Contents 1 Purpose 2 Instructions 2.1 Commenting in a deletion review 2.2 Temporary undeletion 2.3 Closing reviews 2.4 Steps to list a new deletion review 3 Active discussions 3.1 21 February 2018 3.2 20 February 2018 3.2.1 Priya Prakash Varrier (closed) 3.3 19 February 2018 3.3.1 Donnie Brennan (closed) 3.3.2 BrowseAloud (closed) 3.3.3 Cherise Haugen 3.4 18 February 2018 3.4.1 Jeff Bezanson (closed) 3.4.2 Linda Weber (closed) 3.4.3 Robert Amen (closed) 3.5 15 February 2018 3.5.1 Bernie Singles 3.6 14 February 2018 3.6.1 2018 UPSL season 4 Recent discussions 4.1 12 February 2018 4.2 9 February 2018 5 Archive


Purpose[edit] Shortcut WP:DRVPURPOSE Deletion Review may be used: if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly; if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed; if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page; if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion. Deletion Review should not be used: because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe); when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination; to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits); to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these); to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion; to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early); to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed). For uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead. Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored. Shortcut WP:DELREVD


Instructions[edit] Before listing a review request, please: Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion Review. See § Purpose. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion. Commenting in a deletion review[edit] Any editor may express his or her opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors: 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. Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~ *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~ *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~ *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~ *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~ *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~ *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~ 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. If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate. Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint - if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't). Steps to list a new deletion review[edit] If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.   1. Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page. 2. Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |reason= }} ~~~~ Copy this template skeleton for files: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |article= |reason= }} ~~~~ 3. Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~ 4. Inform the administrator who deleted the page, or the user who closed the deletion discussion, by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ 5. For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion. 6. Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2018 February 21}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2018 February 21|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>  


Active discussions[edit] 21 February 2018[edit] 20 February 2018[edit] Priya Prakash Varrier (closed)[edit] Priya Prakash Varrier – Moot.The closer of the AFD has acceded to the request of the sought redirect. – ~ Winged BladesGodric 04:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC) The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. Priya Prakash Varrier (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Several !voters reasoned that the page should be deleted or redirected and the idea of a protected redirect was specifically floated. Noting the page is admin-only protected (why? – another question), my request to create this redirect was followed by a curt "no – Plenty of people had their say", not an explanation that makes sense to me. I see no objections to a redirect in the AfD. We should follow the specific instructions at BLP1E: "In such cases [as this], it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article" in this case Oru Adaar Love. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Usually better, not always. The cause of admin protection should be obvious to anyone who has been here more than a couple of months. As for my reply at the talk page, well, WP:CONSENSUS, which also should be obvious to anyone who has been here for any length of time. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Closing admin comment: The consensus for "Delete" in the lively AfD was pretty overwhelming, especially if one disregards the "Keep" votes from accounts that were created purely for the purpose. I make it 28 Delete and 11 Keep. Two people proposed making the article a redirect, while several (at least three) said Delete and Salt, with the argument "If the article is deleted due to the current hype on this there is a chance that this will be recreated so I recommend salting this too". I referred to that in my close at the top of the AfD. I'm sorry nobody, including myself, put an explanatory link to WP:SALT, because probably not everybody knows that it means to admin-only creation-protect. (From "salting the earth", so that nothing may grow there.) If greater interest had been expressed in the AfD in creating a redirect, protected or not, I wouldn't have had any problem with that, and in case greater interest is expressed here on this board, then by all means let's have a redirect. As for your request on Talk:Priya Prakash Varrier to create a redirect, User:Bri, I suppose your implication above that the closing and protecting admin (me) replied 'curtly' to it was accidental. I didn't reply at all, because I didn't see it. If you had either pinged me or come to my page, I would have explained as best I could. Now I've done it here instead. Bishonen | talk 20:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC). I'm not seeing much of an argument against a protected redirect in that AfD. Although there were far more Delete !votes than Redirect only one (Nyttend) expressed any sort of explicit opposition to redirecting. I suggest we grant the request to have a protected redirect, I don't see a problem with it and it would be in line with usual practice. Hut 8.5 21:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Well, I wouldn't care for it. Her "notability" comprises 10 seconds in a video. Ridiculous even by BLP1E standards and, as I've already said above, usually is not always. - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC) She's discussed in the target article, it's a plausible search term, and she isn't covered anywhere else on Wikipedia. That would normally be good grounds for a redirect. Sure, "usually" doesn't mean "always", but nobody's given any actual reason as to why it isn't appropriate here. The notability of the subject has nothing to do with whether a redirect is a good idea. Hut 8.5 22:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Yes, obviously people are searching for her as evidenced by the Feb 17 Top 25 report. It's just spiteful and silly not to allow a redirect. Even as one who has "some" animosity towards PR directed at this project, I'm not getting this at all. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Of course they are still searching for her - it is only a week since the event, which I think is still in the news because of the PR exercise. But she is not notable and notability is not inherited. Don't let's fan these flames because there is no end to it with Indian films, in particular. Multiple languages coupled with relatively poor penetration of other forms of media makes for a massive industry and immense scope for creep, and we cannot even keep on top of what we have. As an example of the potential here, someone got a fair amount of BLP1E coverage for filing a ridiculous (as in "it will never become a legal charge") First Information Report regarding the song which was featured in the video trailer. Such filings are a fairly common occurrence, people do add them to the articles about the films, and so are we going to allow redirected articles for all of the caste/religious extremists who see an opportunity? What about every cinematographer for every film where the film makes the news and therefore their name is in the lights by association, too? The person who has wide exposure simply for being connected with doing Varrier's make-up, etc? I know some of these sound ridiculously extreme but we get this sort of trivialisation going on far too much as it is and we have far too few people to deal with it. - Sitush (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Note: after a persuasive message from DanielRigal on my page, I have created Priya Prakash Varrier as a semiprotected redirect to Oru Adaar Love. Bishonen | talk 23:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC). The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. 19 February 2018[edit] Donnie Brennan (closed)[edit] Donnie Brennan – Withdrawn – Hut 8.5 19:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC) The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. Donnie Brennan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Speedy deletion of a valid search term with invalid reasoning (G8 - "redirect to self" which does not make sense as his name is clearly listed on the article. I created the redirect because i was reading an article about him and his connection to that unfortunate film series (Bumfights) and seen he had no article so i created a redirect, searching his name plus the article's title clearly lays out why i think a redirect is needed. GuzzyG (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC) The page content was #REDIRECT [[Donnie Brennan]] {{DEFAULTSORT:Brennan, Donnie}} [[Category:Living people]] If you want to redirect Donnie Brennan to a page other than Donnie Brennan, please do so. —Kusma (t·c) 17:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Jesus, it's 4 am and i am not really thinking right, my mistake, sorry for starting this nuisance. GuzzyG (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC) The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. BrowseAloud (closed)[edit] BrowseAloud – I'm closing this early and sending the article for relisting at AFD so a proper discussion on the notability of the subject can be had. The correct question that should had been posed and answered by this DRV should probably had been whether to allow recreation or not. What we actually have are comments arguing whether the original AFD closure was correct or not - a question that's not actually being asked, objections that a Google News search link was provided instead of specific selected result listed on this page despite everyone here being perfectly capable to follow a link, and people digging their heels into whatever position they held because of their personal opinion of the nominator instead of arguing the notability of the subject on merits. This discussion wasn't helped by its appearance on Wikipedia Weekly, Ed undeletion and draftification while the DRV was open, or Andy move of the reworked article back to mainspace. Since it has actually been undeleted already, is in mainspace, and no admin seems likely to re-delete the article pending the outcome of this discussion, the discussion is now moot and should move on to another (now) more appropriate venue. – KTC (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC) The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. BrowseAloud (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) There has been a lot of significant press coverage in the last few days, as evidenced at https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=BrowseAloud&tbm=nws Please will someone undelete the article, in order that I may improve it and demonstrate its subject's increased notability? I have asked the deleting admin, but they are not being cooperative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Comment Andy, as the deleting admin (Sandstein) asked, correctly, and which you chose to ignore and forum shop, please provide some actual evidence that there are new sources meeting WP:N / WP:RS, rather than a google search. Fish+Karate 14:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC) That's not so: I provided "actual evidence" here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC) A google search is not "actual evidence". You've been asked twice now to provide evidence of reliable sources that meet the basic standards for notability, and don't seem to feel like doing that. Therefore, your assertion that the subject's notability has increased is baseless. Endorse close unless the requestor feels like actually providing some evidence he's been asked for that demonstrates the subject's notability has significantly increased. Fish+Karate 15:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC) I see Andy has unilaterally decided to ignore this DRV and just move the draft to mainspace himself. Obviously nothing will get done about that, because he is immune from the rules everyone else is expected to abide by. I still endorse the close and add keep deleted, because the additional references provided in the new AFD are not really about BrowseAloud; the fact BrowseAloud was one of many programs that has been hacked by cryptominers is an incidental detail. Fish+Karate 10:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Looks like the nom was taking advice from Facebook and canvassing. a public FB post by Andy Szzuk (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse- The close accurately reflected the discussion. Linking to Google isn't helpful, and neither is bitching about the closing admin for saying so. Reyk YO! 14:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC) I'm not suggesting that the close (which occurred in November 2017) was improper, at the time, but that, as I said above: "There has been a lot of significant press coverage in the last few days". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Given all the news items are relating to its use as a vector in recent cryptocurrency malware, at best an updating of the article would include 'used in 2017 to mine bitcoins'. I am unconvinced that's any indication of notability given the widespread issues with a variety of software in the last year. In short, no reason to overturn. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC) No, an update would not "at best include an updating of the article 'used in 2017 to mine bitcoins'". Your assertion has no substance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse--Utterly unconvinced about any new-notability, atleast unless and until Andy stops vague hand-wavings at Google-searches.~ Winged BladesGodric 15:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn Andy has clearly demonstrated that there are abundant reliable sources to support an article on this topic. If you are technologically literate enough to edit Wikipedia, then certainly you are technologically literate enough to realize that a Google News search is frequently used as a tool by Wikipedia editors to find RS-compliant sources. Don't be so obstinate that you can't admit that he has plenty of RS-compliant sources. Gamaliel (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn and put in userspace, the article was 12 years old when it was deleted as not notable, in that discussion the third since it was created there was the nominator, one person who in previous nomination had implied a COI with the supply of competitor products and person saying delete. Not exactly the most comprehensive of discussions but there was no counter argument on notability. Andy has come in good faith to seek an opportunity to restore an article and improve with the belief he has sufficient sources to address notability. With the google search Andy has provided I see Government both local and national in the UK, I see Bloomberg & CNBC US, I see one African source and 2 New Zealand sources. Along with those more general I see a few industry sources thats just in the first 3 pages from 2000 plus hits through Google News. Alternative if people are concerned about earlier versions then Andy should given the ok to be bold and start from scratch. Gnangarra 16:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn per Gnangarra — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Note I have taken the liberty to open the top six links in in the search results provided by Pigsonthewing, and placed them, in the order that Google showed them to me, on the closing admin's talkpage within neat 'cite news' templates, at the relevant discussion section. As I said on that page: I make no claim to accuracy or quality of these references. I have no stake in the status of this article as deleted or not. I do not see why the shift in format is necessary to debate the [potential] newfound-Notability - since it's literally the exact same 6 news articles we're referring to. It's just that before they were in a google-search result and now they're in six separate mediawiki templates in the same order. Wittylama 17:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC) (Without going as far as to recommend overturning the original AfD closure) Restore per Gamaliel - that Andy insisted on linking to a Google News search instead of directly linking to sources when asked to was an exercise in pointless intractability, but that doesn't mean that the Google News search in question was worthless as Sandstein obstinately tried to assert. There exists SIGCOV in RS'es more recent than the AfD, meaning the article can be restored and expanded (and if necessary, re-AfD'ed to evaluate the article subject with the new coverage). (Note, I was made aware of this DRV by a public FB post by Andy) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Considering the article has already been undeleted, draftspaced, mainspaced, and improved, I strongly recommend quick closing this DRV, NPASR at AfD with the new sources if someone wants to. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Undelete and return to mainspace. This has been to AfD three times - each time it has been inconclusive. The slightest investigation (e.g. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/11/browsealoud_compromised_coinhive/) will show that this program has recently become newsworthy, and for reasons that are entirely unconnected to its past notability (marginal as that might have been). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse entirely valid deletion, undelete to Draft for cleanup, but given past promotional editing it definitely needs independent review before going back to mainspace. Most past revisions I've checked are pure PR. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse. Fair close and the nom hasn't provided any refs to support undelete. Szzuk (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Oops I undeleted the article about 20 minutes ago, without knowing this DRV existed, and moved it to Draft:BrowseAloud. Mea culpa, etc etc. Do what you will. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Them refs look terrible, their not helping the overturn cause! :) Szzuk (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Using a smiley as a signature is no excuse for not bothering to read the DRV request, and why it's based on reasons which have only been reported since the AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC) This forum is deciding on that article - I'm not fishing for refs, expect endorse unless they appear here. Szzuk (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC) I've seen the new article and I'm not changing my vote, the company isn't becoming notable because it is involved in a news event not of its own making. 80% of the article is just that news event and incidental to the program itself. Szzuk (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse the AfD close looks fine and the original version was very badly sourced. (Excluding dead links we have a UK local newspaper, which is usually terrible, a newsgroup post and a page which doesn't appear to mention the subject.) I'm happy for it to stay in draftspace so it can be fixed up though. Hut 8.5 19:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse both the deletion and the return to draftspace. If it's fixable, great. It can go to mainspace once the sources that supposedly exist are actually put into the article. Repeatedly handwaving at references doesn't help, citing them does. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse. This could have been handled a lot more quickly and amicably without the eyeroll-worthy grandstanding. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC). Endorse and delete , not return to draft; the involvement as target for a possibly notable attack might or might not pass NOT NEWS, but still would not justify an article on the company as such. . In addition, At 20:24, on Feb 29 Pigsonthewing moved the draft article to mainspace [1] in the course of this discussion. I am not one who considers formal procedure sacrosanct, but I do not consider that a good faith response to this XfD. ( DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Agree. The nominator would have been better advised to follow typical procedure - provide refs, ask for opinion and await result. Szzuk (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC) As closing admin (who wasn't notified about this DRV), I maintain the view that the AfD was properly closed with a "delete" outcome. As I said on my talk page, the recent news about this software being hacked doesn't do much for its notability, because the news was about the hack, not the software. This matter should rather be covered in the article(s) about the hackers and/or the cryptocurrency. The undeletion was moreover out of process. Both the draft and the recreation should therefore be re-deleted. Sandstein 11:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse, and salt. There's enough of a discussion at the (2nd nomination) that it wouldn't have needed a relist or a "no consensus". And now that it's been expanded, all that can be presented is news reports: primary sources by people who aren't experts in the field and who do not have a reputation for sufficient fact-checking and accuracy. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC) The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. Cherise Haugen[edit] Cherise Haugen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) There were three AFDs for Miss Teen USA titleholders running at the same time all closed within about 24 hours. From what I can see, the three titleholders are notable for the same thing, referencing levels are similar. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Brown (2nd nomination) closed as keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janel Bishop initially closed as no consensus but following discussion with the closing admin, has been revised to keep as well. Whilst I understand AFD is not a headcount, the Cherise Haugen had 9 keep votes, 6 delete votes (7 with the nomination) and 1 for redirect. It appears to me that this should have been a straightforward relist or no consensus close. I have tried discussing with the closing admin but have got nowhere. Their BIO1E concerns are irrelevant because this is not a single event - winning a state title, a few months making appearances as a state titleholder, winning Miss Teen USA, a year as the reigning Miss Teen USA titleholder, competing at Miss USA etc. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse, obviously. It is absolutely correct that AfD is not a headcount. The BLP1E concerns were never really addressed. Even if we were to consider the numbers at a no consensus, it is longstanding practice that a nomination made for BLP reasons may be closed as a delete in such an instance. In this case, many of the "keep" arguments simply repeated that the individual participated in the very event that was the root of the concern. Insofar as any other discussions, while they are largely irrelevant, the concerns were much more directly addressed in them, so it does not surprise me to see their results different. