Harry Dunn (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No problem with the original deletion. However, it created a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page, Harry Dunn (disambiguation). The now-red-linked base name Harry Dunn had fifty-odd incoming links, most or all of which intended the deleted article, so I could not simply move the disambiguation page to the base name. The deletion consensus was that the article did not meet the general notability guideline nor the football notability guideline. I re-created the article (moved to my user space) and added citations (NEW LINK after undelete: [1]) throughout the article that might meet the GNG, and checked with the deleting admin. After discussion, I moved the article back to the mainspace. An inaccurate speedy request was made, which claimed the article was speediable under G4 as a "substantially identical" repost of the deleted article. I contested it with the note that it was not substantially identical, and that the changes were made to address the GNG problem (the deletion reason), and also that the presence of the article benefits the encyclopedia in solving the problem of the malplaced disambiguation page and the incoming links to the base name. Discussion with the speedy-ing admin suggested a DRV (even though I don't think the original delete was incorrect). I think the speedy should undone. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In order to help participants in this discussion to asses the situation, I will explain why how I came to delete the article, why I did so, and why I still think I was right to do so.

The article was deleted following an AfD discussion. The nominator has said both "No problem with the original deletion" and "I don't think the original delete was incorrect". However, the nominator found that this caused what she/he thought were problems, regarding redlinks and a disambiguation page. She/he proceeded to add references, evidently with the purpose of showing notability, and used that as justification for overturning the result of the deletion discussion. The article was then tagged for speedy deletion as a repost of an article deleted following a discussion, and I accordingly deleted it. It seems that the nominator is objecting to my deletion, on the grounds that the article deleted the second time was not "substantially identical" to the version that was deleted the first time.

Apart from adding some references, and a few details such as adding his date of birth, and three "citation needed" tags, the only difference was the addition of a paragraph beginning "He is sometimes confused with another long-standing Scarborough player called Harry Dunn". I do not think that constitutes evidence of notability or a substantial change to the article. So that anyone participating in this discussion can judge for themselves whether they agree with that account, the diff between the version deleted first time and teh version deelted the second time is here.

Turning to the added references, none of them, as cited, is to an online source, but I have managed to find online copies of three of them, and an excerpt from a fourth. One is a report in The Evening Chronicle about Tommy Cassidy, with a brief mention of Harry Dunn, consisting of one sentence plus a two-sentence quote from him. Another is an article with a two sentence mention of a different person called Harry Dunn, and a one sentence statement that the Harry Dunn who is the subject of the Wikipedia article had his name listed as Harry A. Dunn to disambiguate him, that being the only mention of him. The third is a five-sentence report on the fact that Harry Dunn had left a club he used to work for. The excerpt does not mention Harry Dunn, and, although he may be mentioned somewhere in the article excerpted, it is clear from the excerpt that he is certainly not the subject of the article, and it looks very unlikely that the whole article will contain substantial coverage of him. In fact, I can see no evidence of substantial coverage of the subject in any source, let alone multiple sources.

In view of the remarks made above about the fifty-odd incoming links and the disambiguation page, together with comments made elsewhere by the nominator, it looks very much as though the changes were made for the purpose of justifying restoring the article in order to avoid what the nominator saw as difficulties with the links and dab page, rather than because the subject seemed to be notable. However, regardless of the motivation in doing it, the issue is whether the restored article was a substantially different one from that which was deleted. Very simply, it wasn't. It was the same article, together with a few hastily collected references which do not establish notability and a handful of minor edits in an attempt to justify the claim that it was not substantially the same. It does nothing whatever to address the reasons given in the deletion discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful analysis of the changes to the article and its new references. I am sure the community would be grateful if the article could now be made accessible for discussion. Thincat (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator (I) did not go through the trouble of finding and adding citations as the easy way out over changing the red links and moving the dab, as JamesBWatson implied. Every other WP:MALPLACED I address I do exactly that way: change the links and move the dab. In this case, it appeared better for the encyclopedia (not better for me) to address the problems raised in the AfD and restore the article with the concerns of the AfD met (not overturn the result of the deletion discussion -- no decision was overturned, and discussion with the decider was held and agreement reached before the article was recreated in the mainspace). Your explanation of what you did and why includes too much speculation on why I did what I did, and is generally incorrect when it does so. You dismiss the principal change as "Apart from adding some references" when that is the core of the change, not the fringe, and does indeed keep the article from being "substantially identical". (So you got my objection correct.) None of the sources need to be to online sources, AFAIK. I did not find any online copies of any of them (searching on the quoted titles), although I did find the excerpt; I'll be happy to add the URLs to the article if you'll share them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, as original nominator - sources dredged up seem to consist solely of extremelt cursory passing mentions in very parochial local media, I stand by my contention that he does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The Times is parochial local media? And the Independent on Sunday? