. The closer of the AFD made that the first rationale in his closing statement. It's not a supervote.
    Besides, if you're agreeing that there was consensus to delete, which you seem to be, but the closer deleted for the wrong reason, aren't you just wikilawyering at this point? Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    And those !voting to keep indicated that it met GNG, with treatments that were beyond the shorter mentions in the New York Times and the like. Which was the case. And -- Pburka isn't wikilawyering in the least, unless you think it is wikilawyering to point out that the job of the closer is not to exercise a supervote, but rather to close per the consensus of the proper !votes of the established editors !voting.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    Except those that decided to keep for such brilliant reasons as "the twins are notable together only" and "keeping this article can prevent future recreation of the same article in promotional language...Also the twins may get more popular in the future." Those aren't based on any guideline or policy and were rightly ignored. If you throw away such junk arguments, it's easy to see consensus was in favor of deletion. Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    If you focus on the fact that !voting editors (we're not !voting here--but looking at what they said) indicated that there were in fact longer than passing mentions (which was unquestionably true), you see the basis for keeping under GNG. There was a difference of opinion among editors as to whether those refs, both short and long, satisfied GNG. That's the crux of it. And that's called a lack of consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC 
  • Closer: (WP:GNG) requires <the topic> to be the subject of reliable coverage
  • WP:GNG: Significant coverage...need not be the main topic of the source material.
Policy/guideline-based interpretation of WP:GNG was important for this AfD, as the claim was made that the topic received coverage on Huffington Post, The New York Times, and Today (NBC).  At least one delete !vote failed to address WP:GNG.  The two editors citing "trivial" don't show that they understand the WP:GNG difference between "significant coverage" and "trivial".  An NC close allows a new AfD in two months, but given the amount of clean-up that has taken place on this article, interest in such may lapse.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse : Admin's actions in judging arguments were correct. The closing admin did not introduce new argument, he merely explained the policies. "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention" - well, a single phrase about a flop in several reviews of AmGotTalent is not. Yes, "it need not be the main topic", but it must be significant. So far not even a paragraph. - Altenmann >t 05:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not remotely true. There were a number of articles that included more than a passing mention, and more than a passing phrase (or sentence, or paragraph).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, so far, of 20+ refs I see only one good: from TIMM. You may convince me to change the !vote. Which other ones you consider significant, independent? E.g. this one is not.- Altenmann >t 06:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse, per several above. Closing isn't vote counting. It's weighing the arguments/statements in the local discussion, as well as the broader policies/guidelines/common practice of Wikipedia. While I didn't check the links in question, based upon the discussion there and here and a cursory read of the article, it looks like a fair appraisal of the discussion AND policy. - jc37 23:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


SnarXiv (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Inappropriate merge result from an AfD in which there was no clear consensus for merging (two for, one against, others not discussing it), no previous mention of the subject at the merge target, and absolutely no discussion or notification of the proposed merge on the merge target page (arXiv). This close effectively creates an administrative fiat for the SnarXiv site to be mentioned on arXiv and for a redirect to exist from SnarXiv to arXiv, neither of which is (I believe) warranted by the tiny significance of SnarXiv to the broader arXiv topic. I'd prefer to discuss this normally on the article talk page as a merge request (where of course I'd be opposed) but that is now closed off as it would be effectively re-litigating an AfD and causing it to have a different outcome. As an interested editor of arXiv I only found out about this through the placement of the old AfD closure notice on Talk:ArXiv, and since the closer refuses to change anything (and insists the redirect remain, calling any attempt to persuade him/her otherwise a "lynch mob"), it seems the only remaining recourse is DRV. If I had !voted in the AfD it would probably have been a delete, and I think that would be a reasonable outcome for the AfD, but the consensus is unclear enough that re-opening would also make sense to me. More broadly, I would suggest that when merge proposals occur within AfDs, the talk page of the merge target should get a courtesy notification (as I have just done on Talk:Princeton University for a different AfD), and that no close happen until people who watch that page have been given a reasonable chance to respond. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't comment on the DRV (and I'm realllly tempted to, given David's representation of that diff), but the point raised about letting the merge target know beforehand might actually be a good idea to adopt as part of the deletion process. I imagine it might be a good "standard practice" for either a {{relist}} or for a bot to notify a proposed merge target when someone places the first merge-vote, for reasons that I actually did mention in my diff / the thread (i.e., sometimes editor pools can be totally different for two pages and one side's "merge" might not even realistically be appropriate, and the closing admin may have no idea if he doesn't have expertise in the area). *shrug* anyway... carry on. :P --slakrtalk / 08:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Makes no difference- From the discussion, only merge and delete were possible results and I can't really fault slakr's close. I do not agree that this close establishes an "administrative fiat" that SnarXiv must now be mentioned on the arXiv article. Even if some content of SnarXiv is merged there, there is nothing preventing editors from agreeing to remove it as part of the editing process. That's perfectly acceptable. Reyk YO! 08:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    • It certainly does make a difference as it has already caused huge chunks of irrelevant material to be added to the arXiv article with no discussion or local consensus for the addition and no place but here to discuss it without re-litigating the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