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Given the split !vote, it would have been helpful to have a bit of a closing statement. Hobit (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Yeah, that would have been a good idea. I'll keep that in mind for next time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Discussion was split. It's not clear that winning the Illinois award, then the national one, then serving in the role of the winner can be viewed as "one event". I'd say discussion on that issue was pretty split. Can we get a temp undelete of the article? I'd like to see the state of the sources and over what time period those sources were published. Hobit (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse Delete any subsequent coverage either is a direct result of the 1Event (an article printed a week after the win on how the hoetown girl won) or is very incidental (Miss Wherever mentioned as appearing at the Santa Claus parade). That includes showing up to crown the next Miss Whereever where she has a 30 second role and is often mentioned incidently in coverage as being the predecessor. People noticed for WP:1E often get mentioned later because of the 1E and may be interviewed about the event even years later, but it's still all because of the 1E. Also, being named Miss Wherever for a year is arguably a one year long event. Legacypac (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC) You need to separate the event from the title. But you're not capable of that level of thinking, or thinking at all. Lol--- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC) There's really no call for that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC) I honestly don’t care if I get blocked at this point, I am sick to death of Legacypac’s hounding behaviour - well I don’t know or care if it’s within WP:HOUND but yhat’s What if feels like to me, following me around wiki targeting articles I have edited, engaging in unnecessary disrespect with regard to BLP and has completely slapped me of my will to be involved in this project. He can fuck off as far as I care. I have been involved in Wiki since 2006 and tbh I am completely over it now. So to hell with him for making me feel like that. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Seraphimblade is right, PageantUpdater. Legacypac does indeed appear to be following around articles about pageants, seeking to smite them as the wastes of Wiki space (s)he feels them to be. I am not sure what's motivating that behavior, but you need to keep a calm hear about this. Not everyone is going to love this topic as much as you do. I am not as much of a fan of the topic, but Wikipedia needs people with all sorts of interests - the more varied, the better. Without imparting motives as to why Legacypac takes the abrasively deletionist point of view that they do, I will say that there is very little profit in allowing yourself to be victimized by whatever is going on inside that user. Please - please - get a WP:MENTOR; I was lucky enough to have a parent who had been a long-time contributor on Wikipedia, but there is still a ton of stuff (technically-speaking) that I do not know how to do with articles, moves, and how to try and bullet-proof articles from deletionists and revisionists. I suggested that Legacypac seek mentoring, but that was more for behavioral issues. That the user has chosen to ignore that suggestion lets me know that they pretty much have a shorter shelf life than the typical user. Don't be like that. Working with a mentor is a smart, good angel on your shoulder that you can get advice from in situations both frustrating and/or complex. I cannot recommend it enough; it only has up sides and no down sides. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Comment- This is a pattern I've seen played out many times previously. Someone comes along trying to uphold some semblance of minimal sourcing standards for BLPs in a specific subject area. Then enthusiasts of that subject area scream abuse at them in one breath, and in the next breath cry about how hard done by the enthusiasts are. It is not helpful. Reyk YO! 10:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC) And comments like yours are a pattern I've seen too. I've spent literally hundreds of hours over more than a decade adding references to articles, I've set up a Newspapers.com account through Wikipedia solely for that purpose, and yet the deletionists and pageant-haters keep wanting to frame me as the enemy. To hell with all of you. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse- This seems like a reasonable close to me. Numerically the votes were split, but clearly the strength of argument favoured deletion. Reyk YO! 12:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse. This is a pageant for a certain age group in one country, so is not definitively a major competition; therefore the comments that "she's notable because she's won this" do not address her notability. To compare, our notability guidelines for sport are often considered to be overly inclusionist, but we generally don't have articles for sportspeople who have won Junior titles (or similar) unless they pass GNG in other ways (indeed, we sometimes don't even have articles for the events). If she had gone on to be noteworthy in other ways (taking part in international competitions or having an acting career that wasn't a single bit-part), then the conversation would be different. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse - and Seraphimblade, what is the best way to handle the other 2 BLPs, Janel Bishop and Allison Brown, both single events that should also be deleted? Atsme📞📧 15:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC) If you think those discussions were closed incorrectly, you'd have to talk with the closers of them. Otherwise, the only way if you think they still ought to be deleted would be to file a new AfD after some period of time, or to request review here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Comment My nominations in the pageant area are not targeting any particular editor, but specific problem areas. The pageant pages are very extensively wikilinked so it is very easy to identify a series of equally poorly ref'd non-notable pages. A review of my WP:MFD and User:Legacypac/CSD_log show I'm hardly pageant focused. User:PageantUpdater needs to get over his/her hostility and remove the hostile comments please. Spending hundreds of hours adding sources to pages that don't pass WP:N does not help the project. Legacypac (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Comment This outright deletion and not even leaving a redirect in certain fields/interests that people have worked on for years and that are clearly in national interest in their home country (the president of the united states owned one so clearly some historians are going to cover this subject for many decades) only leaves open the possibility of a competitor. Not every article needs a full length bio, "he/she won this national tournament" should be enough, it's enough to get you into a biographical dictionary. GuzzyG (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Comment I do suggest that this be made a redirect to Miss Teen USA; whilst the winners that have no other notability do not need articles, it is a reasonable search term. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC) I see no issue with a redirect. AfD doesn't forbid redirecting the title, anyone can do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Relist all 3 The absurdity of these results shows the absurdity of our method of deciding on whether there should be an article. The importance of all 3 of these are on any rational basis very close to identical. We should either be keeping them all, deleting them all unless there is something of notability in their subsequent career. For someone teaching about WP, e these discussions would be very useful to show the hopelessly immature and unrealistic way it still make decisions. I personally have no interest whatsoever in these articles being in an encyclopedia , but I also have no great commitment to a need to remove them. What I do feel , is utter embarrassment by a conflict of results of this sort. Next time I start a general argument on eliminating the GNG, these will be a prime example. We would do much better to admit we have no way of handling this sort of situation, and if we do not want to adopt rational subject-related criteria for notability , we would do better to decide once and for all of them by tossing a coin or the electronic equivalent. We would even do better picking one representative one at random to keep. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn. I share DGG's concern about similarly-situated articles reaching dissimilar results. But re-listing is not going to be a good solution. Instead, there needs to be an RfC on the underlying question of whether becoming Miss Teen USA is a "well-known and significant award or honor" within the meaning of WP:ANYBIO. After thirty days of community discussion, we'll know the answer and that answer can then be applied to all of the similar articles, not just the three in question here. And in the meantime, restoring the status quo (i.e., "keeping" the article) is the appropriate action. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn. The closer provided no guidance as to the "delete" votes outweighed the "keep" votes until this DRV. There seems to be a big conflict here as to whether a teen pageant winner is notable for winning a national-level title, we're getting inconsistent results, and we're getting these sorts of articles AfD'd over and over again. I agree with a possible RfD suggestion as per NewYorkActuary. SportingFlyer (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC) For topics of borderline notability, we will often be inconsistent in our application of notability. That is more or less the definition of "borderline", and so I can't really say this AFD was incorrectly closed. But there is more than one way to present this information, and perhaps merging them all into a list of pageant winners (pointing to more detailed articles for the more notable ones) would make more sense spreading the information over a handful of stubs. —Kusma (t·c) 08:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC) 18 February 2018[edit] Jeff Bezanson (closed)[edit] Jeff Bezanson – I have reclosed as a redirect. Clearly when your closes keep getting reverted or objected to, the answer is to stop closing until you have more experience and understanding rather than carrying on closing. – Spartaz Humbug! 06:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC) The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. Jeff Bezanson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) No consensus close by non admin on a thrice relisted afd, WP:BADNAC. 2 Delete !votes, 1 redirect, 2 keeps (1 by article creator, 1 by co founder in company subject is co founder of). Keeps do not address lack of in depth coverage of subject in RS. Icewhiz (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Uh, wow, I just can't seem to stop doing this wrong, do I? I don't know how a lot of these closes have been so controversial (look at my talk page, literally the last 10 messages have involved AfDs), but carry on. Jdcomix (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Comment. It has already been relisted 3 times. I'm not sure if this is relist or overturn to delete, is there such a thing as overturn to delete? I'm not convinced I've seen that before. Julia the software language they have created is new and they are a high tech startup. Szzuk (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Eh. I think the redirect/redirect proposed at the end of the discussion is probably the right outcome, but NC is a fair reading of consensus. endorse but I'd suggest a merge be tried on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC) The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. Linda Weber (closed)[edit] Linda Weber – Snow Endorse. Closing this early due to an overwhelming consensus to endorse. While the closer might have done better to provide a more detailed explanation in their closing statement, there is unanimous agreement that the close was correct and relisting would have been pointless. – -- RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC) The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. Linda Weber (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The article was closed as no consensus with 5 keep votes and 5 delete votes. At first glance this would seem like a reasonable decision.Although I did not discuss this with the closing admin, someone else already did asking why the article was not relisted. USER:Northamerica1000 (the closing admin) gave the following response "Hi Marquardtika: I don't know, the discussion has already received a great deal of input from many users, and there really is no consensus for a particular result regarding the article. Discourse regarding the subject in the discussion has declined in recent days, and was mostly limited between two users, (Bearcat and Tomwsulcer), who are obviously in disagreement. Also of note is that per WP:RELIST, it states, "relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable." At this time, I feel that adequate, guideline-based commentary has transpired in the discussion, and that closing now as no consensus is appropriate." I disagree, I would have relisted or the consensus actually could have been found to be delete. While Tomwsulcer was very vocal about his reasons to keep, at least two keep votes gave no reason at all to keep and should be discounted. Just simply saying keep as per someone else is not a legit vote in a controversial AfD. As per AfD rules "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." They didn't even state that it meets a policy. Instead their reason should be viewed as I want to keep this article regardless so whatever the other guy said must be a good reason. The least they could have done was try to strengthen the other person's keep argument. All the delete arguments on the other hand gave at least a one sentence explanation if not more. Rusf10 (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse- My view is that there is lack of clarity about the rules. WP:NPOL says: Just being ... an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". There is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject -- we agree about that -- but some such as Bearcat argue that this coverage does not count since all candidates get coverage. I've always tried to follow the rules. If there's a clear rule (eg not an essay) that campaign coverage is invalid, I could change to delete, but until then Linda Weber, by the current rule, it's a keep. The community needs to clarify the guidelines.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC) One of our principles is that basic notability standards are written in very general terms, rather than trying to preemptively address every possible permutation — we use expanded notability guidelines to clarify the more complex points, while leaving the basic summaries as general and brief as possible. I have worked on an expanded WP:NPOL guideline in the past, but it's not ready for prime time yet — but until one is actually in place, you need to be familiar with actual AFD practice in similar situations, rather than just arguing that the letter of a notability criterion is technically satisfied in a situation where AFD does have an established consensus about it already. The actual AFD practice on unelected candidates is that the inevitable coverage they receive in that context is not in and of itself assistive of getting them over WP:GNG, precisely because such coverage always exists but a reason why they're of worldwide encyclopedic interest that will last ten years into the future does not. So the mere existence of media coverage is not an automatic GNG pass for an unelected candidate in and of itself, precisely because every unelected candidate would always clear GNG if it were. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse- the delete arguments are indeed stronger, but not so much that a "no consensus" close is unreasonable. Reyk YO! 08:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse I also think there's a more substantial case for deletion than keeping in that discussion, and if I'd taken part I would have supported deletion, but I don't think the Keep arguments are bad enough for this to be closed as Delete. The Keep arguments didn't just assert that the article met notability guidelines, they presented evidence and arguments to support that. An argument which says "per X" isn't necessarily a problem as long as X made a valid/useful argument. Relisting isn't a substitute for no consensus, as the closing admin told you, and it's normally used when the debate didn't get much participation or when something important changed late in the discussion. This one had plenty of participation and nothing changed towards the end. Hut 8.5 15:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse there was sufficient participation for a close Atlantic306 (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse the administrator's "no consensus" close was reasonable given the discussion. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC) I was confused by the close because I've only every seen congressional candidate bios (and quite a few of them) deleted per WP:POLOUTCOMES. User:Bearcat explained quite well why coverage of campaigns alone doesn't amount to WP:SIGCOV. Maybe the consensus is changing on that, although besides this close I haven't seen reason to believe so. I don't have any experience with deletion review, but I can renominate this page for deletion at some point and I would be very surprised if it is kept again because I've only ever seen similar pages deleted in the past. Marquardtika (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC) I don't think consensus is changing, but I do think that there is a varying level of intensity across campaigns, which can lead to some discrepant outcomes. WP:POLOUTCOMES expresses consensus as candidates being "often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls." In many cases, the outcome depends on when or if someone requests a redirect at XfD rather than straight deletion. If a redirect is requested, then a redirect is the usual result. If there are active supporters of a campaign participating in the discussion, my sense is that there is more disagreement about the standard of review, and closers will give a no consensus close. If the campaign is stale, it is much more likely that a deletion occurs (for major party congressional candidates in the US). --Enos733 (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse. She probably fails npol but passes gng. There was plenty of chat and its not a fair delete based upon a quick look at the refs - no point relisting. Discordant views on whether it is keep or delete here says its NC - good close. Szzuk (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse, we do not relist continually in order to get a decisive result. A 'no consensus' was the correct call here, as opposed to kicking the can down the road for another week. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC). Comment- I see that 5-5 = no consensus, but what about the fact that some of the keep votes didn't provide any explanation to back up their vote?--Rusf10 (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Please read previous comments.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse The "no consensus" close was reasonable and within the closer's discretion, although I think the deletion arguments were much stronger in this case. It is often helpful, in some cases, like this one, if the closer explains some of their rational in closing the XfD. --Enos733 (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse. Even as arguably the person who was most vocal in rebutting the keep arguments in this discussion, and whose mind has not actually been changed that deletion is the right course here, there were enough of them to rebut that a "no consensus" close was not unreasonable. Remember that "no consensus" means the article can be renominated for another discussion — but it was getting out of hand enough that starting a new one from scratch would be preferable to simply leaving the first one open for an additional period of time. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC) The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. Robert Amen (closed)[edit] Robert Amen – Nothing to see here, move along now. Jdcomix has already backed out their close and relisted. – -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC) The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. Robert Amen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I'm really just asking for a relist on this one. It was closed as keep with three keep votes and two delete votes. It was relisted a week ago as "no consensus" so I don't see how the addition of one keep vote and one delete vote suddenly became a consensus to keep. I nominated this article for deletion because of the lack of reliable sources. The keep argument which was made by a now blocked user was based on an executive profile on Bloomberg's website being considered a reliable source. The consensus seems to not agree with that assertion, see submitted Executive Profiles on Bloomberg.com The discussion was closed by USER:Jdcomix who is not a admin. I did discuss with him/her on their talk page and if you take a look, you will see I am not the only person today to object to a non-admin AfD closure by Jdcomix. I would highly recommend that Jdcomix refrains from closing future discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Ah, I made a mistake, I was thinking about the wrong article when I was talking about the improvements, sorry! Will relist the discussion, you can get rid of the review now. Have a good night! Jdcomix (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC) The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. 15 February 2018[edit] Bernie Singles[edit] Bernie Singles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I do not believe that a 3-2 !vote is adequate consensus. At best, the AfD should be closed as "no consensus". Davey2116 (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Statement from closer: If we want to get numerical it was 4-2 (the nominator is a delete !vote), but since we don't close on numbers alone, that has much less influence in my close. The nom wasn't great and was from a new account. FloridaArmy's !vote didn't address why he thought the coverage met our lasting coverage point, which those supporting deletion addressed. The OP gave a "per X" !vote, which is a weak comment anyway, but the person they were "pering" also had a pretty weak keep rationale that didn't explain what they saw in the sourcing. It was an obvious delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse. (edit conflict) Had been open for 2 weeks and only had one substantial keep !vote. Yours is simply a "per x", which carry very little weight in consensus finding. Users who expressed deletion opinions quoted relevant guidelines. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse consensus is clear on strength of arguments, which cited policy and provided reasoning. There was one substantive keep vote,.and following delete votes provided reasonable counterpoint to any reasons it gave for keeping. --Jayron32 04:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Relist per below; the close was reasonable given the arguments at the time, but the new evidence below indicates this maybe should have gone the other way. --Jayron32 04:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse AfD is not only for votes. More importantly, it is also a debeat. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse as well within discretion. Another relist would have been too many and, for me, no consensus would not have reflected the strength of arguments. As always in this type of situation, new evidence could support the article's recreation with improvements. Thincat (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse- seems a decent reading of consensus. Reyk YO! 08:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse, but relist. The close was correct given the material the closer had to work with. It's certainly true that the two keep !votes were not well argued. Given just what's in the AfD, I almost certainly would have closed it the same way. So, that's the endorse part. But, we still ended up in the wrong place. Looking at the article (which I've tempundeleted), I see more than enough high-quality sources. It's not just the reference count, but looking over the list, the vast majority of them seem like WP:RS, and some stand out as major mainsteam media (Huff Post, Business Insider, CNN, San Francisco Chronicle, Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Enquirer). I didn't see any discussion in the AfD of these sources. Some of the delete arguments were just plain incorrect (i.e. a lack of sources adequately covering this website). Other arguments contradict WP:NOTTEMPORARY. And the people arguing to keep simply didn't make their case very well. It may well be that after a better debate, we still decide that this isn't notable, but it deserves a better discussion than it got. Full disclosure: I voted for Bernie, but I don't use dating websites. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Per Thincat's request, some more good WP:RS, not listed in the article: Washington Post Forbes Toronto Star Market Watch (really just a passing mention here) Sputnik News, in Spanish (mention) The Village, in Russian (mention) The Economist (mention) -- RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Relist The decision was probably correct given the consensus achieved in the discussion. That being said, I'm seeing clear coverage in reliable sources, both cited in the article and not cited yet, thanks to the excellent work of RoySmith. With that in mind, restoring and relisting it to account for the new information seems appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Relist as the sources were not properly evaluated or even detailed Atlantic306 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Relist as I agree the admin read a small amount of consensus accurately, but more WP:RS have shown to exist since the deletion, a relist may be the best course of action. If not, I endorse. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC) I agree with the relist, but I can't endorse the close. At some point the sources in the article need to give the closer pause. And this was such a case IMO. Hobit (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC) To respond to this (only thing I intend to respond to): no, they don't. The job of the closer is not to evaluate all the sourcing, but to evaluate the consensus of the discussion. It was pointed out in the discussion that the coverage was brief in the views of at least one of the participants, that made the notability claims even weaker as it was an appeal to a policy (WP:NOTNEWS) over a guideline (the GNG). Souring is not the only factor in a deletion, and when people make it the only factor, they are making weak arguments because they fail to consider the whole of our policies and guidelines. I'd oppose a relist because the material raised by RoySmith does not address this point, which was part of the consensus, to the point where if he would have included them, I would have still closed as delete, but with a longer explanation. We have to assume that the people who took part in the discussion and gave policy and guidelines based reasons assessed this after doing a BEFORE search. DRV is not AfD 2.0, and I think a relist over what was a valid consensus based on policies and guidelines after multiple relistings is harmful to Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Let's look at the delete !votes. The nom and JPL both claimed WP:N is not met. Given that there are entire articles solely on the topic (GQ and USA Today for example) those !votes are just factually wrong. K.e.coffman's !vote of NOTNEWS is more debatable, but certainly not on-point. NOTNEWS is about events and to a lesser extent people. But even it it stretched to a website, it's really hard to argue that the coverage was "routine news reporting"--of a certainty most websites don't get the kind of coverage this did. And the argument that it's defunct and so not notable is just not policy-based at all. The !votes to keep are that it meets WP:N (which it clearly does given the number of high-quality sources with significant articles on the topic). It's really hard to reach a delete outcome by doing anything other than nose counting. Tony, I knew you were a deletionist-oriented admin when I !voted for you at your RfA. I think you're a really good admin for the most part. But just as I would have to be really careful closing discussions as keep if I were an admin (as I'm pretty inclusionist), I think you need to be a bit more considered in closing as delete. Call it some variation of confirmation bias. Sorry this is a bit negative, but I just feel you really did mess this one up and I'm worried that you can't see that. Hobit (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Per TonyBallioni; the admin seeing a discussion is faced with two choices: to close the discussion and assess the merits of the discussion as written, or to add their own opinion and allow discussion to continue. Basically, an admin has the choice to act as an admin or act as just another editor in any situation; if they are going to relinquish their admin role that's fine, but they cannot then also close the discussion; if the admin in question wants to assess the sources and then make an opinion on the strength of those sources, their role is to leave a vote and let someone else close it. If they intend to close the discussion, they should base it on the strength of the arguments. They are not required to do either; if they are uncomfortable with the discussion going one way and their belief that the actual article indicates the discussion is wrong, they can just do nothing. --Jayron32 04:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC) I think you (Jayron) and I are largely on the same page. Passing on closing, !voting to keep or even !voting to delete (which would be an IAR !vote IMO, but there is nothing wrong with that) are all fair. But there wasn't the needed consensus for an IAR delete close as the !voting stood. Hobit (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC) 14 February 2018[edit] 2018 UPSL season[edit] 2018 UPSL season (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The original deletion request was that the article fails WP:GNG. Six Seven (corrected by Trackinfo) Six (one person voted twice) (corrected by SportingFlyer users voted for keep with two for delete, with several keep votes providing links to sources showing notability. Closing admin used WP:NOTVOTE to delete the article and would not reconsider the action on her User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#2018_UPSL_season_AfD. I'm bringing this RfD because I believe the keep votes agreed the article followed WP:GNG (ongoing, diverse and independent media coverage of an ongoing event - league seasons are considered events per WP:FOOTY). SportingFlyer (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC) SportingFlyer (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Closer's comment I urge reviewers to read the discssion at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#2018_UPSL_season_AfD (permalink). I was disappointed by the claimant's repeated misunderstandings of policy and guideline, esp the persistence of arguments based on inherited notability and/or OSE, including one which claimed to understand WP:OSE and then made a classic other-stuff-exists argument. I was also disappointed by the personal attack on me (at the bottom), and by the DRV-requster's unfounded allegation of canvassing against the AfD nominator. It is clear that a small group of editors feels v passionate about this topic, but WP:NOTABILITY is not weighed by editorial passion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Comment Since it was brought up, I would like to point out I did redact the canvassing statement. I had canvassing confused with WP:BLUD. I also don't care if this article is deleted or not. I had only passing familiarity with the league until I saw the deletion request for a previous season. I only care since I believe the sources show it passes WP:GNG. I'll go away now. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Userfied. Note that per request[2] from the article's creator, I WP:USERFIED the page to User:Bashum104/2018 UPSL season. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn a poor close and relist to hope for a better discussion. The nominator made some worthwhile arguments that we should not have articles where no sources cover the topic as a whole but only cover individual aspects of the topic. Assuming no violation of WP:SYNTH that is an opinion (an interesting one and one that has clearly persuaded the closer) but it is not, so far as I know, an established policy or guideline. WP:NSEASONS doesn't seem to apply in this particular case. I would genuinely like to know is there is such guidance somewhere but I don't think this AFD (plus this and this) was adequate to establish the principle. Of the praised deletes, the first declared there was no evidence of notability but contrary evidence was provided so leaving the issue to be resolved. The second delete by saying "Keep relevant info on main page and break that info out ..." was effectively proposing a (temporary?) merge. The final comment "I have yet to see a meaningful 'keep' !vote" was bizarre in the light of the quality of the commentator's own !vote and did not apply because the keeps commented (rightly or wrongly) on the presence of appropriate references – no one was unwise enough to say they liked the article. Thincat (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn to keep Consensus was that the sources provided were sufficient to establish notability. Closer's statement to the contrary is either a WP:SUPERVOTE or a clear misinterpretation of consensus. Perhaps you could argue that the sources were insufficient - some participants did. But overall consensus was that they were sufficient, so the AfD should have been closed as keep. Smartyllama (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse as nom WP:SYNTH issues remain, as the sources provided attempted to establish notability as a collection of reports on individual teams rather than establishing notability for the league season itself. Significant coverage of the season remains unproven. Also some concerns regarding WP:INHERIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS remain. A relatively similar precedent has already been set, and is worth reading through. The closing admin articulated a better example for the kind of source that is needed than I. From User talk:BrownHairedGirl: An article about the league season would take an overview. It would discuss the league as a whole and it would discuss multiple teams rather than focusing on one or 2 teams. The fact is that the article did not meet the necessary policies that Wikipedia requires, and consensus cannot overrule policy. As a side note, a substantial amount of argumentation has been based on the assumption that a majority vote should overturn the decision, but this is not the case. Jay eyem (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Quick comment Arguing in the alternative, I think relisting would also be an appropriate course of action. Jay eyem (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC) I have no objection to relisting if we want to go that route. DRV guidelines state relisting rather than retaining the original outcome can be appropriate when there is no consensus as to whether said outcome was correct, and I would prefer that here if it comes down to it. Smartyllama (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC) The question at hand is if there is an on-point enough guideline/policy which can be used to justify overcoming the numeric consensus at the AfD. Delete !voters felt that coverage of each part of the season and of the league-as-a-whole was not enough to justify an article on the season. Keep !voters disagreed. I don't believe NSEASONS says much (this isn't a "top professional league" from what I can tell nor is it about a individual team). There clearly are reliable sources about the topic. In fact the whole topic appears to be largely covered by RSes. The problem is that no one source covers the topic-as-a-whole. So there are Synth arguments. This type of thing is exactly what AfD discussions are supposed to sort out. Given the lack of clearly on-point policies/guidelines to address this situation I think we have to go with the !voters. NC would have been a reasonable outcome--because there are two reasonable sets of arguments here irrelevant of the numbers. But given the numbers, I think keep was the better outcome. So overturn to keep seems like the right way forward. Hobit (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Note: I fixed the header. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Comment: This article has been already userified to the page creator. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse - good close. GiantSnowman 17:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Again, no explanation provided. Smartyllama (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC) @GiantSnowman: Can you explain why this close is a good close in detail, please? Thank you! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Because they utilised WP:NOTAVOTE, something which many editors fail to grasp. There is no significant coverage; instead a bunch of overzealous US soccer fans think they can bombard the article (and related discussions) with trivial weblinks and that gives it notability. It doesn't. GiantSnowman 08:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn I can see where the closer is coming from, but I'm thinking something similar to Hobit here. There seems to be agreement that there is plenty of coverage on aspects of the season, such as the progress of individual teams within it. The Keep commenters felt that was sufficient to establish notability, the Delete commenters felt it wasn't and some higher-level coverage was necessary. The closer is allowed to weight arguments according to strength but they aren't allowed to substitute their judgement for that of the participants, and this does look dangerously close to a judgement call to me. It looks like the season is due to start in a month or so, which may well make this decision obsolete anyway. Hut 8.5 19:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Comment This was my first time proposing something for deletion, and I'm curious to hear the personal opinion of another admin on my argument that WP:SYNTH was not met and WP:GNG was not established, and whether I have mis-understood these policies/guidelines. My understanding was that you could not agglomerate sources together to reach a conclusion that wasn't stated in the sources. Most of the sources were just about new teams being added to the league, which does nothing to show notability of that season itself. I also have concerns that this constitutes routine coverage, especially for a league at this level where new teams are entering and leaving all of the time. I hope I'm not bludgeoning too much and I apologize if I am, I just have a lot of free time. Jay eyem (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC) WP:SYNTH does not concern notability, it concerns original research. Wikipedia is not supposed to contain original research, and SYNTH is a form of original research. I don't think anyone is claiming that the 2018 UPSL season page contained any original research. Therefore, SYNTH is inapplicable here. Bashum104 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict)No, I don't think you're bludgeoning at all. I don't have a strong opinion on the merits of the deletion nomination, admins who close discussions are expected to determine the consensus of the people who took part in the discussion rather than to provide a casting vote. You're absolutely right that articles can't put together sources to form conclusions which weren't found in them, but it's not clear to me that this article was doing that. And even if it was that doesn't necessarily make the subject non-notable. What you're saying is IMO a reasonable position to take on this topic, however most of the people who took part in the AfD didn't agree with it. Hut 8.5 22:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC) WP:INHERIT (and, possibly, the WP:COATRACK essay) are maybe more on point than WP:SYNTH. To apply INHERIT in this case you need to gloss over all the examples and suggest that people are going against "Similarly, parent notability should ...". But bear in mind that these arguments to avoid are simply ones that may be weak or non-persuasive rather than ones that are invalid. See second paragraph of WP:ATA starting "Remember that a discussion rationale ...". I think it ends up as a value judgement. Thincat (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn to keep - The WP:SYNTH arguments seem to be off base here; there was no original research on the page. I also believe the WP:INHERIT arguments are not applicable because the argument for notability was not based on a "UPSL is notable therefore its seasons are notable" or similar line of reasoning. The claim by the closer seemed to be that independent, reliable, third-party sources about the season do not confer notability if they're primarily concerning one or two teams. It's not a completely unreasonable argument, but it's an original argument unbacked by any published Wikipedia policy as far as I can tell. It's also an argument that the large majority of participants in the original afd rejected. Therefore I feel that the closer overruled the consensus on the afd and improperly deleted the page Bashum104 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn to keep - As I was involved in the AfD, I was reluctant to comment at first. As I proposed this DRV, I have had my say in numerous places. That said, lets review: I think the WP:SYNTH was on the part of the closer. Unless it is from from the formation of the league or a controversy, you would not logically expect sources to write articles about a league. To expect articles to be written just about the league is artificially raising the bar to an obviously unlikely standard. The sources wrote about what you would expect, teams playing in the league, anticipating the upcoming season. That not trivial. We found and enumerated numerous such sources. In the process, wikilawyers bludgeoned the debate with an alphabet soup of accusations, all of which I believe were well refuted. The other yes !votes were not an echo chamber, but individual editors thoughtfully explaining what we found. I don't have a dog in this fight, its not my normal subject matter. But I have seen this kind of unfair railroad job used about subjects I do care about too often. This subject was fortunate to find several people like me to speak up. Far too often I have been the lone voice of reason against a barrage of thoughtless, serial !votes and bizarre arguments all designed to obfuscate the real issue at hand while achieving the goal to censor content from wikipedia. Somehow those meaningless votes always seem to count. Something should be done about that. It was shocking to see the argument we had clearly won overturned on such a flimsy opinion call on the part of the closer. Trackinfo (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Comment I would like the admins viewing this discussion to take the WP:UNCIVIL behavior of this Wikipedian into account, both here and here, when considering their accusations of "Wikilawyering." The proposal for deletion was likened to "destruction," "neutralization," and "euthanization," with the proposal of deletion considered an "attack on content" with "intent to destroy." Additionally, they have referred to an administrator as an "oligarch." Jay eyem (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC) My words are public and clearly defined within the AfD and comments on the closer's talk page. I do equate a nomination to AfD, any nomination to an AfD, as an attack on the article and its intended deletion is the destruction of the content. But as part of the bludgeoning beginning here, the above user had to go the extra step and embellish with words I do not use in my normal vocabulary. "neutralization," and "euthanization," Do a word search. And here are the alphabet soup I referred to: WP:BURDEN (repeatedly), WP:ROUTINE, "reliable source" meaning WP:RS, WP:INHERIT, and ultimately WP:BADGER as if that wasn't the pot calling the kettle black, otherwise known as projection. Numerous answers, sources from local newspapers and TV stations, seemed to fall on deaf ears. WP:BLUD? 11 retorts during the debate. Bashum104's final response sums up the frustration. Trackinfo (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Comment a very basic understanding of linguistics would understand how the use of "euthanize", "neutralize", (these are words that you linked to here) and "destruction" have very different intended meanings than the word "deletion" and how a proposal for deletion being called an "attack" (which you continue to use unapologetically) with an "intent to destroy" is the same thing. Perhaps you should assume good faith on my part. I think you would also benefit from re-reading WP:BADGER and WP:BURDEN if you think I used them improperly. I stand by my use of all of those guidelines/policies/etc. in my argumentation. The fact is that WP:SYNTH remains an issue, and the sources you and others have claimed as sufficient for establishing the notability of that particular season are in fact not. And now you accuse me further of projection. I've already apologized for my bludgeoning above. Perhaps you could do the same for your uncivil behavior, including referring to User:GiantSnowman as an oligarch. Jay eyem (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse- The closer and the delete !voters pointed out that arguments for retaining the article hinged on the notability of other toprics, related but not the page under discussion. I can't really argue with that. Reyk YO! 09:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse- how can a season article possibly be notable when it hasn't even started?!? Perhaps there will be significant coverage of the season as it progresses, but at this stage there is nothing. Fenix down (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Nobody would deny the 2018 NFL season is notable even though it hasn't started. Of course, before you throw WP:OSE at me, that doesn't mean this season is notable even though it hasn't started, merely that it can be. Smartyllama (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Quite, but in this instance I don't think sufficient sourcing has been shown that it is, plus there is a massive difference between one of the world's biggest sporting competitions and a small, regional soccer league. Fenix down (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Of course the 2018 UPSL isn’t as notable as the 2018 NFL. That doesn’t mean the 2018 UPSL isn’t sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. Also the UPSL is a large (140+ teams), national soccer league. Bashum104 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Consensus was that the sourcing was sufficient. DRV isn't a second bite at the apple. It's about whether the closer interpreted consensus correctly, and I don't know how you could interpret consensus as being that the sources were insufficient. Smartyllama (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Four other 2018 American minor league soccer seasons already exist and they have not started yet; the question is notability. A season can have notability before it begins if significant coverage of it exists. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn to keep – it seems to me those in the 'keep' camp in the afd did not articulate their case particularly well or at any length as the argument (in numbers) seemed to be going their way. Quoting from Trackinfo above: "Unless it is from from the formation of the league or a controversy, you would not logically expect sources to write articles about a league. To expect articles to be written just about the league is artificially raising the bar to an obviously unlikely standard. The sources wrote about what you would expect, teams playing in the league, anticipating the upcoming season." I agree with all that. It is rather like a list: one does not insist on articles about the entire list but does expect sourcing for each item in the list. Oculi (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Relist. Based upon the article as it was originally listed a delete was OK because notability wasn't established. However the close was against the numerical vote by some margin and unfortunately the closer got mixed up between between keep/delete in the summary leading to little confidence in the actual close. The user draft has improved the article substantially and it might now pass GNG so a relist seems a good idea. Szzuk (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn to keep. This was not so much a discussion of the notability of the season itself as a discussion of whether (and when) to spin out coverage of an individual season for a notable league into a separate article. This is mostly a matter of editorial form and discretion. As such, the expressed consensus as measured by numbers should ordinarily carry the day, as it would had this been treated as a request and discussion on the article talk page. It is not that the closer's policy analysis wasn't sound -- just that it's not sufficient here to override community sentiment. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