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorese - Decision to delete was well placed. 50+ incoming links notwithstanding. The article is not Wikipedia material, and to be honest, some of the logic in favor of overturning seems quite convoluted to me. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  An unconvoluted version of the logic: find problem (article deleted for lack of notability, created malplaced dab), try to address problem (add additional citations to meet GNG). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endore deletion - as the person who nominated the article under G4. As already stated, the sources listed are routine sports journalism, and by no means sufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  And here I don't know what the difference is. Many of the articles are not about Dunn (and don't need to be), but his mentions in them are not trivial. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and multi-trout JamesBWatson, ChrisTheDude, Sue_Rangell, and Sir Sputnik. All of you have failed to understand what G4 says "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy". Note that it doesn't say "sufficiently similar", but rather "sufficiently identical". While one could make an argument that the article is similar to the AfD'ed version, JamesBWatson clearly lays out above how it was not identical. Note also that the "and" is not distributive with respect to the two clauses. Looking at an old revision of the policy, "substantial" existed before the rest of the text was condensed into "unimproved". If references have been added, the material was clearly neither identical nor was it unimproved to the previous version. G4 is for unambiguous recreations of deleted material, not for good-faith efforts to address the concerns brought up in the AfD. If the concerns were inadequately addressed, then the inadequately-improved page goes back to AfD, not to CSD at some admin's whim. Remember, CSD is only for deletions where no good-faith Wikipedian would disagree with the outcome, so the process can be short-circuited. If someone recreated the page with additional sources, then that obviously is not met... unless such an add-a-source is done in a disruptive manner, which a single recreation with multiple sources is not, no matter how much those added sources may be found to be inadequate. So, this fails G4 1) because it's not sufficiently identical, 2) because it's not unimproved, and 3) because good-faith editors can disagree with this outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review . I ask again if I'm the only admin who cares about doing this? DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for reasons given by Jclemens. Moreover, G4 deletion "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" and, despite JamesBWatson's conclusion, his analysis shows the page is not substantially identical. AFD and not DRV is the place to discuss any merits of the article. Thincat (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - new article substantially addresses the concerns at AfD; Whether it's sufficient that a subsequent AfD would result in keep or not isn't the issue. A grossly inappropriate deletion. WilyD 10:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse G4 exists for a reason: to ensure that deletion discussions are actually binding, and to ensure that the community doesn't have to waste time considering the same issue twice. Getting past G4 requires more than a mere good-faith attempt to address the concerns of the debate. If JamesBWatson's analysis is accurate then I don't see any need to reopen the issue. In addition I don't think it would be appropriate to conclude that a source was not considered by the participants in the debate just because it wasn't present in the article at the time. Hut 8.5 10:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? It is an appropriate conclusion given the actual debate.[2] -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The more I think about it, the more ridiculous that claim is. Of course we conclude that a source was not considered by the participants just because it wasn't present in the article at the time. The alternative is to assume that all participants in every AFD are aware of the the entire contents of the entirety of the set of reliable sources, with full indexing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  If the participants were at all competent they will have attempted to find sources that weren't in the article. If a participant found a source which in their judgement didn't demonstrate notability they would be unlikely to note this fact in the AfD discussion. No, we can't assume that they were aware of every source in existence, but neither can we assume the opposite. Hut 8.5 19:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, we can indeed assume that they did not consider any sources that aren't in the article, by the continued absence of those sources from the article and the AfD discussion. There is no reason to assume otherwise. They may have tried to find sources (although I would not put such a barrier to entry to participating in an AfD discussion), but that does not mean that we need to assume that even if they had that they found the sources I found. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that we ought to take into account the possibility that the participants in the AfD noticed one or more of these sources. You, on the other hand, are assuming the participants didn't follow best AfD practice. Again it is not at all typical for someone who has identified a new source which they believe does not demonstrate notability to add it to the deletion discussion, let alone the article. Hut 8.5 21:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  You're assuming that they considered a source when you "don't think it would be appropriate to conclude that a source was not considered by the participants". That's what that means. I'm not assuming anything about the AfD discussion except what was said in the AfD discussion, which is a much better approach than trying to guess what the participants may or may not have done, said, thought, or experienced outside of what they wrote in the AfD discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nother discussion that hinges on the exact meaning of G4. Bad faith re-creations of deleted material should be G4-able. Good faith ones, and particularly ones where new sources have been added, imply that an AfD is warranted.