      • As I said, there is nothing that prevents that material being removed as a normal part of the editing process. I was quite clear on that. Did you not read past the bolded words in my comment? Reyk YO! 01:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
        • And I have already removed it. But in doing so I have effectively caused the article to be deleted, in contradiction to what the closed AfD said should be the outcome. Don't you think that might be a problem? And there's also the issue of the redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus The main point of the close at AFD should be whether there is or isn't a consensus to delete. This close was too prescriptive. Mandating particular merge targets is not sensible because there are often multiple possibilities and AFD usually does a poor job of considering these. In this case, the topic is one of several fake paper generators such as SCIgen so perhaps we need a general article to cover them all — I have started paper generator to fill this gap. Or, if we were to stick to physics, there's possible targets like list of experimental errors and frauds in physics. Sorting that out is a matter of ordinary editing and so outside the scope of the deletion process. Andrew (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    • When the consensus at the AfD is that there should not be a stand-alone article, it would clearly be perverse to overturn to something that defaults to keep. Based on the discussion the only other thing than merge that this could be overturned to is delete. Reyk YO! 05:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Merge was an extraordinarily unwise suggestion but it was suggested and supported and so I suppose the close wasn't wholly outside administrative discretion. As a consolation, no one should be so naïve as to think WP:MERGE requires anything to be merged. "If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary". Thincat (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Personally, had I participated in the AfD, I probably would have !voted to delete, and if I had been in closing mode, I probably would have relisted it or possibly closed it as no consensus, but I don't see anything here that's so far beyond the pale that it requires being overturned. If anything, the result has effectively evolved into a delete because the merged material has already been reverted by another editor. If that's what's going to stand, however, somebody should delete the now-orphaned redirect (the target no longer mentions the redirected subject) -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Update on that -- I just looked at arXiv. @David Eppstein:, you brought this to delrev for people to discuss, and then immediately went ahead and implemented your desired solution anyway. When I wrote my comment immediately above, I didn't realize it was the same person who did both of those. If you're going to object to the closer's actions and ask for a review, you should at least wait for that review to end before doing anything. I've undone your reversion of the merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
See WP:BRD. My revert was the R in BRD. Now we should have the discussion. Except first it seems we have to have a meta-discussion here before we can even have the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
What I'm objecting to is the simultaneous bringing this to delrev, and acting on it. "Hey, guys, can you all please devote some time to figuring out if the admin who closed this messed up, but it doesn't really matter what you decide because I've already gone ahead and implemented the solution." If you had just reverted it and explained why on the article's talk page (which I see you did), I wouldn't have any problem. But then why also drag it to delrev? Maybe instead of undoing your reversion, I should have speedy closed this review as moot? Either of those actions makes sense to me. Wasting time on delrev when the outcome has already been implemented doesn't. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
What was the B? Neither the close nor the merge's implementation qualify. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Relist' Basically, I agree with David E that a delete would have been more suitable than a merge. But if I had seen it, I would have argued for delete, but not closed as delete because there was insufficient consensus for that. Looking at the discussion, it should probably have been continued, not closed. A nonconsensus close would have been premature without relisting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs)
  • I would have preferred no consensus or "redirect, history available for merging." There was a discussion among a few users at User talk:Flatscan/RfC draft: Merge versus redirect (October 2013). I can see the point that if a redirect outcome can be enforced by summarily reverting restorations, merge should carry some weight as well. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Fair reading of a rough consensus. The topic does not warrant a standalone article, and there is a plausible merge target. If David Eppstein is right (he looks unchallenged at Talk:ArXiv#SnarXiv), then the close should be converted to delete, either here, or via RfD for process sake. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Since the merge was completed, WP:Merge and delete attaches. Even if the merged text is removed, it has not been deleted, and the source page should not be deleted. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
      • The merged then unmerged content could be rev deleted. Or the deleted page history can be moved into a subpage. But if the content is not to be found in the target article, there should not be a live mainspace redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus or Relist. I don't see a consensus there. And the closer's job is to follow consensus. Not say: "How would I have !voted -- If anyone !voted the way I would have !voted, I will closed it that way, and say it was (obviously) the strongest argument!" That seems to be the flavor of both this close and others recently by this closer.
That said, there is a second issue. The closer seems to be of the belief that if there is a paucity of input, but has already been one extension of time to comment, the greater good is being served by closing the AfD ... because it is already "late" and clogging up the works. That's not IMHO the right thing to do. Another relist (and, in certain circumstances where consensus or lack of consensus is still not known, a third relist) are more appropriate, and more likely to lead to proper closes in accord with the views of the community.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


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