Recent discussions[edit] 12 February 2018[edit] Joseph Betesh – Decision endorsed – Stifle (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC) The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. Joseph Betesh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Notability was still under discussion and I tried to talk to the deletor, Sandstein , to no avail. A21sauce (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse. No, you didn't try to talk to the deleting admin. You tried to bully him. Your first comment was, Please revert or I will bring you up as a problematic editor to an administrator. That's not how things get done on a collaborative project. The AfD close was perfectly reasonable; the arguments to delete were in line with policy, and the arguments to keep were not. Both you and User:Mozucat made arguments that seemed to be pushing a particular social agenda, which is not what we do. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse- Consensus to delete was very clear. Reyk YO! 07:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse- Consensus to delete, no arguments for keep. SportingFlyer (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC) List - Consensus was not clear. There were two experienced editors arguing against deletion, and everyone else had opinions.--A21sauce (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Comment - @A21sauce: You already started this deletion review; as such, as in AfD discussions, you're only allowed one !vote at a time per discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC) K. Got it, thanks--A21sauce (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Discussion was clear. I would like to see the two or three best sources on this person. I am finding them listed more than a bit in news stories. But not sure it's the same person this AfD was about. Hobit (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Comment Likely is. Here's 1) "Property sells for $62 million" NY Commercial Observer in 6/10/13, 2) The Village Voice, 1/24/18, 3) NY Daily News (the hunger strike begins), 4) "Bowery Boogie" (electeds call for investigation of Betesh), 2/12/18. In addition to what was in the article that Sandstein took down. Let's make Wikipedia the best it can be!--A21sauce (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC) I looked at the refs, they don't support notability. Szzuk (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse. I can't see anything wrong with the close, appears to be news about a nn individual as identified in the afd. Szzuk (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse and barnstar for Sandstein for dealing very patiently and fairly with an unnecessarily aggressive and rude reaction from the person requesting the review. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC). Comment Eye roll, Lankiveil. So not necessary. This is Wikipedia, not the men's room of a millionaires' club.--A21sauce (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Yes, this is Wikipedia. What happens here is that people from all walks of life come together to write an encyclopedia, as a collaborative project. One of the key things that makes this work is that people respect each other, and maintain a WP:CIVIL tone with each other, even when they disagree. Threatening, bullying, and rudeness simply have no place here. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Indeed. I'd say that Wikipedia is not the change room of a rugby club, but then again when I played rugby disagreements between teams were settled in a more respectful and genteel attitude than what you displayed and are still displaying. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC). The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. 9 February 2018[edit] Adria Airways destinations – Overturn to keep. By a wide margin, the AfD close is overturned. Even after identifying a few users who edit mostly in the airline space and discounting their arguments as biased, there's an strong consensus here to overturn. And, of the people who argued for a specific alternative, there's clear consensus that it should be overturned to keep, as opposed to NC. The primary issue here was that the close basically said, Policy was already established at a Village Pump / Policy discussion, and that trumps the consensus of the people discussing the issue here at AfD. That concept was soundly rejected in this review. – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC) PS, I haven't chased down all the collateral fallout of template cleanup. If folks could take care of those as they find them, I'd appreciate it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC) The templates are taken care of now. Hut 8.5 17:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC) The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. Adria Airways destinations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I'm starting this DRV following the suggestion made by Spartaz in their closure. The AfD follows the closure of a discussion held at AN, in which the closure of a VP discussion was challenged. All the relevant links are included in this AfD discussion. Jetstreamer Talk 20:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn the original decision and keep all these articles. These lists are notable, as they reflect an essential portion of airline operations. These articles also have the potential to include the history of the introduction of services for a number of reasons (political, geographical, economical, etc.).--Jetstreamer Talk 20:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn; keep all; as mentioned before airline destinations are the core of an airlines operation and show the scope of coverage. I don't see how the WP:NOTDIR arguement holds water; the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, that's a fact. Air France flies to Paris, that's also a fact (supportable by primary and tertiary references). These lists neither tell you how to book flights, how these destinations are connected, nor provide detailed scheduling information; they are essentially useless for any sort of travel guidance; but do contain an unrivalled source of historical information surrounding how airlines evolve over time. For comparison; destinations are essentially an airlines product. How does this list differ from the lists being deleted?. (As a side note; this could have all been discussed in the AfD rather than closing it and punting it here.) Garretka (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn and keep all. There are quite a few issues here. The closer's main argument is basically that the VPP discussion establishes a "wider consensus" that these articles should be deleted. As a participant in the original discussion, I was (naively) unaware that it was supposed to establish policy, and thought that it was asking for opinions (so I didn't go around and challenge everyone's argument). Now the "wider consensus" of fewer people than participated in this AFD is used to state they must be deleted. Surely this AFD shows there is not truly consensus on this issue? A policy issue is where deletion of articles should be decided. The standard way to delete articles that do not satisfy the WP:CSD is through discussion at AFD. This discussion, while starting under a bit of a cloud of "no consensus should default to deletion", which isn't covered by any policy I am aware of, should be the main place that decides whether these articles should be kept or deleted. Unlike the Village Pump discussion, where a random subset of editors shows up (or not), AFDs are widely advertised in many neutral places (WP:DELSORT, wikiproject sites etc.) "Some people at the Village Pump think these articles should be deleted" is a very good reason to start an AFD, but it is not a particularly good reason to disregard said AFD and to pretend the Village Pump has priority. There is another underlying policy issue, which is what the limits of WP:NOTDIR are and what type of lists are acceptable. Traditionally, this has been decided on AFD, with many great listcruft purges in the mid-noughties. In the AFD, many of the delete arguments were refuted. Unfortunately some of the arguments driving the VPP discussion were not exposed as being poor (for example, the claim that lists are a burden to maintain -- as they generally are maintained well, somebody thinks to seem it is worth it. There is usually no evidence that people devoting time to fringe topics would contribute to something else if we delete their topics). As a final point, I do not think closing a discussion as "send to DRV" is in any way helpful. —Kusma (t·c) 21:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse. This VPP was very clear. Given how many editors have contributed to these articles I imagine there will be a lot of overturn votes (for numerous reasons) - they should be counterbalanced by the numerous no votes at the VPP. I generally think information of this nature isn't encyclopedic, it belongs on the relevant airline websites. Szzuk (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Add. The editors at VPP are much more likely to have a neutral stance than those involved in the AfD. Should Afd's follow policy or should policy follow AfD's...Szzuk (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC) The "policy" was specific to the topic, though, which is why we're in this mess to begin with. This isn't a discussion about a new broad policy which affects these articles. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Why does is it need to be broad? Szzuk (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn and keep. AFD is the sole forum for regular deletion discussions on specific articles. When specific articles are targeted for deletion, readers and authors must be given fair warning. The AFD process achieves that through the AFD tag. In contrast, large portions of the community in general, and people working on covering the airline industry in particular, were not aware of the VPP discussion going on. This means that VPP is not a fair forum for discussing specific article deletions, and should be given no weight in the AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn and keep. The burden is on the person proposing deletion to show that this falls under WP:NOTDIR. I do not believe that has been shown in this instance; the VPP consensus simply seemed to agree it fit WP:NOTDIR without providing any arguments as to why it is more a directory than a valid list. Furthermore: These lists have survived bulk deletion requests at least three times in the past (2007, 2007 again and 2015), and no major policy change happened between the last one in 2015 and now (i.e., no giant purge of WP:NOTDIR articles); These lists are relevant, exhaustive, and verifiable; These lists are only a yes/no of whether an airline flies or has flown to a specific destination. They are not a list of routes or a list of timetables and do not change all that often. When they do change, verifiable third-party news reports are easily found; There does not appear to be any sort of test regarding whether WP:NOTDIR applies in the instance of a list, just "it is not a directory" - but I do not view these as a directory, especially since almost every destination is verifiable; These lists are not WP:TRAVEL as the information does not belong in a travel guide, as shown by the refusal to add them to WikiVoyage or WikiTravel (past deletion log); Even if a deletion is not overturned, several of these lists contain a narrative of destinations and therefore should not be deleted until the narrative text can be fully incorporated into the main article. WP:NOTDIR is being applied to many articles that contain more than just a list of destinations. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn to Keep - Overwhelming consensus to keep. The VPP discussion before this AfD that apprently this close was based on, was WP:CONLIMITED to put it mildly as that discussion was open for over 23 days with only 21 editors giving definitive opinions whilst this AfD was only open for just over 8 days with over 40 editors giving their opinions, a clear demonstration of the VPP being a tiny group of editors coming to their small group conclusion without any regard to community consensus on a wide scale. Remember, the very basis of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITCONSENSUS is when an edit is made and not challenged, that would be implied consensus. These articles have been edited since 2004 with only a few AfDs over the years and all have been ended in definitive "keeps". That is almost a decade and a half of consensus and there is no real evidence consensus has changed. Even the one "endorse" opinion above acknowledges "how many editors have contributed to these articles" confirming the long-standing consensus achieved for over a decade. A VPP buried in the bureaucracy of WP seems to have been an attempt to sneak a conclusion of a limited group of editors by the much larger community consensus of these articles. If someone desires certain articles to be deleted, they need to AfD those specific articles, not by a VPP discussion in which most editors don't even know exist.--Oakshade (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse. This isn't the venue to rehash arguments about whether these articles should be deleted, as I see some above users doing, presumably summoned from WP:AIRLINES. Whether you agree with the outcome, Spartaz did a fine job of assessing the balance of consensus of a dialogue that took place over multiple discussion boards. AdA&D ★ 23:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Comment: re summoned from WT:AIRLINES; may I point out this page receives rarely one view per day. Any notifications to discussion on this page have largely gone unseen to the involved community who may not be aware of VPP or any discussions that may have or are occurring. As pointed out no arguements were presented as to how these lists violate WP:NOTDIR other than "violates WP:NOTDIR"; and no arguements have been presented against those who bring valid points as to how this meets GNG and does not violate NOTDIR. I've spoken my piece, but I feel this whole process has been mishandled from start to finish. Garretka (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Actually these are lists of scheduled flights which is mentioned in #4 of WP:NOTDIR. It says to avoid things such as "current schedules". One can also argue #1 is in play as the information can be summed up with a sentence or two like it already is under Adria Airways#Destinations (maps do the job quite nicely as well). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC) It can also be argued that these lists serve historical significance per point #4. Again, these lists are not schedules, they are lists. There is not scheduling attached. This also does not address any of the concerns surrounding the rather odd sequence of events that led to this current mess. Garretka (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Historical points should go into the main article, as for not schedules what do you make of "As of summer 2017, Slovenian airline Adria Airways operates to 18 scheduled destinations from Ljubljana, 5 from Pristina and 3 from Tirana."? Are you saying that these are not scheduled locations? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Agreed they can be summarized in prose where practical. In the case you mentioned, the lead can certainly use a tidy up, that's an easy fix. Is that a reason to delete an entire article? Not in my mind. The reason the date is mentioned is per MOS:RELTIME. I'm certainly not saying those aren't scheduled locations; I'm saying these lists don't resemble any form of a schedule. Garretka (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Given that the diff above points to the notification that I left at WT:AIRLINES, can you or someone else please let me know what was wrong with it? What policy did I violate?--Jetstreamer Talk 13:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC) @Jetstreamer: I think that many editors felt that this diff, in which you said Tons of information related to airline destinations are in risk of being wiped out. Please go to the link above and participate in the discussion , may have violated the policy on nuetral phrasing when canvassing. In addition, it is a best practice to link back to such comments to ensure the community understands who was notified and how. See WP:Canvass for more examples of best practices for canvassing. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC) @Billhpike: The diff you mention is not the one AD&D pointed at.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC) @Jetstreamer: You're right. I think Special:diff/824839631 was neutrally phrased. In the future, you should consider also leaving a comment on the target page letting other editor's know where you have posted notice. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn and keep. I have no interest in rehashing the arguments about whether the articles should be kept or not. I do, however, feel that we should not set a precedents of allowing "Wikipedia policies" to be set at the level of granularity of "this article should be kept," because it allows the usual AfD mechanism to be circumvented by getting consensus for deletion without notifying article contributors. Furthermore, I feel that the fact that people may be coming to this discussion because of a notification on WP:AIRLINES is irrelevant, given that this clearly falls into WP:APPNOTE: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. ..." CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn The VP discussion was improper per WP:FORUMSHOP. AFD is where deletions are decided and there was clearly no consensus to delete in this case. The close should have focussed on that valid discussion not some other irregular discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Im not sure you can argue that as per the discussion the creator asked if it were a case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY or not on a board about proposed policy/guideline changes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse - How many more discussions are we going to go through here? This decision is not a vote and should be weighed by argument strength rather than WP:WAX, and WP:USEFUL comments. I have seen everything from "you might as well get rid of...to arguments about how Wikipedia will never be the same again. I fully endorse the deletions per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY which were put into place to discourage these types of lists. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn. An utterly ridiculous abuse of procedure. Apparently WP:CONSENSUS is a joke. -- W7KyzmJt See Hear Speak 00:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Comment An RFC on broader Wikipedia policy on lists of transportation service destinations is taking place at WP:VPP#transportation lists BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Proposed idea - Has anyone tried making an article titled History of American Airlines (using it as an example)? The history of destinations can easily be placed into prose on an article like that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC) I read "no consensus" to delete, but a consensus that the current state is not OK, but with work can be. Some of the lists are better than others. Prose free lists of current serviced destinations is NOTDIRECTORY, but comprehensive historic coverage of transportation is. I am prompted to think of Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, with the house being unusually large and slow to build. meta:Conflicting_Wikipedia_philosophies#Eventualism_vs._immediatism, the old issue, but seen less often. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn the close compares this situation to the one where a policy says one thing and a local consensus of a group of editors says something else. I don't think that's a terribly fair comparison. For a start the VPP discussion doesn't establish policy, or even a guideline. It was a discussion about how to apply policy to a certain case. AfDs are themselves discussions about how to apply policy to specific cases. Furthermore an AfD is considering the case of whether to delete a specific article, instead of an abstract question about generalities, and the two forums will attract different kinds of participants. The VPP discussion also (by my count) attracted substantially less participation than the AfD did. Given that I don't think we can say that the VPP discussion is controlling here, and there wasn't a consensus for deletion in the AfD itself. Hut 8.5 08:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn to keep, and before the people throwing bad faith accusations around above chime in, I have never made any contribution (other than as part of broader routine maintenance) to any article on either an airline nor an aircraft and have no connection to the airline project. Many delete arguments were based on a misunderstanding of policy (in particular what we mean by "schedule"), or on the argument that Wikipedia shouldn't be hosting material which has the potential to go out of date, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is (probably more Wikipedia articles do contain dated statements than don't; we don't go around bulk-deleting them). If one disregards the delete votes in the original AfD that are either based on a clear misreading of policy or on spurious "I don't personally find the topic important" grounds, there was actually a fairly firm consensus to keep in the initial AfD as well. The Village Pump debate(s) should all be disregarded with respect to the specific deletion; while the VP is an appropriate place to discuss a proposed change of policy, it's always been Wikipedia custom and practice that XfD and DRV have primacy when it comes to deciding how any given policy is applied with respect to deletion. If any of these articles are individually inappropriate for Wikipedia, send them to AfD on a case-by-case basis, but this was never appropriate for a bulk deletion. ‑ Iridescent 09:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC) You have some good points so I have a few questions 1) The VPP decided policy on this matter didn't it? Are we just ignoring this policy? 2) If the VPP had occurred without any AfD these articles would be just getting deleted en masse, yes or no? 3) Of course AFD has primacy over how policy is implemented but surely we then need proper sourcing which most of these articles don't appear to have, so we have to delete 99% of them individually to ensure we keep the 1% that are properly sourced? (Exact percentages not accurate). Szzuk (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC) The decision made at the VP was challenged and subsequent discussions through AN and AFD (both of them attracting a greater audience than the VP discussion) led us here. It should be more than clear at this point that the ″consensus″ at VP changed. Separately, even when an article lacks references, deletion is not cleanup.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Are you able to answer any of my questions? Szzuk (talk) I'll try to answer, but I'm not Jetstreamer so they should make their own reply. 1) I have come to the opinion that calling a decision like the one at VPP "policy" is absurd. "Policy" is for general statements about how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. Specific decisions like whether a certain article or group of articles should be deleted are a matter of implementation of policy, not of policy, and should be decided from the bottom up, not the top down. (I.e. the discussion should have started at AfD; if that could not come to a consensus then it could be escalated to the wider community to adjudicate.) This is in line with Wikipedia's practices. 2) No, because VPP is not the correct venue for deciding that articles should be deletd. 3) First, I would second what Jetstreamer said. Second, that argument also applies to the set of all these articles plus Barack Obama -- are you saying we should delete all airline destination articles and Barack Obama because it would be too much work to go through them individually and figure out which one is about a clearly notable US president? ;-) Seriously, Wikipedia has always worked by deleting pages individually, the fact that you don't like the way a majority of a certain class of articles is written is not grounds for nuking the whole class. Third, in my reading the AfD did not turn on issues of sourcing, it turned on issues of levels of consensus, so this isn't really relevant. CapitalSasha ~ talk 20:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC) A few more questions! 1) If WP had been created with a policy 'no airline destination lists allowed unless they pass GNG' would you ignore that or seek to get it overturned? 2) What if AfD alone is unable to delete NN articles (because vested interests prevent this) must AfD endure these articles in perpetuity? 3) Are there other presidents more worthy of page deletion? Sorry couldn't resist that :) Szzuk (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse - would I have participated in the original AfD I would have proposed opposed a deletion, on the grounds that at last in principle one could write an encyclopaedic article on an airline's destination (even if most if not all destination articles are anything but encyclopaedic). But one also has to acknowledge, and this is what matter in a deletion review, that the closing admin carefully examined the consensus and came to a correct reading. In particular with regards to the validity of the village pump discussion. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC) The consensus in the AFD discussion was to keep. The closer disregarded that. Consensus at AN was that the VP discussion by itself is not sufficient to delete these articles. —Kusma (t·c) 13:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC) not at all relevant nor helpful to the discussion at hand -- Tavix (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC) 81.204.120.137, you have less than 100 edits total and only 9 of them are in mainspace with the rest mostly in meta discussions demonstrating advanced knowledge of Wikipedia language, formatting and Manual of Style in your first few edits. Can you please inform us who you're a sock puppet of?--Oakshade (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Rather rich that you are accusing other editors of sockpuppetry, when your own block history shows a history of sockpuppetry. FYI, I have several thousand edits under my belt, from various (dynamic) IP addresses. Out of principle I refuse to register an account, even if it means having to take garbage from the likes of you. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:D134:959D:9490:6F6B (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Okay, you’re an admitted sock puppet. By your personal attack it appears that you’re specificallly a WP:SCRUTINY aversion type and most likely a WP:BLOCK EVASION one. --Oakshade (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Oakshade, drop this right now. WP:AGF applies to IP editors just as much as it applies to anyone else, and this certainly wouldn't be the first regular contributor who either chooses not to create an account, or has an account and chooses not to log in, both of which are explicitly defined as not constituting sock puppetry. You're painting yourself into a corner where if you continue to make accusations without evidence, I'll have no alternative but to block you for disruption, which would be a truly ridiculous thing to be blocked for. ‑ Iridescent 22:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Iridescent, it was the above user who had the WP:CIVILITY violation, not me. And I see by the civility warning on their talk page, this wasn't first time for them. [3] That was and still will be my last comment to the CIVIL violator and I hope you drop the stick too.--Oakshade (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn (I did not participate in the deletion discussion, nor did I vote in the RfC, nor have I to my memory had anything to do with any airline list articles, or any Airline project) Basically, I agree with Hut - the VPP discussion did not even try to amend any policy or guideline - since it did not, the closer cannot treat it as policy or guideline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC) (Let me add, so as not to be all critical, the wisdom of the closer in the delay is stellar. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)) Overturn & keep – as above. Though I wasn't involved in the previous discussions, I noticed this from WP:VPP. While there was consensus at VPP at the time against lists of airline destinations, no changes were made to policy, and VPP isn't the right place to decide bulk deletions. The fact that there seems to be no overall consensus to delete these articles makes me question the VPP consensus, and strongly in favour of enforcing procedure in this case, which should hopefully discourage sweeping VPP decisions being applied in future, especially in lower profile cases where it might not get flagged up. ‑‑YodinT 17:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Procedural Overturn & Keep - I have no opinion on the substantive issue here, but no article should be deleted where the deletion discussion does not achieve consensus, which this AfD clearly did not. VPP discussions do not carry policy weight, and AfD closures are not the place to IAR. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn to keep. There was clearly no consensus to delete at the AfD. Ignoring the AfD and closing as "delete" based solely on a previous discussion is disruptive. -- Tavix (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn The VPP discussion was a limited consensus not a deletion discussion and should not override what was a weak consensus to keep the articles at AFD. Reywas92Talk 04:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn and keep. Anyone stupid enough to delete should be dragged straight to Arbcom. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn and Keep VP limited discussion cannot set policy or delete hundred of page via extra-policy. The keep voters effectively showed why the articles pass our long-standing, widely a respected guideline GNG and our core WP:V policy and the delete voters never counter that, neither do they give informed reason for deletion except reference to VP discussion which majority also participated. They only based their reason on the VP discussion which have unclear mandate to delete such vast number of articles and had its decision overwhemingly overturned at AN after it was enacted. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn and keep as the VP decision was overturned at AN and the AFD favoured keep or at least no consensus Atlantic306 (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse it was the correct close in view of community consensus. The closer should have ignored all the keep !votes that had no policy basis following a community RfC. That RfC was not overturned at AN, despite what people are claiming above. The unilateral deletions based on it were. The closer followed policy and closed in line with community consensus. Something I hope the closer of this DRV will do as well despite the attempts of some to overrule community consensus with local consensus and misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC) What is the policy-based support for the deletion? All the procedural discussions were followed, one by one, and the corresponding outcomes were to keep these articles. There's a blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT smell here.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC) One more thing: Can you please stop pleaing for the closing admins to disregard the keep !votes? Your attitute is unwelcoming of an admin.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC) No: it is the correct thing to do when people try to relitigate recently settled policy discussions in local forums like AfD or DRV. The closer correctly did so when they closed the AfD, and the DRV closet should ignore the non-policy or consensus based comments here that are just trying to relitigate an RfC. This is not an admin conduct issue: I’m encouraging the closing admin to follow policy and ignore the non-policy based uproar. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC) I simply followed the procedural DRV suggestion made by the closing admin at the AFD. Luckily, many more editors have joined this discussion. I invite you to go to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC:_Should_Wikipedia_have_lists_of_transportation_service_destinations? where a broader discussion is being held, and see what people think about the deletion of transportation lists you stoically keep defending.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC) I would also like to have the "policy based reasoning" for this deletion explained. As the AN discussion said it was NOT ok to use the RFC to justify deletions without an AFD, it follows that the AFD had the power to decide these deletions. Otherwise, if the outcome was clear from the start, going through the motions of an AFD plus DRV is ridiculous. No matter how many times the delete voters claim otherwise, there is no policy that says Wikipedia should not have these lists. As for essays supporting policy, the lists in question pass all of the criteria of WP:LISTCRUFT. A single village pump discussion does not establish policy (which is not quite the same as what is written in "policy pages"), especially in cases like this where it was followed up by a discussion in the proper venue (AFD) that came to a different result. RFCs become policy only if the community supports the outcome of the RFC, which is why any major RFC needs to be advertised in a lot of places and get everyone on board. Wikipedia is not Nomic: a single discussion can't just change The Rules. Fortunately, most admins know that. —Kusma (t·c) 19:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC) A community wide RfC closed at the village pump against this specific class of articles: that is the community consensus. The current village pump discussion is a straw man that deals with broader topics and not the airline topic. People don't like the outcome, so they keep playing "Take it to the next forum so only the people who want to keep will participate". Fortunately most admins also know this tactic. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC) I'm not an admin, consensus can change, and it has in this case. Given that you seem relentless to accept this, you may want to take a look at WP:NOTBUR.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC) I honestly don't care one way or another about the topic of airlines, and if there were a new RfC, I'd be neutral. I saw the RfC and thought it was boring as heck, and so I stayed out of it. I just don't like the constant ignoring of community consensus and the misrepresentation of what consensus can change means. Consensus on things like this doesn't change within two or three weeks: that's not how Wikipedia works, and your constant efforts to bludgeon the outcome here are disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC) If you are so convinced about my disruptive behaviour on this matter you are more than welcome to start a thread at ANI.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC) @TonyBallioni: My proposal at the village pump closely matches the wording of the close to this AfD. These deletions are controversial and should only take place if there is a strong policy consenus to do so. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn and keep Per all the sound reasons at the AfD. The VPP was flawed in many ways, not least that it wasn't listed at WP:CENT to get a lot more eyes on the proposal. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC) WP:CENT is for use where there is a wide impact, I don't see that, it is only about airline destinations. Szzuk (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC) The impact is certainly wider than the VP participants thought.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Indeed; as a result of that, we currently have a proposal to delete all transportation-related lists as a direct result of the earlier VPP discussion. It's very clear that the participants in the earlier discussion were neither a representative sample, nor aware of exactly what they were supporting. ‑ Iridescent 19:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC) I'm not sure I can support that, I'll reserve comment for now though, regardless the NN bus and train articles we have are a problem that needs a solution. Szzuk (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC) My belief is that the wider RFC on transportation lists is intended to damage the VPP on airlines. It never had a chance and the nom knew this. Szzuk (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Hold on.... so you are saying in a nutshell that the first VPP discussion were a clueless bunch of editors that should be dismissed because they don't matter? This is a collaborative encyclopedia meaning that these discussions should count. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn for procedural reasons. VPP is not an accepted venue to consider deleting one article, no less hundreds. Let that bleed into AFD wasn't a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn and keep There were countless valid arguments towards keeping these lists, and definitely not a solid consensus for deleting them. What constructive purpose would deleting these lists have for Wikipedia? Taking away valuable, accurate, and useful information doesn't sound like the goal of Wikipedia to me. In addition -- the AFD consensus wasn't even delete! Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 02:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC) I am torn between "Endorse" and "Overturn to no consensus." The closer was quite clear and thorough in their approach and there is nothing technically wrong with the reasoning of decision. I also think that it would have been appropriate for a "no consensus" close since the community expressed a variety of different opinions on the list of proposed deletions. That said, it was unwise to bring to XfD a large list of controversial articles as one deletion discussion and the closer addressed some of those concerns. --Enos733 (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Comment No deletion discussion should ever be closed as "delayed deletion". There is either a consenus to delete the article, or there is not. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC) I don't see this. The closer's prediction re DRV was proven true within a few days, so the sense of avoiding the deletion-recreation cycle is a perfectly valid application of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC) A correct close wouldn't have been challenged. Closing against consensus and then passing on the actual decision to DRV is bad form, to put a positive spin on it. —Kusma (t·c) 14:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Begging the question of whether the consensus was to ignore WP:NOT— that is and remains the defining issue. I'm seeing this over and and over again in these discussions: people promote the ability to source (which again, I'm going to say is largely reliant on primary sourcing in this case) and utility over any limits we've adopted on the work to be done. I'm almost tempted to submit that, in practice, most of WP:NOT has been overcome by actual article writing and AfD voting. Mangoe (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC) I completely disagree with this. There are valid cases to be made for and against the inclusion of this article in light of WP:NOT. The consensus at AfD was to keep (or certainly was not to delete), with valid arguments being made that these articles do not go against WP:NOTDIR; the defining issue is whether the alternative interpretation of WP:NOT determined at WPP should have primacy. CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC) endorse What I saw in the original argument is being repeated here: that being able to cite something (and I question how well-cited these articles will ever be when their reliance on airline websites is broken) trumps WP:NOT. I can't see it: the entire intent of WP:NOT, when it comes to article-writing, is to say "even if we can document these, we aren't going to do so." As to the WP:VPP discussion, I don't see a problem with it. It may not have set policy, but there was nothing improper about trying to get some preliminary indication of the likelihood of a successful AFD. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse- classic case of strength of arguments outweighing quantity of votes. Reyk YO! 13:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Have you read the delete arguments? For example, many of them claimed "These articles violate WP:NOTTRAVEL", but if you actually look at WP:NOTTRAVEL, you'll immediately discount any argument citing that (it is about something else altogether). Other arguments were similarly weak. —Kusma (t·c) 14:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC) The airlines are notable, just not where they travel to. If you want to find a place online to look up scheduled travel destinations then go-to a travel agency site and not Wikipedia. I'm sure x site will tell you if x airline runs seasonal flights to x location or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Literally everything on Wikipedia is (or at least should be) mentioned in some other source. That's not a valid argument for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC) It can, and has been, argued that the destinations are equally as important both to show the presence of an airlines at an airport and its sphere of influence(as stated earlier, maps do a better job of this than lists or tables). Garretka (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC) I agree that the information can be stated in prose on the main article without having to go into an overly detailed article on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Just wanted to add that x is encyclopedic because of its sphere of presence or influence isn't the best argument alone to make. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Can you please explain? Thats not the only arguement for keeping these articles, as I and many other editors have pointed out. Garretka (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Expanding airlines isn't a rare occurrence and the fact that x airline goes to ... isn't notable to the destination mentioned. Most airlines in fact advertise their new locations as a way to earn more revenue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn and keep - AfD is the appropriate place for these deletion discussions, not VPP, and the consensus at the appropriate place was keep. Most of the delete arguments were grounded in false interpretations of policy, and in any case, the VPP discussion was not the appropriate place to be having it and should not play a factor. Ignoring that, consensus was clear to keep. Smartyllama (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Consensus is consensus, one can argue that VPP had an uninvolved pool of editors that reply on matters of guidelines and policy. The fact is that no the consensus was not to keep anywhere so far as replies are measured by weight of argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC) One can argue what one likes, but deletion requires a consensus of editors to delete; this was clearly not present at AfD (the relevant forum), and arguably not aat VPP either given the ambiguity of the discussion and the controversy of the close. In any event, it the job of VPP to follow and broaden the consensus that emerges "locally" elsewhere, but not to write policy out of whole cloth. That is what policy pages are for. Newimpartial (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Comment Wikivoyage has a mention of airline destinations here: [4] under "Flying to Africa". This is an example of how this information can be expanded there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn to no-consensus. The number of participants at the afd was greater than at the RfC, and gave a different and apparently clearer presentation. With have no rule respecting the relative strengths of and AfD/Del Rev and a RfC on the same topic. To actually delete an article requires a consensus at AfD, not RfC. The RfC can set a general guideline, but an AfD can decide when to override a general guideline in a specific case. Were I closing ,I would probably not be able to say there was a consensus to keep based on the AfD. but neither could I say there was a consensus too not overrule the RfC. The situation is clearly one where we do not have agreement. (fwiw, I argued to delete at the RfC, but did not participate in the afD. But I do not pretend that my own view is the one that had overall consensus when it appears not t to be the case. ) DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Hi DGG, I think your points are nuanced, and I appreciate your explaining them but I think it is important to make clear that we do have a consensus agreed upon way of amending policy and guideline (which not surprisingly is written down in policy at WP:PROPOSAL) -- it actually lays out an extended process for making P/G and requires, at the beginning, formulation of the exact wording of the new P/G, often multiple discussions (not one and done!); extensive notice that it is a P&G; and a closing that actually says it is "promoted". This VPP RfC fails, in every-respect from its very beginning to its end. And this is not just being procedural, the Pedia would be even more of an anarchy were we to try to have these various enforceable (so enforceable they can't be challenged) - 'unwritten-into-editing-policies, editing-policies' - that by definition can't be amended because they are unwritten -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC) It is easy to find policies and guidelines that we constantly ignore, even easier to find one we sometimes ignore, and generally possible to find those that contradict each other, Discussing whether the adoption of a guideline is valid adds another layer of complexity and doubt, and makes it possible to challenge almost anything. I can find something wrong with any complicated procedural matter; if I want to challenge it, I can say it's a significant enough error to invalidate the rule; if I want to accept it, I can say it's inconsequential. The rules are best seen as one of the indications of what one can is likely to be able to do. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Airline destinations lists and all other Wikipedia lists will be deleted, or let's change WP:NOTDIR to WP:NOLISTS. That's how the very first discussion should have been exposed, because that's what it was: a carte blanche to delete everything a group of editors do not like.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC) I proposed ratifying the logic behind this AfD into WP:NOTDIR. See WP:VPP#transportation lists. To put it mildly, the community was not enthusiastic about my proposal. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC) The outcome of an AfD is not measured by how many participants there are but of argument weight. A lot of the replies on the AfD amounted to "what about x" and/or "If we delete this then we will have to delete this..." arguments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse or, failing that, overturn to no consensus per DGG. Discussion about a subject shouldn't be ignored simply because it happened in the wrong place. ansh666 08:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Beware of the leopard. —Kusma (t·c) 09:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC) I assume you're going to explain this comment? It doesn't seem to relate to the topic or to the comment to which you reply. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC) See HHGTTG. See also WP:VOGONS. Andrew D. (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Of course if these airline pages are deleted next it'll be those NN bus articles, then the NN train articles, then the procedure will be codified into a couple of sentences and set in stone. Being banned from adding non notable transport pages?! Awful! Heaven help us - we might not have an article on the bus stop outside my house! The bulldozer awaits any admin closing this as Endorse lol. Szzuk (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia might just implode as well as this will have a butterfly effect that could destroy the internet as we know it. Seriously though, I am a believer of each case being unique. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Gotcha. Some jackass with a bulldozer was outside, distracting. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC) ...? ansh666 20:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Oh, gotcha, thanks Andrew. I also don't buy that lack of "publicity" or whatever you'd call it is relevant. The fact of the matter is that consensus in one discussion disagreed with another discussion, which had problems with "publicity" in the other direction. ansh666 20:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Ansh666, that's exactly a reason to overturn the closing. The discussion in this AfD, which was the correct place to discuss the proposed deletion of articles, was ignored due to a WP:CONLIMITED discussion in another forum between a small group of editors which was the wrong place to discuss proposed article deletions.