—S Marshall T/C 11:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, based on the analysis above. Clearly within the spirit of what CSD G4 is meant to cover. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Not a policy-based opinion The spirit of G4, even if correctly interpreted, is simply not relevant. Per WP:CSD "The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules below." (emphasis mine, obviously) Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Inappropriate use of G4; clearly a new article which needed to be considered on its own merits. Mackensen (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This may still get deleted at an AfD, but the article has changed enough that the issue should be delt with again. When articles significantly change from the form they were in when deleted they should not be speedied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The original AFD rested in large part on the lack of "of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources". The revised article added references to multiple third-party sources as references. Perhaps that coverage is not enough to demonstrate notability but the new sources were enough to make the issue one for determination by the community rather than an individual admin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 and send to AfD, notifying previous participants. While the number of sources tripled from three to ten, half the article is straight job history. According to JamesBWatson's analysis of four of the added sources, they are not very good, but they are not awful or irrelevant. They look to be roughly the quality of the previous sources, being either local papers or passing mentions. JHunterJ got approval to move to mainspace from The Bushranger, the closing admin, but I wish that he had taken the hint to come to DRV first. As a point of precision, the Harry A. Dunn paragraph was moved, not added (a source was added). Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, nothing needs to come to DRV first unless it's been salted by consensus, and even then, DRV is just one of the venues that can agree to unsalting a previously create-protected article. Anyone who has made a good-faith improvement to the article can recreate it--repeated non-good faith recreations, those that wouldn't pass G4 as properly interpreted, are cause for sanctioning the editor who edits in such a disruptive manner. AfD only holds sway for the version deleted and any substantially similar and unimproved copy--anything else needs a new discussion if someone wants to delete it again, not a prior restraint DRV without which it cannot be re-created. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "I wish" indicates my preference. I believe that DRV is an effective way to inoculate a recreation against G4. The potential tagger and reviewing admin should review the page history, and pointing to the DRV should produce a quick overturn if G4 deletion occurs. There can be large gaps between "good-faith improvement", potentially ready for mainspace, and actually ready. I'm okay with skipping DRV if it is obviously fixed (e.g. completely unsourced → significant coverage in several excellent reliable sources), but DRV deals with those expediently, sometimes closing early. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW, I visited DRV first and followed its instructions to see if the issue couldn't be resolved by simply checking with the closing admin, which I did. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that conscientiously. To clarify, I meant this reply from The Bushranger. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know. The hint that you read there doesn't exist. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Send back to AfD - the G4 is understandable, but based on this discussion a further discussion is now needed - though having seen the article I doubt it will meet GNG. GiantSnowman 17:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist at AfD It will be simpler to do so and argue the actual merits there. If there's this much objection from established responsible editors, the speedy was not obvious and a new discussion is necessary. I have no opinion on actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Snowman, and DGG. You both seem to be arguing that a lack of consensus should overturn the deletion. Am I understanding correctly? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying there are enough people here who wish to overturn the deletion, and it should go back to AfD. GiantSnowman 10:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I am amazed that there are people who think that the new article was substantially different from the old one, and I can only wonder how they come to that view. There were only a few trivial changes, and as for the statement that there were new references, yes there were, but not ones which were of significant value, or that did anything to change the validity of the concerns raised at the AfD. Elton Bunny (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  OTOH, I am amazed that there are people who don't know the difference between "was substantially different" and "was not substantially identical" (that is, the difference between "identical" and "similar"), and I can only wonder how they come to that view. See User:Jclemens' note above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you explain why the references aren't significant? I'm not seeing a way to read them, but on their face they seem to be in reliable sources. What do you know that I'm missing? Hobit (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send to AfD. New sources were added; the article was "not substantially identical", and so is not covered by G4 speedy deletion. JamesBWatson's analysis of the new sources is thoughtful, but it is the kind of analysis to be presented in an AfD discussion, not one for one person to make in absence of a discussion with other editors. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn pretty much "per above" I'm seeing a lot of additional references (which I can't easily verify). Given the article wouldn't have been deleted had it met the GNG, I really don't see how an article which appears to now meet the GNG isn't worthy of discussion at AfD. Frankly, I'm having a hard time even understanding the claim that it meets G4. Now if people have looked at the sources cited and can claim they really don't provide anything even close to significant coverage, I could see the argument I suppose. But even then, a good-faith attempt at fixing an article should have a shot at AfD. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

After discussion with one of the wikipedia administrator, I have made substantial improvements to Genius_Inside's page and believe all sources are now up-to-date and with solid references. Moreover, as one of the company in the project management software business, I do believe this page has an importance in this sector and in informing the users of project management softwares. At the beginning, the page was deleted because the administrator stated it did not "provide sufficient evidence that the company is notable" Rbernard84 (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The changes since deletion at afd. Maybe an encyclopedia article could be written on (not by) this company, but this will clearly never be it. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Rbernard84, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - writing about your own company is strongly discouraged. I also note that you use "we" rather than "I" and describe Genius Inside as "our page", are you familiar with our polices about Shared accounts and ownership of articles? Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment.Thryduulf, thank you for your comment. Indeed I am not a wikipedia expert, but I am the unique owner of this account. I have modified my text and will now use the correct wording. Also, I speak for all the persons in the project management field when I state that I believe this page about this company is of useful information to this sector. Thank you for your review.Rbernard84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Decidion to delete was done properly, and was well considered. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AFD closed as delete despite numerically the decision going down the middle (7 keep, 5 delete [2 were weak delete], 2 merge). Lists of characters have been retained at AFD at the past (ex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Alice Academy characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arcana Heart characters). The only way this page is different is that it doesn't have "List of" in the page title. I believe this deletion should be overturned to at least no consensus, as there were poor rationales on both sides, but no clear consensus to do anything. —Ryulong (琉竜) 06:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- I've read the closing admin's rationale and in my opinion it correctly summarizes the debate. Reyk _YO! 06:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Part of his rationale was because List of Power Rangers villains is at AFD after having been at DRV for similar reasons (a DRV he was aware of). And as many poor keeps there were in this AFD there were as many poor deletes. This is a no-consensus situation. Not a "closing admin casts the deciding vote" situation.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand your position, but I disagree with it. Badgering endorsers is not going to help. Reyk _YO! 21:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. I do not believe that an outright "delete" was the correct reading of this discussion as conensus did not appear to be established. Although having said that, both sides did have some poor rationales for the respective causes of action. Till 08:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Having advocated deletion, I believe the closer was correct in giving those arguments more weight in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. The "keep" arguments can be summarized as WP:USEFUL, that it's a spin-off subarticle and that it lists (some) notable characters. However, these arguments do not address the principal arguments for deletion, which are grounded in WP:V, a core policy: first, that the article contained almost no sources, and second, that article topics (including list topics) must be notable as shown through coverage in independent reliable sources (WP:V#Notability and WP:LISTN).  Sandstein  09:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  What needs to be verified in the article? And I provided 8 scholastic sources that discussed this group of characters in some fashion. The only reason this page was singled out was because of the AFD on List of Power Rangers villains whose original author falsely assumed that the page was identical to this one, which also soured the original !votes on the AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment although technically Ryulong consulted the closing admin first, I kindly request next time that he/she check whether the admin in question is actively editing before stating that he/she has "given enough time". I would gladly have answered on my talk page, after finishing work and my post-structuralism exam at college. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize for having not waited longer, but I felt there were issues that needed to be addressed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Extended rationale from closing admin.

AFD is not a headcount, it is a discussion of the worthiness of one or more individual articles. The DRV nominator was one of several keep !voters in the discussion and, admittedly, gave the strongest argument. Some other !votes were... Rtkat3—WP:ITSUSEFUL, PortlandOregon97217—Just keep, followed by WP:NOHARM. Others were based in policy but failed to address the concerns of overlap brought up by the nominator. As I stated in the close, iff the other article is kept, merging from this one is still possible. The scope will need to be defined extra carefully, however.