--Oakshade (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC) You're still hung up on "the correct place" vs "the wrong place", which is irrelevant. ansh666 20:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC) We still shouldn't ignore the consensus that actually took place in the right forum just because of some discussion elsewhere that wasn't even in the right place. At best, right vs. wrong place is irrelevant as you say - consensus in the wrong place certainly doesn't override consensus in the right place. Smartyllama (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC) I don't care too much about "process", but fairness is important (and reasonable processes help ensuring fairness). Telling 30 people that their opinions no longer count because last week 20 people elsewhere came to a different conclusion doesn't strike me as fair. If the AFD did not have the power to decide the deletion, it should have been speedily closed -- pretending to hold an AFD an then ignoring it is very poor style. —Kusma (t·c) 20:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Fair enough. I admit I'm not at all impressed by the close. That said, I still don't think, taking both discussions into consideration, that there's enough of a consensus either way. FWIW, I think the most fair course of action for this situation would be to disavow both the VP discussion and this AfD discussion as an inappropriate mass nominations and open individual ones for each airline destination article, but the 400+ pages in that category obviously would make that unworkable. ansh666 22:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Why unworkable? We could go through them one per day, and then we might actually find the middle ground between "We must not have any list of airline destinations at all, not even List of Braathens destinations and List of Cathay Dragon destinations" and "We must have lists of airline destination lists for every airline, and are not allowed to delete or merge broken-link Ándalus Líneas Aéreas destinations". For the pages that are an embarrassment, we might find a consensus to delete or merge to the parent article. I am not a fan of Ryanair destinations in its present state either, to give a more prominent example. Mass AFD nominations are really hard to do properly, and usually end up not working well. Letting each article stand on its merits is more work, but I expect the end result would be much better (in terms of articles improved and really bad stuff weeded out) than a high-stakes discussion about the general class of articles. —Kusma (t·c) 07:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC) In theory, yes, it would work just fine, but in practice I fear that we'd get things like people copy-pasting rationales on every article regardless of its merits, complaints that we're flooding AfD (which is already fairly high-volume but low-participation), and discussion fatigue before we even get to 100. Is it worth a try? Probably. Do I personally think it will end well? No. ansh666 08:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC) overturn to NC I was waiting for someone to make an argument that I could buy, and I think DGG's is that. The AfD could override a policy/guideline, the bar is lower for a less-attended RfC. Hobit (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse- The VPP discussion came out with a clear consensus, so that is the consensus. IMO, the AfD was not necessary and just a delaying tactic. The delete argument of WP:NOTTRAVEL/WP:NOTDIR should override any argument to keep because the topic can be sourced. Everything in WP:NOT can possibly be sourced but these are topics that should be excluded regardless of sourcing. Anyone argueing for "no consensus" should be aware that the ANI said "a no consensus result should default to delete, not keep, based on the consensus at the broader RfC for these articles". I am pinging @Tazerdadog: who closed the ANI to weigh in on that.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC) I moved this from the end of the other DRV below. ansh666 23:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC) You'll also notice that Tazerdadog struck those comments out as thats not the way no consensus defaults work. Garretka (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC) No, Tazerdadog did not strike the comments, they are still there [5] Also, my apologies for accidentally posting in the wrong place and thank you to Ansh666 for moving it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusf10 (talk • contribs) Please find the archived discussion here. Garretka (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Just because he didn't delete an old revision doesn't mean he didn't strike the comments in a later one. And he most certainly did. WP:REVDEL should only be done in extreme circumstances, and an erroneous close is not one of them, so I'm not sure what your point was by linking to an outdated version of the page. Smartyllama (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Only problem with this argument is you need to have an AfD to delete an article that's not a speedy delete, a speedy delete was overturned, and the delete didn't establish a consensus. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC) @SportingFlyer: Two closers (fish&karate, and Spartaz) both found the consensus to be delete at two different locations. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC) That is not entirely true, otherwise the articles would be deleted already. Yet controversial to some editors, Spartaz suggested to discuss their close and here we are.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC) That text was present in my initial close, then others convinced me I overreached as a closer by making that statement, and so I struck it out. That is the standard way to retract a statement on Wikipedia. If the closer, after weighing both discussions, arrives at a result of no consensus, the default is still to keep the article. No comments on the merits of this AfD or the ensuing deletion review. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Request to closer I've proposed an update to WP:NOTDIR to codify Spartaz's reasoning that WP:NOTDIR bars lists of transportation service destinations, even if the services otherwise pass WP:GNG. (See WP:VPP#transportation lists). Please close as endorse if and only if my proposal passes. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC) This is ringing of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. A VPP, an AfD, this DRV, a second VPP and now yet another proposal at the NOT talk page? This needs to stop. --Oakshade (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC) This should have never been started.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Comment. I've copied the comments from AfD close below and added 3 bold numbered notes to reference into my comments below. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Delayed deletion. Phew! I’m closing this as delete but I’m going to delay the actions until after the inevitable DRV which can be started without pretending to discuss the close with me for forms sake. Let’s set the scene. VPP discussions do not authorise deletion but its not true to say that only arguments in an AFD can support deletion as the whole point of closing against consensus is that we measure the arguments against wider policy considerations and a cross project consensus on policy has more validity then that from a group of editors enthusiastic about a subject. A good example of this is marginally notable BLPs regularly being deleted because BLP1E out trumps the gng. <NOTE 1> So we have a wider consensus from VPP that this class of articles fail NOTDIR and are effectively UNDUE often being spun out of articles because they are too unwieldy. On the other hand we have arguments to keep on the basis that they pass the GNG and are effectively useful, <NOTE 2> What is also unhelpful was canvassing on the keep side meaning that I had to give the keep arguments a little less weight to balance that out - but even if I did the effect would have been the same as wider project consensus beats local consensus. <NOTE 3> It would be extremely disruptive to delete all these articles and links until the argument has gone through the full process which inevitably will include a DRV and, likely, further discussion at ANI before the final consensus is clear. I am therefore delaying enacting the close which ever is the later of until consensus is clear or two weeks. I’m leaving tags on so that interested editors can find the latest links of where the discussion is. Spartaz Humbug! 11:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC) NOTE 1: Ignoring the VPP is undemocratic - they are an interested party and have a voice. NOTE 2: Balancing the VPP against the AfD - fair process NOTE 3: The argument weighting is adjusted because of canvassing, (it is happening here too) This is an immaculate close from an enormously experienced AfD closer. Szzuk (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Please provide diffs about canvassing here.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC) The diff; democracy is about listening to all points of view not just your own. Szzuk (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Again, show diffs. And you are not being neutral either: ″...but even if I did the effect would have been the same as wider project consensus beats local consensus″ can also be read above. Furthermore, ″It would be extremely disruptive to delete all these articles and links until the argument has gone through the full process which inevitably will include a DRV.″ Both statements are pretty contradictory.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC) The diff; democracy is wanting to hear the views of others even if you disagree with those views. Szzuk (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Do you know what WP:DIFF means?--Jetstreamer Talk 15:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Do you know what I mean by diff; ?Szzuk (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)] Szzuk, what Jetstreamer is asking you is to please show the exact edits to back up your claim of canvassing. --Oakshade (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC) WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy. WP:VP is not a deletion venue. The WP:AN discussion was also a consensus, that WP:VP isn't a deletion venue as there is no policy that allows it. And without diffs, this is just FUD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC) WP is not a democracy - but seeking to silence the voice of the others is undemocratic. Szzuk (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC) That makes no sense. No one is actively trying to silence anyone. I think you are getting a bit more dramatic than the situation calls for. VP has never been the place to decide what is deleted. Most people don't visit VP, so I suppose you are ignoring their input by having deletion discussions at VP..... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC) The general trend of this discussion seems to be 'ignore the VPP'. I'm not saying they decide on the delete - just that the opinion counts because they were asked a very direct question relating to the issue. Szzuk (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC) I tried to collapse the above because 1) It's clear everyone has read the close and repeating it is silly lengthening of the page; 2) This extended commentary is WP:BLUDGEON, you're just saying the same things over and over again; 3) Everyone already knows the outcome of this discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC) The purpose of DRV is to examine the validity of the close - and you don't even want to see it. Szzuk (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Are you trying to be offensive? Do you think we do not know the purpose of DRV? We do. People's comments show they have read the the close. Your saying the same thing again and again does not help anyone, at all - it just makes your claims look weak, for example using "immaculate" for a close that is overwhelmingly in the process of being overturned is just nonsense, as is your silly argument trying to make it about the closer, and your bizarre claims about democracy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC) You deleted the conversation and it had to be restored! An endorse outcome is still possible because WP is not a democracy. Szzuk (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC) What is your odd exclamation point about, now? No, it did not have to be - everyone's already read the same stuff over and over. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC) WP:TPG Szzuk (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus per DGG, really don't see how a VPP discussion with less participants can be called wider (i also !voted delete in the rfc, though weakly) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC) The problem with that logic is the consensus was delete in both locations. hence the above result at the AfD "I’m closing this as delete". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC) What? The consensus at the much more heavily discussed AfD was to keep with the closer ignoring consensus, citing the WP:CONLIMITED consensus at the VPP while applying their own opinion of NOTDIR's application. --Oakshade (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC) This is assuming bad faith on the part of the closer who in fact closed the AfD as delete. You saying that the closer ignored consensus is your own opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC) And for you to support the closer's decision by assuming that the closer's "consensus" was the actual consensus, was circular reasoning. The whole point of DRV is to decide whether the close was valid. No application of your BLUDGEON will change the result one way or the other. Newimpartial (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC) IAR overturn to NC; delete only after finding a better solution. As a long-time if low-intensity wikipedian, I understand the general line of reasoning (NOTDIR, policy clarified at VP, AFD applies policy) leading to deletion. And yet: I'm reading this waiting for a work meeting to start, all of us frequent travelers. I just asked, and 9 of 11 people in the room "regularly" consult WP for airline destination information. One person jokingly said, "it's the one part of WP I trust" to general merriment. All of us have consulted these lists in 2018, in some cases weekly, and yet none of us was aware of the policy discussion that happened at VP in January underpinning this. As I look at the discussion there, it was clearly done with the best intentions, but leaned heavily on some early opinions treated as gospel, e.g. "Impossible to maintain" (perhaps seems that way, but these articles and their related lists of airlines serving a given airport seem to be remarkably up to date, maintained adequately by whatever group of enthusiastic wikignomes); "if I wanted to know who flies to a given destination, I'd ask a travel agent" (yes that is one way, but many people self-plan their travel, don't want/need to pay a travel agent or don't trust they gave a complete answer, and find this info helpful), and "move it to wikivoyage" (who actually have set policy that airline and airline-related articles in general are out of scope). The broadening number of voices speaking up against deletion, in the AFD, and in this DRV, should be an alert that perhaps apparent consensus was illusory, or at least premature; or, if you will, has changed. So, where to from here: rather than jumping to deletion, as participants in the broader "wiki" movement, let's have a broad and well-attended discussion somewhere focused on *solutions*. We have something that works, if doubtless relevant only for a small group of people (something true for lots of corners in WP). Perhaps a better home for it would be wikivoyage or wikidata, if they can be made to agree to take it. Or a site on wikia or a corner of flyertalk, though there are intellectual property issues there. Or maybe the analogies with train networks etc, raised by a few voices but rejected by others at the VP discussion, are actually relevant, and the content should stay here, in the spirit of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Or maybe the airline destination lists should go, but the who-serves-what-airport lists should stay. I don't know. But the degree and tone of the discussion show the VP discussion was, while well-intentioned and raised many good point, at best incomplete. Let's find the right answer first, rather than just say "not here, take it somewhere else". Martinp (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Comment -- There are four classes of articles here: Active, Charter, Defunct, and Subsidiary Airlines. A charter operator is free to claim operations in any market within the range of its fleet. To create a list from the subject's website is inviting a game. Defunct airlines are problematic. We have editors claiming that lists of destinations are easily found. Reliable sources are, in many cases, impossible to find. When the subject's website dies, so does the (arguably) best source. Web archives don't capture drop-down lists. Editors argue that the list of of discontinued destinations tell an important story. Most of the articles about active airlines include terminated destinations and then use the subject's own website as a source. Airlines typically don't tell the story of their failed routes on their commercial website. I don't have a problem with using the subject's own website for destinations currently served. Using it as a basis to claim discontinued destinations is original research at best and needs to be disallowed. Lists of codeshare destinations is also misleading. There are a bunch of articles on subsidiaries that are dodgy, too. Take for example Austral Líneas Aéreas destinations. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Aerolíneas Argentinas. It has separate union contracts, but from a passenger's perspective is the same as the mainline carrier. This situation is very common in Central and South America. The discussion should address these various classes of article. Rhadow (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC) I have dePRODed the article [6]. The problems you raised are not solved by deleting articles. The deletion is far from being uncontroversial considering this discussion. And I suggest you to stop PRODing or AFDing airline destination articles until this discussion is over.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Comment -- The fundamental issue here is the argument for a different standard to be applied to 2006 vintage articles than to ones created today. Insufficiently referenced articles from 2006 are claimed to have a grandfathered claim to notability because of the possibility that references may be found. The same articles today would fail review and never make it to the mainspace. The same is true for photography definitions, train stations, and a host of special interest articles. In any other area, editors would not accept references from the subject's website. Where current destinations are concerned, I think we agree that the subject is an acceptable source. What surprises me is defense of destination articles with no references whatsoever. PROD any of them or take them to AfD. Gallons of virtual ink will be spilled in their defense with, typically, no improvement. Why should our readers accept this lowered standard of reliability? Rhadow (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Rhadow, would you want to agree to not waste ink and start referencing them together on a task force? SportingFlyer (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC) SportingFlyer -- I am happy to contribute to articles (a) that I feel are fundamentally useful to a reader of the encyclopedia and (b) are not a sink of editing effort. I give as an example American Eagle Airlines destinations whose retention you defend. This article would require a monthly review of over a hundred entries every month to keep it up to date. It gets fifteen page views a day. The editing effort (in time) will likely exceed the reading time. How useful is that? Nevertheless, I am the most active editor on that article since this debate reignited. Rhadow (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Rhadow, is there any way I can convince you to stop AfDing these articles until this discussion is over, and possibly withdraw them from deletion for the time being? At the moment we're having this rather contentious discussion over several different places, and it would be best to consolidate the discussion at the moment. The same arguments we saw here are starting to be made over at the American Eagle AfD article, and you're even editing an article you AfD'd! Also, I think you overestimate the amount of time needed to reference these articles to keep them current. We don't need to review over the references of over a hundred entries a month, especially considering it's a binary list. Thanks! SportingFlyer (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC) The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. Rahul Verma (social activist) – Allow Recreation. There's no good consensus on whether the original close was correct, so let's call that NC. But, there's pretty good agreement that, with sources that have appeared since the AfD (specifically the NY Times article), a new attempt at writing an article should be allowed. There was some discussion about whether a new article should need to start from scratch, or if the existing version should be used as the starting point. There wasn't any consensus on that question, but apparently Shibanihk already has a draft ready to go, so that's a moot issue. There was also a somewhat theoretical discussion about whether an allow recreation result makes the new article G4 proof, or whether there's always an implied right to recreate an article if it's not salted. No consensus on that, but I'll state here that any new version certainly will need to meet all of our requirements, and if anybody finds the new version is still lacking, they can bring it back to AfD. As for Shibanihk's question about what to do with their new draft, my personal suggestion would be that running it through WP:AFC to get some review might be a good idea, but there's no requirement to do so. And, for a small dose of piscatorial abuse, yeah, a half hour isn't enough time to wait when asking a question on somebody's talk page. A couple of days is more reasonable. Not to mention, that while I don't know what time zone Julian exists in, the half hour in question was when most people where I live are fast asleep. And, finally, as a practical suggestion for citing NY Times articles, the URL mentioned in the DRV is to the "picture of the front page" version of the article. this URL gets you directly to the article by itself. Albeit with a slightly different headline, but I think that's an International Edition vs U.S. Edition thing. There's probably a URL that gets you directly to the exact version originally cited. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC) – -- RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC) The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. Rahul Verma (social activist) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) He is a grass root worker whose work is making significance change in the life of destitute in India. The New York Times recently did a front page story on him, in this article it is clearly visible that he remain media shy for so many years. His work is praised not only in India but around the world. http://www.nytimes.com/images/2017/12/29/nytfrontpage/INYT_frontpage_global.20171229.pdf One Man’s Stand Against Junk Food as Diabetes Climbs Across India ( online addition) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/health/india-diabetes-junk-food.html Same article was featured as a two page article in printed addition of Gulf times http://gulfnews.com/culture/people/a-father-sues-to-curb-junk-food-as-diabetes-spreads-1.2150937 Here is video featured about his work by CNBC TV 18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZYVav8_r2o HelloDolly89 (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC) I don't follow the "delete" versus "redirect" choice. User:DGG? It seems a bit of an knee jerk over reaction to an unjustified spinout. I'd have !voted "redirect". I think there is a defensible conclusion that consensus was against leaving a separate article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn. The refs in the AfD look strong but appear to have been ignored, at worst it is a searchable term. Szzuk (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC) That's an argument to be explored at AfD, not DRV. JC's close was within discretion, and the XfD was tainted by SPAs. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC) It isn't a bad close, I just prefer overturn to recover info rather than endorse and allow recreation which is starting from scratch. Szzuk (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn to "merge", leaving it to editorial discretion how much text to merge. The nomination was extremely weak – it doesn't matter for notability what most sources say, what matters is whether some have substantial coverage. The !deletes seem non-policy-based to me since they all presume at least some mention at Uday Foundation so a redirect (or merge) would be indicated. Finally, it seems rather difficult to argue that a foundation is notable but the person who set it up, named it. and runs it is not notable. However, our guidelines can be read so as to reach that conclusion and so !votes following that line of thought should be respected. Thincat (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC) I have only just seen the new references (which aren't relevant to whether the AFD was closed properly). If the DRV nominator had waited longer for a reply the deleting admin might well have suggested creating a new article (or draft). Thincat (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Waited longer? Nonsense. The nominator gave me nearly an entire half hour. :) I stand by my decision at the AfD (the "delete" votes largely rested on the sound foundation of WP:NOTINHERETED while the "keeps" included such weak stances as "He deserves to be on Wikipedia" and a simple, unsubstantiated "meets notability requirements"). I saw and continue to see no other way the debate could have been closed. That said, it's been nearly a year so if additional sources have since cropped up and the subject's notability has become better established, I have no objection to trying again. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Overturn to NC overturn to merge as a second choice The policy-based argument for deletion is weak IMO (not notable other than his foundation is like being not notable for anything other than playing baseball). The sources are limited but outstanding. The numbers are split. I'm pretty sure I'd support merging honestly, but I don't think the numbers get us there (even if we treat the deletes as merge !votes, it's only 6 to 4). And again, the front page of the NYT is pretty solid. there is no way this was a delete. Hobit (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC) That's a flimsy analogy, if I'm being honest. A notable baseball player is notable because sources discuss him in the context of his baseball career. As I interpreted the discussion last April, there was (at least) a rough consensus that the sources which mentioned the subject only did so in passing as part of in-depth discussions about his foundation. As we know, creating something notable does not automatically make you notable by extension, and I'm a little surprised that you'd suggest otherwise. The NYT story was published months after the fact, so again, the circumstances may well have changed, and I'd be happy for all of the subject's many supporters if this were the case. I'd just like to make sure we distinguish between a judgment error on my part and an actual shift toward heightened notability over the course of ten months. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC) My point was that statements like "only notable for the thing he does for a living" isn't a reasonable deletion criteria. A lack of coverage of course is. But that's not what some of those !votes said. And I'll point out that we treat articles that review books/art as counting toward coverage of the writer/artist. So even then we do sometime count coverage of their work even if it doesn't discuss _them_ in great detail. So the argument that only being notable for one thing means you don't get an article is really flawed IMO. I will note that I think your close at the time was reasonable (I'd missed that the NYT article came after the AfD). Hobit (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Opinion on this ref? It is the best of those included in the AfD and if it is OK then along with the NYTI ref above it would convey enough notability for a standalone article. Szzuk (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Unambiguous Endorse obvious close: those supporting keeping it were SPAs or non-extended confirmed accounts with a likely COI. The arguments in favour of deletion were better. This is also a year after the fact. DRV is not AfD round two, especially not a year later. Juliancolton's explanation above shows that he understands how AfDs work, and that this was well within the discretion of a closer. He should be given a barnstar for this, not have it overturned. Also, if the circumstances have changed: recreate the article and let's see if an independent admin thinks it passes G4. DRV should not be used to G4 proof articles where editors on the "losing" side of an XfD think it has changed. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC) That's actually a large percent of what DRV does. Asking someone to write an article when they it's really unclear if it's going to get speedied is asking a lot of a volunteer. Hobit (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Endorse. Well within closer discretion to accord less weight to SPAs and the like. T. Canens (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Comment I shared a recent front page NYT [7] [8] article about the subject on the talk page of User:Juliancolton on 11 January 2018‎ with the request that if it possible to reinstate the article. Since I got no reply, again I posted the same on his talk page on 9th February 2018 and over here. At no point in time, I mentioned that if the page was wrongly deleted. My point was simple that since the article about the subject appeared on the front page of NYT, and there are few more detailed media sources have appeared in last one year [9] [10] [11] , is it possible to overturn the article well within the guidelines or if we can create a new article about the subject. Thanks HelloDolly89 (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC) You should recreate the article if the DRV ends in endorse. Just keep it a short 2-3 sentences and include only the best 3-4 refs, include in the article recreation edit summary the New York Times front page. If you do that mostly likely it will avoid speedy delete or a further visit to AfD. Szzuk (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Allow recreation. If you feel significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page as per WP:DRVPURPOSE. Shibanihk (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC) This wasn't salted, and it isn't new information at the time of the AfD (sourcing that existed but no one brought forth, etc.) DRV should not be in the business of G4-proofing new articles, which is what an allow recreation result is. DRV is much more sympathetic to attempts to recreate than most CSD reviewing admins, and using it in this way is basically gaming the system, IMO. Anyone is always free to recreate a non-salted article so long as it passes the G4 standard. As we cannot know if the article will pass the G4 standard until we see it, a close of endorse is best, with the standard disclaimer that anyone can recreate if they feel it passes G4. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Thanks TonyBallioni So in case of new draft, I need to inform Juliancolton in advance or May I share the same with with both of you for review / advice. My draft with few important references to reliable published sources are ready. Shibanihk (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC) The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


Archive[edit] Archives, by year and month Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec v t e Wikipedia community For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard. About Wikipedia Welcome! Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics Milestones The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous Awards Reward board Contests Contents and grading Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation Creation Help Vital articles Today's articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Portals Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors WikiProjects and collaborations Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility Organizations category Maintenance tasks Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues Administrators and noticeboards Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement Content dispute resolution Editor assistance Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources Mediation Other noticeboards and assistance Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Online Ambassadors Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Paid editors Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education New pages patrol General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse Deletion discussions Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Books Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue Elections and votings Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones Directories and summaries Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Template messages Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wikis Wiki markup Book Media Category Templates Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=826518004" Categories: Wikipedia deletionWikipedia maintenanceWikipedia processesHidden categories: Noindexed pagesWikipedia move-protected project pages


Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog in Namespaces Project pageTalk Variants Views ReadEditView history More Search Navigation Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia store Interaction HelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact page Tools What links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata item Print/export Create a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version In other projects Wikimedia CommonsWikiquoteWikivoyage Languages العربيةবাংলাभोजपुरीBrezhonegDanskDeutschEspañolEsperantoفارسی한국어हिन्दीBahasa IndonesiaNederlands日本語PolskiPortuguêsSimple EnglishTiếng Việt中文 Edit links This page was last edited on 19 February 2018, at 16:06. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view (window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgPageParseReport":{"limitreport":{"cputime":"0.468","walltime":"0.773","ppvisitednodes":{"value":2151,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":519457,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":5237,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":10,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":5,"limit":500},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 264.530 1 -total"," 22.83% 60.383 1 Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Active"," 18.54% 49.056 1 Template:Ombox"," 13.15% 34.787 1 Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Recent"," 11.04% 29.203 1 Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_February_9"," 9.40% 24.875 1 Template:Deletion_debates"," 9.36% 24.761 1 Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Discussions"," 8.77% 23.187 3 Template:Shortcut"," 8.34% 22.052 1 Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_February_19"," 8.33% 22.031 1 Template:Sidebar"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.060","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":2723866,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1256","timestamp":"20180221104648","ttl":3600,"transientcontent":true}}});});(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":118,"wgHostname":"mw1238"});});


Wikipedia:Deletion_review - Photos and All Basic Informations

Wikipedia:Deletion_review More Links

Wikipedia:Deletion DiscussionsWikipedia:CSDWikipedia:PRODWikipedia:Requests For UndeletionWikipedia:REVDELWikipedia:Deletion Review/Administrator InstructionsWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:Deletion ProcessWikipedia:XfD TodayWikipedia:Requests For UndeletionSpecial:Log/deleteCategory:Wikipedia Administrators Willing To Provide Copies Of Deleted ArticlesWikipedia:Articles For DeletionWikipedia:Articles For Deletion/Log/2018 February 21Category:AfD DebatesWikipedia:Articles For Deletion/Log/2018 February 14Wikipedia:Templates For DiscussionWikipedia:Templates For Discussion/Log/2018 February 21Category:Templates For DiscussionWikipedia:Templates For Discussion/Log/2018 February 14Wikipedia:Templates For Discussion/Holding CellWikipedia:Files For DiscussionWikipedia:Files For Discussion/2018 February 21Category:Wikipedia Files For DiscussionWikipedia:Files For Discussion/2018 February 14Wikipedia:Categories For DiscussionWikipedia:Categories For Discussion/Log/2018 February 21Category:Categories For DiscussionWikipedia:Categories For Discussion/Log/2018 February 14Wikipedia:Categories For Discussion/SpeedyWikipedia:Redirects For DiscussionWikipedia:Redirects For Discussion/Log/2018 February 21Category:Redirects For DiscussionWikipedia:Redirects For Discussion/Log/2018 February 14Wikipedia:Redirects For Discussion/LogWikipedia:Miscellany For DeletionWikipedia:Miscellany For DeletionCategory:Miscellaneous Pages For DeletionWikipedia:Miscellany For DeletionWikipedia:Criteria For Speedy DeletionCategory:Candidates For Speedy DeletionWikipedia:Proposed DeletionCategory:All Articles Proposed For DeletionWikipedia:Proposed Deletion (books)Wikipedia:Proposed Deletion Of Biographies Of Living PeopleWikipedia:Deletion PolicyWikipedia:Deletion ProcessWikipedia:Guide To DeletionWikipedia:Deletion Guidelines For AdministratorsTemplate:Deletion DebatesTemplate Talk:Deletion DebatesWikipedia:Criteria For Speedy DeletionWikipedia:Deletion ProcessWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:Deletion ProcessWikipedia:ROUGH CONSENSUSWikipedia:Criteria For Speedy DeletionWikipedia:Criteria For Speedy DeletionWikipedia:Renominating For DeletionWikipedia:Other Stuff ExistsWikipedia:Proposed DeletionWikipedia:Requests For UndeletionWikipedia:Requests For UndeletionWikipedia:REFUNDWikipedia:List Of PoliciesWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:Deletion Review/Perennial RequestsWikipedia:Articles For DeletionWikipedia:Criteria For Speedy DeletionWikipedia:Deletion DebatesWikipedia:Guide To DeletionTemplate:TempUndeleteWikipedia:BLPWikipedia:ConsensusWikipedia:Deletion Review/Administrator InstructionsWikipedia:Deletion DebatesWikipedia:Deletion ProcessWikipedia:Criteria For Speedy DeletionWikipedia:Deletion VenuesWikipedia:PRODWikipedia:Requests For UndeletionTemplate:DRVNoteWikipedia:Deletion Review/ActiveWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2018 February 21Wikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2018 February 20Priya Prakash VarrierPriya Prakash VarrierUser:Winged Blades Of GodricUser Talk:Winged Blades Of GodricPriya Prakash VarrierSpecial:WhatLinksHere/Priya Prakash VarrierWikipedia:Articles For Deletion/Priya Prakash VarrierSpecial:Undelete/Priya Prakash VarrierOru Adaar LoveUser:BriUser Talk:BriWikipedia:CONSENSUSUser:SitushUser Talk:SitushWikipedia:SALTUser:BriUser:BishonenUser Talk:BishonenUser:Hut 8.5User:SitushUser Talk:SitushUser:Hut 8.5Wikipedia:TOP25User:BriUser Talk:BriFirst Information ReportUser:SitushUser Talk:SitushUser:DanielRigalPriya Prakash VarrierOru Adaar LoveUser:BishonenUser Talk:BishonenWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2018 February 19User:Hut 8.5Special:WhatLinksHere/Donnie BrennanSpecial:Undelete/Donnie BrennanBumfightsUser:GuzzyGUser Talk:GuzzyGUser:KusmaUser Talk:KusmaSpecial:Contributions/KusmaUser:GuzzyGUser Talk:GuzzyGBrowseAloudBrowseAloudWikipedia:Articles For Deletion/BrowseAloud (3rd Nomination)User:KTCUser Talk:KTCBrowseAloudTalk:BrowseAloudSpecial:WhatLinksHere/BrowseAloudWikipedia:Articles For Deletion/BrowseAloud (2nd Nomination)Special:Undelete/BrowseAloudUser:PigsonthewingUser Talk:PigsonthewingSpecial:Contributions/PigsonthewingWikipedia:NWikipedia:RSUser:Fish And KarateUser Talk:Fish And KarateUser:PigsonthewingUser Talk:PigsonthewingSpecial:Contributions/PigsonthewingWikipedia:NUser:Fish And KarateUser Talk:Fish And KarateUser:Fish And KarateUser Talk:Fish And KarateUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:ReykUser Talk:ReykUser:PigsonthewingUser Talk:PigsonthewingSpecial:Contributions/PigsonthewingUser:Only In DeathUser Talk:Only In DeathUser:PigsonthewingUser Talk:PigsonthewingSpecial:Contributions/PigsonthewingUser:Winged Blades Of GodricUser Talk:Winged Blades Of GodricUser:GamalielUser Talk:GamalielUser:GnangarraUser Talk:GnangarraUser:OwenBlackerUser Talk:OwenBlackerTemplate:PingUser:PigsonthewingUser Talk:SandsteinUser:WittylamaUser Talk:WittylamaUser:Salvidrim!User Talk:SalvidrimUser:Salvidrim!User Talk:SalvidrimUser:Andy DingleyUser Talk:Andy DingleyUser Talk:JzGUser:JzG/helpUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukDraft:BrowseAloudUser:The Ed17User Talk:The Ed17Wikipedia:OMTUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:Andy DingleyUser Talk:Andy DingleyUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:Hut 8.5User:SeraphimbladeUser Talk:SeraphimbladeUser:LankiveilUser Talk:LankiveilUser:PigsonthewingUser:DGGUser Talk:DGGUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:SandsteinUser:NyttendUser Talk:NyttendSpecial:WhatLinksHere/Cherise HaugenWikipedia:Articles For Deletion/Cherise HaugenSpecial:Undelete/Cherise HaugenWikipedia:Articles For Deletion/Allison Brown (2nd Nomination)Wikipedia:Articles For Deletion/Janel BishopUser:PageantUpdaterUser Talk:PageantUpdaterUser:SeraphimbladeUser Talk:SeraphimbladeUser:HobitUser Talk:HobitUser:SeraphimbladeUser Talk:SeraphimbladeUser:HobitUser Talk:HobitWikipedia:1EUser:LegacypacUser Talk:LegacypacUser:PageantUpdaterUser Talk:PageantUpdaterUser:SeraphimbladeUser Talk:SeraphimbladeUser:PageantUpdaterUser Talk:PageantUpdaterWikipedia:MENTORUser:Jack SebastianUser Talk:Jack SebastianUser:ReykUser Talk:ReykUser:PageantUpdaterUser Talk:PageantUpdaterUser:ReykUser Talk:ReykUser Talk:Black KiteUser:SeraphimbladeJanel BishopAllison BrownUser:AtsmeUser Talk:AtsmeSpecial:EmailUser/AtsmeUser:SeraphimbladeUser Talk:SeraphimbladeWikipedia:MFDUser:Legacypac/CSD LogUser:PageantUpdaterWikipedia:NUser:LegacypacUser Talk:LegacypacUser:GuzzyGUser Talk:GuzzyGMiss Teen USAUser Talk:Black KiteUser:SeraphimbladeUser Talk:SeraphimbladeUser:DGGUser Talk:DGGWikipedia:ANYBIOUser:NewYorkActuaryUser Talk:NewYorkActuaryUser:SportingFlyerUser Talk:SportingFlyerUser:KusmaUser Talk:KusmaSpecial:Contributions/KusmaWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2018 February 18Jeff BezansonJeff BezansonUser:SpartazUser Talk:SpartazJeff BezansonTalk:Jeff BezansonSpecial:WhatLinksHere/Jeff BezansonWikipedia:Articles For Deletion/Jeff BezansonSpecial:Undelete/Jeff BezansonWikipedia:BADNACUser:IcewhizUser Talk:IcewhizUser:JdcomixUser Talk:JdcomixUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:HobitUser Talk:HobitLinda WeberLinda WeberUser:RoySmithUser Talk:RoySmithLinda WeberTalk:Linda WeberSpecial:WhatLinksHere/Linda WeberWikipedia:Articles For Deletion/Linda WeberSpecial:Undelete/Linda WeberUser:Northamerica1000User:MarquardtikaUser Talk:Rusf10Wikipedia:NPOLLinda WeberUser:TomwsulcerUser Talk:TomwsulcerUser:TomwsulcerUser Talk:TomwsulcerWikipedia:NPOLWikipedia:GNGWikipedia:10YTUser:BearcatUser Talk:BearcatUser:ReykUser Talk:ReykWikipedia:RELISTUser:Hut 8.5User:Atlantic306User Talk:Atlantic306User:SportingFlyerUser Talk:SportingFlyerWikipedia:POLOUTCOMESUser:BearcatWikipedia:SIGCOVUser:MarquardtikaUser Talk:MarquardtikaWikipedia:POLOUTCOMESUser:Enos733User Talk:Enos733User:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:LankiveilUser Talk:LankiveilUser Talk:Rusf10User:TomwsulcerUser Talk:TomwsulcerUser:Enos733User Talk:Enos733User:BearcatUser Talk:BearcatRobert AmenRobert AmenUser:JdcomixUser:RoySmithUser Talk:RoySmithRobert AmenTalk:Robert AmenSpecial:WhatLinksHere/Robert AmenWikipedia:Articles For Deletion/Robert AmenSpecial:Undelete/Robert AmenUser:JdcomixUser Talk:Rusf10User:JdcomixUser Talk:JdcomixWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2018 February 15Bernie SinglesBernie SinglesSpecial:WhatLinksHere/Bernie SinglesWikipedia:Articles For Deletion/Bernie SinglesSpecial:Undelete/Bernie SinglesUser:Davey2116User Talk:Davey2116User:TonyBallioniUser Talk:TonyBallioniHelp:Edit ConflictWikipedia:PERXUser:AnarchyteSpecial:Contributions/AnarchyteUser Talk:AnarchyteUser:Jayron32User Talk:Jayron32User:Jayron32User Talk:Jayron32User:HhhhhkohhhhhUser Talk:HhhhhkohhhhhUser:ThincatUser Talk:ThincatUser:ReykUser Talk:ReykWikipedia:RSWikipedia:NOTTEMPORARYUser:RoySmithUser Talk:RoySmithUser:ThincatWikipedia:RSUser:RoySmithUser Talk:RoySmithUser:RoySmithUser:SmartyllamaUser Talk:SmartyllamaUser:Atlantic306User Talk:Atlantic306User:SportingFlyerUser Talk:SportingFlyerUser:HobitUser Talk:HobitWikipedia:NOTNEWSUser:TonyBallioniUser Talk:TonyBallioniGQUSA TodayUser:HobitUser Talk:HobitUser:Jayron32User Talk:Jayron32User:HobitUser Talk:HobitWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2018 February 14Special:WhatLinksHere/2018 UPSL SeasonWikipedia:Articles For Deletion/2018 UPSL SeasonSpecial:Undelete/2018 UPSL SeasonWikipedia:GNGUser:TrackinfoUser:SportingFlyerWikipedia:NOTVOTETalk PageWikipedia:GNGWikipedia:FOOTYUser:SportingFlyerUser Talk:SportingFlyerUser:SportingFlyerUser Talk:SportingFlyerUser Talk:BrownHairedGirlWikipedia:OSEWikipedia:NOTABILITYUser:BrownHairedGirlUser Talk:BrownHairedGirlSpecial:Contributions/BrownHairedGirlWikipedia:BLUDWikipedia:GNGUser:SportingFlyerUser Talk:SportingFlyerWikipedia:USERFIEDUser:Bashum104/2018 UPSL SeasonUser:BrownHairedGirlUser Talk:BrownHairedGirlSpecial:Contributions/BrownHairedGirlWikipedia:SYNTHWikipedia:NSEASONSUser:ThincatUser Talk:ThincatWikipedia:SUPERVOTEUser:SmartyllamaUser Talk:SmartyllamaWikipedia:SYNTHWikipedia:SIGCOVWikipedia:INHERITWikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSWikipedia:Articles For Deletion/2017 America East Men's Soccer TournamentUser Talk:BrownHairedGirlWikipedia:ROUGH CONSENSUSWikipedia:NOTVOTEUser:Jay EyemUser Talk:Jay EyemArgument In The AlternativeUser:Jay EyemUser Talk:Jay EyemUser:SmartyllamaUser Talk:SmartyllamaUser:HobitUser Talk:HobitWikipedia:WikiProject FootballUser:HhhhhkohhhhhUser Talk:HhhhhkohhhhhUser:HhhhhkohhhhhUser Talk:HhhhhkohhhhhUser:HhhhhkohhhhhUser Talk:HhhhhkohhhhhUser:GiantSnowmanUser Talk:GiantSnowmanUser:SmartyllamaUser Talk:SmartyllamaUser:GiantSnowmanUser:HhhhhkohhhhhUser Talk:HhhhhkohhhhhWikipedia:NOTAVOTEUser:GiantSnowmanUser Talk:GiantSnowmanUser:Hut 8.5Wikipedia:SYNTHWikipedia:GNGWikipedia:ROUTINEWikipedia:BLUDGEONUser:Jay EyemUser Talk:Jay EyemWikipedia:SYNTHUser:Bashum104User Talk:Bashum104Help:Edit ConflictUser:Hut 8.5Wikipedia:INHERITWikipedia:COATRACKWikipedia:SYNTHWikipedia:ATAUser:ThincatUser Talk:ThincatWikipedia:SYNTHWikipedia:INHERITUser:Bashum104User Talk:Bashum104Wikipedia:SYNTHWikipedia:WikilawyeringWikipedia:BLUDUser:TrackinfoUser Talk:TrackinfoWikipedia:UNCIVILUser Talk:BrownHairedGirlWikipedia:Templates For Discussion/Log/2018 February 3User:Jay EyemUser Talk:Jay EyemWikipedia:BURDENWikipedia:ROUTINEWikipedia:RSWikipedia:INHERITWikipedia:BADGERPsychological ProjectionWikipedia:BLUDUser:TrackinfoUser Talk:TrackinfoWikipedia:AGFWikipedia:BADGERWikipedia:BURDENWikipedia:SYNTHWikipedia:BLUDGEONWikipedia:UNCIVILUser:GiantSnowmanUser:Jay EyemUser Talk:Jay EyemUser:ReykUser Talk:ReykUser:Fenix DownUser Talk:Fenix Down2018 NFL SeasonWikipedia:OSEUser:SmartyllamaUser Talk:SmartyllamaUser:Fenix DownUser Talk:Fenix DownUser:Bashum104User Talk:Bashum104User:SmartyllamaUser Talk:SmartyllamaUser:SportingFlyerUser Talk:SportingFlyerUser:OculiUser Talk:OculiUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:Hullaballoo WolfowitzUser Talk:Hullaballoo WolfowitzWikipedia:Deletion Review/RecentWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2018 February 12User:StifleUser Talk:StifleSpecial:WhatLinksHere/Joseph BeteshWikipedia:Articles For Deletion/Joseph BeteshSpecial:Undelete/Joseph BeteshUser:SandsteinUser:A21sauceUser Talk:A21sauceUser:MozucatUser:RoySmithUser Talk:RoySmithUser:ReykUser Talk:ReykUser:SportingFlyerUser Talk:SportingFlyerUser:A21sauceUser Talk:A21sauceUser:A21sauceUser:Narutolovehinata5User Talk:Narutolovehinata5Special:Contributions/Narutolovehinata5Wikipedia:CSDSpecial:NewPagesUser:A21sauceUser Talk:A21sauceUser:HobitUser Talk:HobitUser:SandsteinUser:A21sauceUser Talk:A21sauceUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:LankiveilUser Talk:LankiveilUser:LankiveilUser:A21sauceUser Talk:A21sauceWikipedia:CIVILUser:RoySmithUser Talk:RoySmithUser:LankiveilUser Talk:LankiveilWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2018 February 9Adria Airways DestinationsUser:RoySmithUser Talk:RoySmithUser:RoySmithUser Talk:RoySmithUser:Hut 8.5Adria Airways DestinationsTalk:Adria Airways DestinationsSpecial:WhatLinksHere/Adria Airways DestinationsWikipedia:Articles For Deletion/Adria Airways DestinationsSpecial:Undelete/Adria Airways DestinationsUser:SpartazWikipedia:Articles For Deletion/Adria Airways DestinationsUser:JetstreamerUser Talk:JetstreamerUser:JetstreamerUser Talk:JetstreamerWikipedia:NOTDIRWikipedia:NOTDIRList Of Procter & Gamble BrandsUser:GarretkaUser Talk:GarretkaWikipedia:CSDWikipedia:DELSORTWikipedia:NOTDIRUser:KusmaUser Talk:KusmaSpecial:Contributions/KusmaWikipedia:Village Pump (policy)User:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:SportingFlyerUser Talk:SportingFlyerUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:SjakkalleUser Talk:SjakkalleUser:SportingFlyerUser Talk:SportingFlyerWikipedia:CONLIMITEDWikipedia:CONSENSUSWikipedia:EDITCONSENSUSUser:OakshadeUser Talk:OakshadeUser:SpartazUser Talk:Anne Drew Andrew And DrewWikipedia Talk:AIRLINESWikipedia:NOTDIRUser:GarretkaUser Talk:GarretkaWikipedia:NOTDIRAdria AirwaysUser:Knowledgekid87User Talk:Knowledgekid87User:GarretkaUser Talk:GarretkaUser:Knowledgekid87User Talk:Knowledgekid87MOS:RELTIMEUser:GarretkaUser Talk:GarretkaWikipedia Talk:AIRLINESUser:JetstreamerUser Talk:JetstreamerUser:JetstreamerSpecial:Diff/82313162Wikipedia:CanvassUser:BillhpikeUser Talk:BillhpikeSpecial:Contributions/BillhpikeUser:BillhpikeUser:JetstreamerUser Talk:JetstreamerUser:JetstreamerSpecial:Diff/824839631User:BillhpikeUser Talk:BillhpikeSpecial:Contributions/BillhpikeWikipedia:AIRLINESWikipedia:APPNOTEUser:CapitalSashaUser Talk:CapitalSashaWikipedia:FORUMSHOPUser:Andrew DavidsonUser Talk:Andrew DavidsonWikipedia:NOTDIRECTORYUser:Knowledgekid87User Talk:Knowledgekid87Wikipedia:NOTAVOTEWikipedia:WAXWikipedia:USEFULWikipedia:NOTGUIDEWikipedia:NOTDIRECTORYUser:Knowledgekid87User Talk:Knowledgekid87Wikipedia:CONSENSUSUser:W7KyzmJtSpecial:Contributions/W7KyzmJtUser Talk:W7KyzmJtWikipedia:VPPUser:BillhpikeUser Talk:BillhpikeSpecial:Contributions/BillhpikeUser:Knowledgekid87User Talk:Knowledgekid87Wikipedia:Don't Demolish The House While It's Still Being BuiltUser:SmokeyJoeUser Talk:SmokeyJoeUser:Hut 8.5User:IridescentUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukWikipedia:DINCUser:JetstreamerUser Talk:JetstreamerUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukBarack ObamaBarack ObamaUser:CapitalSashaUser Talk:CapitalSashaUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukSpecial:Contributions/81.204.120.137User Talk:81.204.120.137User:KusmaUser Talk:KusmaSpecial:Contributions/KusmaUser:TavixUser Talk:TavixSpecial:Contributions/81.204.120.137Wikipedia:TERMWikipedia:MOSWikipedia:SOCKUser:OakshadeUser Talk:OakshadeSpecial:Contributions/2A02:A451:8B2D:1:D134:959D:9490:6F6BWikipedia:NPAWikipedia:SCRUTINYWikipedia:BLOCK EVASIONUser:OakshadeUser Talk:OakshadeUser:OakshadeWikipedia:AGFWikipedia:IPSOCKUser:IridescentUser:IridescentWikipedia:CIVILITYWikipedia:DROPTHESTICKUser:OakshadeUser Talk:OakshadeUser:AlanscottwalkerUser Talk:AlanscottwalkerUser:AlanscottwalkerUser Talk:AlanscottwalkerWikipedia:VPPUser:YodinUser Talk:YodinUser:NewimpartialUser Talk:NewimpartialUser:TavixUser Talk:TavixUser:Reywas92User Talk:Reywas92User:XezbethUser Talk:XezbethWikipedia:VWikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Archive296User:AmmarpadUser Talk:AmmarpadUser:Atlantic306User Talk:Atlantic306User:TonyBallioniUser Talk:TonyBallioniWikipedia:IDONTLIKEITUser:JetstreamerUser Talk:JetstreamerWikipedia:ADMINCONDUser:JetstreamerUser Talk:JetstreamerUser:TonyBallioniUser Talk:TonyBallioniWikipedia:Village Pump (policy)User:JetstreamerUser Talk:JetstreamerWikipedia:LISTCRUFTUser:KusmaUser Talk:KusmaSpecial:Contributions/KusmaUser:TonyBallioniUser Talk:TonyBallioniWikipedia:NOTBURUser:JetstreamerUser Talk:JetstreamerUser:TonyBallioniUser Talk:TonyBallioniUser:JetstreamerUser Talk:JetstreamerUser:TonyBallioniUser:BillhpikeUser Talk:BillhpikeSpecial:Contributions/BillhpikeWikipedia:CENTUser:LugnutsUser Talk:LugnutsUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:JetstreamerUser Talk:JetstreamerWikipedia:VPPUser:IridescentUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:Knowledgekid87User Talk:Knowledgekid87User:Dennis BrownUser Talk:Dennis BrownUser:Tofutwitch11User Talk:Tofutwitch11User:Enos733User Talk:Enos733User:BillhpikeUser Talk:BillhpikeSpecial:Contributions/BillhpikeWikipedia:NOTBUREAUCRACYWikipedia:IARUser:MangoeUser Talk:MangoeUser:KusmaUser Talk:KusmaSpecial:Contributions/KusmaWikipedia:NOTUser:MangoeUser Talk:MangoeWikipedia:NOTDIRWikipedia:NOTUser:CapitalSashaUser Talk:CapitalSashaWikipedia:NOTWikipedia:NOTUser:MangoeUser Talk:MangoeUser:ReykUser Talk:ReykWikipedia:NOTTRAVELWikipedia:NOTTRAVELUser:KusmaUser Talk:KusmaSpecial:Contributions/KusmaUser:Knowledgekid87User Talk:Knowledgekid87User:SmartyllamaUser Talk:SmartyllamaUser:GarretkaUser Talk:GarretkaUser:Knowledgekid87User Talk:Knowledgekid87User:Knowledgekid87User Talk:Knowledgekid87User:GarretkaUser Talk:GarretkaUser:Knowledgekid87User Talk:Knowledgekid87User:SmartyllamaUser Talk:SmartyllamaUser:Knowledgekid87User Talk:Knowledgekid87User:NewimpartialUser Talk:NewimpartialUser:Knowledgekid87User Talk:Knowledgekid87User:DGGUser Talk:DGGWikipedia:PROPOSALUser:AlanscottwalkerUser Talk:AlanscottwalkerUser:DGGUser Talk:DGGWikipedia:NOTDIRUser:JetstreamerUser Talk:JetstreamerWikipedia:NOTDIRWikipedia:VPPUser:BillhpikeUser Talk:BillhpikeSpecial:Contributions/BillhpikeUser:Knowledgekid87User Talk:Knowledgekid87User:Ansh666User Talk:Ansh666User:KusmaUser Talk:KusmaSpecial:Contributions/KusmaUser:UltraexactzzUser Talk:UltraexactzzSpecial:Contributions/UltraexactzzWikipedia:VOGONSUser:Andrew DavidsonUser Talk:Andrew DavidsonUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukButterfly EffectUser:Knowledgekid87User Talk:Knowledgekid87User:UltraexactzzUser Talk:UltraexactzzSpecial:Contributions/UltraexactzzUser:Ansh666User Talk:Ansh666User:Ansh666User Talk:Ansh666User:Ansh666Wikipedia:CONLIMITEDUser:OakshadeUser Talk:OakshadeUser:Ansh666User Talk:Ansh666User:SmartyllamaUser Talk:SmartyllamaUser:KusmaUser Talk:KusmaSpecial:Contributions/KusmaUser:Ansh666User Talk:Ansh666List Of Braathens DestinationsList Of Cathay Dragon DestinationsÁndalus Líneas Aéreas DestinationsRyanair DestinationsUser:KusmaUser Talk:KusmaSpecial:Contributions/KusmaUser:Ansh666User Talk:Ansh666User:HobitUser Talk:HobitWikipedia:NOTTRAVELWikipedia:NOTDIRWikipedia:NOTUser:TazerdadogUser Talk:Rusf10User:Ansh666User Talk:Ansh666User:GarretkaUser Talk:GarretkaWikipedia:SignaturesUser Talk:Rusf10Special:Contributions/Rusf10Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Archive296User:GarretkaUser Talk:GarretkaWikipedia:REVDELUser:SmartyllamaUser Talk:SmartyllamaUser:SportingFlyerUser Talk:SportingFlyerUser:SportingFlyerUser:Knowledgekid87User Talk:Knowledgekid87User:JetstreamerUser Talk:JetstreamerUser:TazerdadogUser Talk:TazerdadogWikipedia:NOTDIRWikipedia:NOTDIRWikipedia:GNGWikipedia:VPPUser:BillhpikeUser Talk:BillhpikeSpecial:Contributions/BillhpikeWikipedia:FORUMSHOPPINGUser:OakshadeUser Talk:OakshadeUser:JetstreamerUser Talk:JetstreamerHelp:Using Talk PagesUser:SpartazUser Talk:SpartazUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:JetstreamerUser Talk:JetstreamerUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukWikipedia:DIFFUser:JetstreamerUser Talk:JetstreamerUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukWikipedia:DIFFUser:JetstreamerUser Talk:JetstreamerUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:OakshadeUser Talk:OakshadeWikipedia:Wikipedia Is Not A DemocracyWikipedia:VPUser:Dennis BrownUser Talk:Dennis BrownUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:Dennis BrownUser Talk:Dennis BrownUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukWikipedia:BLUDGEONUser:AlanscottwalkerUser Talk:AlanscottwalkerUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:AlanscottwalkerUser Talk:AlanscottwalkerUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:AlanscottwalkerUser Talk:AlanscottwalkerWikipedia:TPGUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:GalobtterUser Talk:GalobtterUser:Knowledgekid87User Talk:Knowledgekid87Wikipedia:CONLIMITEDUser:OakshadeUser Talk:OakshadeUser:Knowledgekid87User Talk:Knowledgekid87User:NewimpartialUser Talk:NewimpartialUser:MartinpUser Talk:MartinpAustral Líneas Aéreas DestinationsAerolíneas ArgentinasUser:RhadowUser Talk:RhadowUser:JetstreamerUser Talk:JetstreamerUser:RhadowUser Talk:RhadowUser:SportingFlyerUser Talk:SportingFlyerUser:SportingFlyerAmerican Eagle Airlines DestinationsUser:RhadowUser Talk:RhadowUser:RhadowUser:SportingFlyerUser Talk:SportingFlyerRahul Verma (social Activist)User:ShibanihkUser:ShibanihkWikipedia:AFCWikipedia:TROUTUser:RoySmithUser Talk:RoySmithUser:RoySmithUser Talk:RoySmithRahul Verma (social Activist)Talk:Rahul Verma (social Activist)Special:WhatLinksHere/Rahul Verma (social Activist)Wikipedia:Articles For Deletion/Rahul Verma (social Activist)Special:Undelete/Rahul Verma (social Activist)User:HelloDolly89User Talk:HelloDolly89User:DGGUser:SmokeyJoeUser Talk:SmokeyJoeUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:TonyBallioniUser Talk:TonyBallioniUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUday FoundationUser:ThincatUser Talk:ThincatUser:ThincatUser Talk:ThincatWikipedia:NOTINHERETEDUser:JuliancoltonUser Talk:JuliancoltonUser:HobitUser Talk:HobitUser:JuliancoltonUser Talk:JuliancoltonUser:HobitUser Talk:HobitUser:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukUser:TonyBallioniUser Talk:TonyBallioniUser:HobitUser Talk:HobitUser:Timotheus CanensUser Talk:Timotheus CanensUser:JuliancoltonUser:HelloDolly89User Talk:HelloDolly89User:SzzukUser Talk:SzzukWikipedia:DRVPURPOSEUser:ShibanihkUser Talk:ShibanihkUser:TonyBallioniUser Talk:TonyBallioniUser:TonyBallioniUser:JuliancoltonUser:ShibanihkUser Talk:ShibanihkWikipedia:Deletion Review/ArchiveWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2018 JanuaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2018 FebruaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2017 JanuaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2017 FebruaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2017 MarchWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2017 AprilWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2017 MayWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2017 JuneWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2017 JulyWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2017 AugustWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2017 SeptemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2017 OctoberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2017 NovemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2017 DecemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2016 JanuaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2016 FebruaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2016 MarchWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2016 AprilWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2016 MayWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2016 JuneWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2016 JulyWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2016 AugustWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2016 SeptemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2016 OctoberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2016 NovemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2016 DecemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2015 JanuaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2015 FebruaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2015 MarchWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2015 AprilWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2015 MayWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2015 JuneWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2015 JulyWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2015 AugustWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2015 SeptemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2015 OctoberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2015 NovemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2015 DecemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2014 JanuaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2014 FebruaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2014 MarchWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2014 AprilWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2014 MayWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2014 JuneWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2014 JulyWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2014 AugustWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2014 SeptemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2014 OctoberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2014 NovemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2014 DecemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2013 JanuaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2013 FebruaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2013 MarchWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2013 AprilWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2013 MayWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2013 JuneWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2013 JulyWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2013 AugustWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2013 SeptemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2013 OctoberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2013 NovemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2013 DecemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2012 JanuaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2012 FebruaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2012 MarchWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2012 AprilWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2012 MayWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2012 JuneWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2012 JulyWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2012 AugustWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2012 SeptemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2012 OctoberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2012 NovemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2012 DecemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2011 JanuaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2011 FebruaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2011 MarchWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2011 AprilWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2011 MayWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2011 JuneWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2011 JulyWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2011 AugustWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2011 SeptemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2011 OctoberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2011 NovemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2011 DecemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2010 JanuaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2010 FebruaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2010 MarchWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2010 AprilWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2010 MayWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2010 JuneWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2010 JulyWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2010 AugustWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2010 SeptemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2010 OctoberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2010 NovemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2010 DecemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2009 JanuaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2009 FebruaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2009 MarchWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2009 AprilWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2009 MayWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2009 JuneWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2009 JulyWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2009 AugustWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2009 SeptemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2009 OctoberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2009 NovemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2009 DecemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2008 JanuaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2008 FebruaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2008 MarchWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2008 AprilWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2008 MayWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2008 JuneWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2008 JulyWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2008 AugustWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2008 SeptemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2008 OctoberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2008 NovemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2008 DecemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2007 JanuaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2007 FebruaryWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2007 MarchWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2007 AprilWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2007 MayWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2007 JuneWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2007 JulyWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2007 AugustWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2007 SeptemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2007 OctoberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2007 NovemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2007 DecemberWikipedia:Deletion Review/Recently Concluded (2006 February)Wikipedia:Deletion Review/Recently Concluded (2006 March)Wikipedia:Deletion Review/Recently Concluded (2006 April)Wikipedia:Deletion Review/Recently Concluded (2006 May)Wikipedia:Deletion Review/Recently Concluded (2006 June)Wikipedia:Deletion Review/Recently Concluded (2006 July)Wikipedia:Deletion Review/Recently Concluded (2006 August)Wikipedia:Deletion Review/Recently Concluded (2006 September)Wikipedia:Deletion Review/Recently Concluded (2006 October)Wikipedia:Deletion Review/Recently Concluded (2006 November)Wikipedia:Deletion Review/Log/2006 DecemberTemplate:Wikipedia CommunityTemplate Talk:Wikipedia CommunityWikipedia CommunityWikipedia:Community PortalWikipedia:DashboardWikipedia:AboutWikipedia:Welcoming Committee/Welcome To WikipediaWikipedia:AdministrationWikipedia:NewsWikipedia:Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia:Goings-onWikipedia:Wikipedia In The MediaWikipedia:MeetupWikipedia:Mailing ListsWikipedia:WikipediansWikipedia:StatisticsWikipedia:MilestonesWikipedia:The Wikipedia LibraryWikipedia:Centralized DiscussionWikipedia:Village PumpWikipedia:Village Pump (idea Lab)Wikipedia:Village Pump (policy)Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals)Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical)Wikipedia:Village Pump (miscellaneous)Wikipedia:AwardsWikipedia:Reward BoardWikipedia:ContestsPortal:ContentsWikipedia:WikiProject AssessmentWikipedia:Requested ArticlesWikipedia:Most-wanted ArticlesWikipedia:Requested Articles/ImagesWikipedia:Requested PicturesWikipedia:Articles For CreationWikipedia:Article CreationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles For Creation/Help DeskWikipedia:Vital ArticlesWikipedia:Today's Articles For ImprovementWikipedia:Peer ReviewWikipedia:Good Article NominationsWikipedia:Featured Article CandidatesWikipedia:Featured List CandidatesWikipedia:Featured Picture CandidatesWikipedia:Featured Portal CandidatesWikipedia:Featured Topic CandidatesWikipedia:TranslationWikipedia:Pages Needing Translation Into EnglishTalk:Main PageWikipedia:Main Page/ErrorsWikipedia:WikiProjectCategory:Wikipedia CollaborationsWikipedia:WikiProject Council/DirectoryWikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/CultureWikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/GeographicalWikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/History And SocietyWikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/WikipediaWikipedia:PatrolsWikipedia:Recent Changes PatrolWikipedia:Counter-Vandalism UnitWikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial TeamWikipedia:WikiProject AccessibilityCategory:Wikipedian OrganizationsWikipedia:MaintenanceWikipedia:Task CenterWikipedia:Community Portal/OpentaskWikipedia:BacklogCategory:Wikipedia BacklogCategory:Administrative BacklogWikipedia:Edit RequestsCategory:Wikipedia Edit RequestsWikipedia:Database ReportsTemplate:Category TrackerWikipedia:Dusty ArticlesSpecial:SpecialPagesSpecial:NewPagesFeedSpecial:RecentChangesWikipedia:List Of Controversial IssuesWikipedia:AdministratorsWikipedia:NoticeboardsWikipedia:Administrators' NoticeboardWikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/IncidentsWikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Edit WarringWikipedia:Administrator Intervention Against VandalismTemplate:Admin DashboardWikipedia:Requests For Administrator AttentionWikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Requests For ClosureWikipedia:Requests For Page ProtectionWikipedia:Requests For PermissionsWikipedia:Sockpuppet InvestigationsWikipedia:WikiProject On Open ProxiesWikipedia:Revision DeletionWikipedia:OversightWikipedia:Requests For OversightWikipedia:Usernames For Administrator AttentionWikipedia:Changing UsernameMediaWiki Talk:TitleblacklistWikipedia:OTRS NoticeboardWikipedia:Bureaucrats' NoticeboardWikipedia:Requests For AdminshipWikipedia:Requests For AdminshipWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/NoticeboardWikipedia:Arbitration/RequestsWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/EnforcementWikipedia:Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:Editor Assistance/RequestsWikipedia:Requests For Comment/AllWikipedia:Third OpinionWikipedia:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardWikipedia:Biographies Of Living Persons/NoticeboardWikipedia:Conflict Of Interest/NoticeboardWikipedia:External Links/NoticeboardWikipedia:Fringe Theories/NoticeboardWikipedia:Neutral Point Of View/NoticeboardWikipedia:No Original Research/NoticeboardWikipedia:Reliable Sources/NoticeboardWikipedia:Requests For MediationWikipedia:Regional Notice BoardsWikipedia:Request DirectoryCategory:Wikipedia Requests Related To HelpWikipedia:QuestionsWikipedia:TeahouseWikipedia:Help DeskWikipedia:Reference DeskWikipedia:Adopt-a-userSpecial:OnlineVolunteersWikipedia:Copyright AssistanceWikipedia:Contributor Copyright InvestigationsWikipedia:Copyright ProblemsWikipedia:Media Copyright QuestionsWikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor HelpWikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource RequestWikipedia:Proposed MergersWikipedia:Requests For History MergeWikipedia:Requested MovesWikipedia:Requests For Page ImportationWikipedia Talk:WikiProject SpamMediaWiki Talk:Spam-blacklistMediaWiki Talk:Spam-whitelistWikipedia:Bots/NoticeboardWikipedia:Education NoticeboardWikipedia:New Pages Patrol/NoticeboardWikipedia:General SanctionsWikipedia:Editing RestrictionsWikipedia:Long-term AbuseWikipedia:Deletion ProcessWikipedia:Guide To DeletionWikipedia:Deletion Guidelines For AdministratorsWikipedia:XfD TodayWikipedia:Articles For DeletionWikipedia:Templates For DiscussionWikipedia:Files For DiscussionWikipedia:Categories For DiscussionWikipedia:Redirects For DiscussionWikipedia:Miscellany For DeletionWikipedia:Criteria For Speedy DeletionWikipedia:Proposed DeletionWikipedia:Proposed Deletion Of Biographies Of Living PeopleWikipedia:Proposed Deletion (books)Wikipedia:Requests For UndeletionWikipedia:Arguments To Avoid In Deletion DiscussionsWikipedia:Arguments To Make In Deletion DiscussionsWikipedia:Article Rescue SquadronWikipedia:ElectionsWikipedia:VotingWikipedia:Requests For CommentWikipedia:WikiProject DemocracyWikipedia:Voting Is Not EvilWikipedia:Times That 1000 Or More Wikipedians Supported SomethingWikipedia:Directories And IndexesWikipedia:Department DirectoryWikipedia:Edit Summary LegendWikipedia:Editor's Index To WikipediaWikipedia:Essay DirectoryWikipedia:FAQ/IndexWikipedia:GlossaryWikipedia:Wikipedia AbbreviationsHelp:DirectoryWikipedia:Manual Of Style/ContentsWikipedia:Simplified Manual Of StyleWikipedia:Simplified RulesetWikipedia:Five PillarsWikipedia:List Of PoliciesWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesWikipedia:Shortcut DirectoryWikipedia:Template MessagesWikipedia:Citation TemplatesWikipedia:TipsWikipedia:Tip Of The DayWikipedia:ToolsWikipedia:WikiNodeHelp:CheatsheetBook:WikipediaCategory:WikipediansCategory:Wikipedia TemplatesHelp:CategoryCategory:Wikipedia DeletionCategory:Wikipedia MaintenanceCategory:Wikipedia ProcessesCategory:Noindexed PagesCategory:Wikipedia Move-protected Project PagesDiscussion About Edits From This IP Address [n]A List Of Edits Made From This IP Address [y]View The Project Page [c]Discussion About The Content Page [t]Edit This Page [e]Visit The Main Page [z]Guides To Browsing WikipediaFeatured Content – The Best Of WikipediaFind Background Information On Current EventsLoad A Random Article [x]Guidance On How To Use And Edit WikipediaFind Out About WikipediaAbout The Project, What You Can Do, Where To Find ThingsA List Of Recent Changes In The Wiki [r]List Of All English Wikipedia Pages Containing Links To This Page [j]Recent Changes In Pages Linked From This Page [k]Upload Files [u]A List Of All Special Pages [q]Wikipedia:AboutWikipedia:General Disclaimer



view link view link view link view link view link