And before someone launches "you didn't watch PW" at me... yes, I did. My brothers and I broke two beds trying to act out the show. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• These "concerns in overlap" were unfounded. MBisanz only put the page up for deletion because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers villains's original close as delete and because someone thought that the content of List of Power Rangers villains and this article were identical, when in fact the latter is a subset of the former. This was a problem I also brought up at the DRV that resulted in the relisting of the other article. And then people are faulting the content of the page when it is a list of characters and there's not much more that can be said of them other than character biographies and all this crap I found on Google Scholar in a search for "Rita Repulsa" ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) and "Lord Zedd" ([12], [13]). So if the two fictional characters who were leaders of this group seem to be notable enough to be mentioned in major publications (child psychology it seems) why wouldn't the group that they led be notable enough to be given a list on this project?—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Also if a merge is to happen, it should likely be at some page that is not List of Power Rangers villains but at some new list that covers all of the characters from the show so we can be rid of some of the shoddily written individual character biographies on each and every Power Ranger.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTINHERITED, for one. HB Jassin headed several magazines... doesn't mean all of them were notable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  If the fictional characters (let this be A) in charge of other fictional characters (let this be B) are notable, why aren't B notable as a group alongside A?—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are they? Also, why would we treat real and fictional organizations differently? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I'm arguing more for coverage of the chairmen of the board (recurring characters but not the leaders) rather than the rank and file employees (the monsters of the week).—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Consensus was to keep. Notable series, such as this one, have always had character lists for them. There are multiple villains on this list which are blue link, they having their own articles. Any list of significantly related things which has multiple items on it that have their own Wikipedia articles, should be kept. We just need to change a guideline page somewhere, or create a guideline for list articles to stop this debate from happening constantly. User:Dream Focus/Wikipedia:Notability (lists) Dream Focus 12:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I was the nominator and did so pursuant to the close of a different AFD. This close appears to have been done at the appropriate time and was done following the process for assessing consensus of participants at the AFD. As such, I believe it should be endorsed. Also noting that the DRV requesting party gave the closing admin four hours to respond to inquiries before coming here, which seems insufficient. MBisanz ^talk 12:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse - As noted, normally lists of characters from notable works - even if there are no sources - are normally kept; however, arguably, sub-lists of such lists are not kept (eg "List of characters from Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" or "List of villains from the Power Rangers series" would likely be find, but just limiting it to the villains of one specific iteration would not be). There's a larger problem that the lists of various Power Rangers characters are all over the place - it doesn't help us that the show itself has umpteen million iterations with a new set of characters and villains each cycle. Given that there is so many and a lot of inconsistent approaches, it would probably be better that those involved with the Power Rangers articles look to normalize all their character lists articles. To that end, I'd support an overturn or at least userficition to give editors the ability to work with the material in this effort. But without that, I do endorse this close, agreeing with the closure in the shape of the discussion. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Consensus seemed to be to keep, and at best no consensus was reached. I also feel that the keeps had more varied and policy based talking points. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, at best.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to non-consensus. There is no consensus here either about the article or the applicable interpretation of the guidelines. The admin closed according to his interpretation, but failed to recognize that this did not necessarily have consensus. There is as repeated AfDs have proven not even consensus over what manner a stand alone list proves notability. Especially, there is not consensus that this should be evaluated as such, rather than an article split for convenience. And finally, if it were concluded that it should not stand as an article, the conclusion should have been merge, I want to point out that in general people only object to these lists when they deal with popular fiction, so it represents more of a view that we should cover fiction is less detail than other subjects, which is a personal opinion that may or may not be widely shared, but is not actually consensus either. I've been arguing these fiction lists and subarticles for 6 years now, watching the fluctuations. I've pretty much stopped arguing, because it has become clear to me that we are unable to resolve the disagreements. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, a lot of the Keep arguments were very feeble, but there's clearly no consensus there to delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn and retain content. This is a list spun out of a broader article, and there appears to be no dispute that the subject merits some sort of encyclopedic coverage. The dispute principally covers the form that coverage. The case for acting contrary to expressed community sentiment is weakest in such disputes, and absent a substantive policy violation there is usually no reason to act against that expressed sentiment. And DGG's cogent analysis is also compelling. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have temp undeleted this for the purposes of this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - "I disagree" is not a proper use of Deletion Review. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  "Deletion Review may be used: 1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly,..." I'm sorry Tarc but isn't that the case here?—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The common sense outcome is to treat this as a subset of List of Power Rangers villains. We should wait for the second AfD for List of Power Rangers villains to close and then follow the result. If the consensus is to keep the list, then this content clearly needs to be smerged in, keeping the history under a redirect for attribution purposes. If the list is deleted then it would be quite illogical for this content to be kept. NB: I'm well aware of WP:OCE and I'm disregarding that essay with all due forethought. Consistency is to be preferred here.—S Marshall T/C 22:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn I'm tempted to say overturn to keep as the deletion arguments were largely so horrible (sources for individual members of a list aren't useful in retaining a list article? That's at the least a novel way to treat list articles). But in any case, the keep !votes, including sources and the like, were stronger and more numerous. I'd have closed it as no consensus and don't believe a delete outcome can be reasonably reached here. Hobit (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfDs are not majority votes, outcomes are based on strength of argument. Here, the keep !votes are extremely weak (take a look at this one) and are mostly variations of WP:ILIKEIT. The delete !votes are well-argumented and more in line with our content policies and guidelines, which currently don't advocate leniency for plot-only pages. It was well within the closing admin's prerogative to discard the numerous ILIKEIT votes and give more weight to comments pointing out the list didn't meet our guidelines. As Masem said, there might be a tolerance for character lists, but not for sub-lists such as the one we're discussing. There was no way this could have closed on anything else than "delete".Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  There was absolutely one "ILIKEIT" keep !vote. All the other people arguing against deletion cited policy. Your arguments in all of these debates have been that it's a violation of WP:NOTPLOT. Well please tell me in your opinion what a list of characters article should be about, because it seems that your argument is basically against all lists of characters in current popular media rather than this particular article. I provided sources to show that members of the list are notable on their own and the only arguments against it were selections of characters on the lists who were patently not notable or derisions that the article is WP:Fancruft, which isn't a policy or guideline and suggests that before sending anything to AFD there should be some attempt at improvement. Masem at least has suggested the creation of lists of all characters for each installment rather than lists of protagonists and lists of villains for each installment, which I agree with. However, that can't be done without having this page and the others like it as stepping stones.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last Res0rt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Okay. I nominated the page for deletion, and it did. After I nominated Schlock Mercenary for AFD, it got speedy-kept despite having only a small handful of reliable sources. I felt that this source was sufficient to argue notability for Last Res0rt, so I asked an admin to undelete the page. He did, but within 4 hours, he renominated it for a procedural AFD, where it got speedied via G4 despite two "keep" !votes. I feel this was an invalid, hasty move, and should at least get a proper discussion. It seems that webcomics are held to a lower standard, so getting any sort of attention at all is usually enough, and I feel the New Times SLO article linked here is sufficient, even though I did not believe so in the last AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As the closing administrator, I'd like to point out that G4 is a fairly bright line: Is the article a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy ... of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion"? In this case, the answer was yes. The only thing that had changed was Ten Pound Hammer's opinion concerning one of the sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is why I feel that the article needs a second look, not just a hasty deletion merely 4 hours after coming back to life. I, as the nominator, changed my opinion, and would like to see if consensus has changed with me, particularly in light of the Schlock Mercenary AFD. Did I mention I got attacked by several people on Twitter, including the author of Last Res0rt, for the Schlock AFD? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse DRV is not to be used simply because you disagree with the outcome, after the fact included. This is the kind of behaviour that would be par for the course for a brand-new editor, but TPH should understand our procedures better than this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So I'm not allowed to change my mind, nor see if anyone agrees with my change of opinion? The "keep" by someone else in the second AFD is irrelevant? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The first one ran for two weeks and garnered many comments less than a year ago. As far as I can tell, the subject has gained no significant notability in the interim. You want to undo consensus and have another bite at the apple simply because you changed your mind, apparently prompted because the author was mean to you on Twitter? Frankly, I'm pretty disgusted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Twitter fight is not by any means the only reason I reconsidered myself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You as nominator have no special powers. A dozen other people called for deletion, A lot more than most AFDs have comments on. What makes you so special that those 12 people should have their opinions thrown aside because you are sensitive about what is said about you on twitter? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CCC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The first AfD got the attention it did because TPH and I were running a little hot arguing over the validity of the sources in the first place. Don't say "a dozen other people happened to agree with you" when really most of those people weren't as invested in the article as TPH was in trying to delete it. Veled (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Concensus can change. But has it or is it only you that has changed? Did you consider asking any of the other dozen people who called for deletion if their opinion had changed? Or is it all about you? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire point of the AfD was to see whether consensus has changed or not by asking the community, including those who contributed one particular opinion to the previous discussion (and thus avoiding any accusation of WP:CANVASSING). Unfortunately the discussion was closed before the question you are now asking had been answered. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (undelete and unclose the AfD). Most speedy deletions, G4 certainly, are for saving time where standard process is so obvious it would be a waste of time. They are not to be used to shut down discussion. Somebody arguing against deletion (the AfD shows two) means that the discussion is worthwhile. That said, the generic "Speedy overturn on the basis of a reasonable contest to a speedy deletion (except for some few exceptions)" applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AfD as a contested G4, albeit under unusual circumstances. And let's not attack the nominator, eh? Reyk _YO! 05:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. (G4 nominator). This is the very definition of a repost, exactly the same. The Schlock Mercenary afd is not relevent, it was kept due to Hugo nominatios, not because of the above source. This drv and the comment in the second afd seem to be trying to make a point about "lower standards" for webcomics. Suggestion Malik Shabazz deleted the article to shut down discusion is not helpfull (agf), especially after the about explaination for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 speedy and relist. Speedy deletion only applies when it is clear that the very strict criteria apply and a discussion would always result in a consensus to delete. When there is an ongoing deletion discussion it is very rarely acceptable to speedy delete. When that discussion includes one or more good faith recommendations for an action other than deletion, then speedy deletion cannot apply by definition, because it is not certain that the discussion will end in a consensus to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The strict criteria applies. This is exacly the same as the article deleted at afd. A good faithed "i've changed my mind" does not overide the other dozen people who called for deletion. Restoring this to game the system is not a positive way to build a credible encyclopedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to the nominator there was also another user recommending a keep - the requirement that CSDs are applied only where a discussion would always end in delete is so fundamental that it applies to every criteria without needing to be mentioned. The nominator's rationale wasn't just "I've changed my mind" it was "Given changed circumstances [the keeping of a similar article], I think it is worth re-examining this." It is not gaming the system to have a second discussion, and in the absence of legal issues (and none were even suggested in either AfD) then having a deletion discussion does not harm. It is quite possible that the deletion discussion would have ended in delete, but there were good faith recommendations to keep made by established users meaning that the outcome of the discussion would depend on the evaluation of keep and delete arguments meaning that it is not eligible for speedy deletion. If you want to put it another, simpler way: Good faith recommendations to keep always trump the speedy deletion criteria for everything except confirmed legal problems (usually copyright violations) and WP:OFFICE actions. There were no legal issues and no office actions, therefore speedy deletion in the face of keep recommendations was incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that other user had already had their say in the previous afd. Nothing new there. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • What any user said in a previous discussion is irrelevant: speedy deletion is never for situations where there are good faith recommendations to keep and no legal issues or office actions. This applies regardless of who makes the recommendation, why they do so or what your opinion of the article is. What is difficult about this concept? Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding your assertion that speedies only apply when "a discussion would always ... delete", the current version of WP:Criteria for speedy deletion contains only the phrases "no practical chance of surviving discussion" and "in the most obvious cases". You attempted to insert your preferred wording, "As speedy deletion is only for pages that would always get deleted following a full discussion, if there is any doubt about whether a criterion applies then speedy deletion is not the appropriate course of action.", during a larger dispute (WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 43#Declined speedies, page history, August–September 2011), and you were immediately reverted by User:Fuhghettaboutit. The page was eventually fully protected, and there was no net change to the lead. (Bit of trivia: the ANI that started the discussion was WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Disruptive CSD Tag Warring by user:TenPoundHammer.) Flatscan (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I think Malik Shabazz's rationale as closing admin is compelling. As someone who voted delete the first time, I don't see anything new that would change my vote. I don't know what to make of the off-wiki campaigning conversations. But I think that Starblind's comments above are getting a little too close to personal on a page that should be about cut-and-dried policies. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I didn't ask TPH to undelete the page -- he did this on his own after I complained on Twitter with regards to the Schlock Mercenary AfD. In the absence of other evidence, I want to believe that he actually has had a change of heart. Veled (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (recommend placement in Article Incubator) I believe that the comic is sufficiently notable, but insufficient time was allowed after the undelete to demonstrate this, hence the G4. As it seems that consensus for a Relist will not be reached, I propose that the deleted article for Last Res0rt be placed in the Article Incubator so that it can be adequately improved to meet WP:WEB. Sulucamas (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, hey! Never knew that existed. Veled (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The article was a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of a previously deleted version. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (recommend placement in Article Incubator) I made no changes to the restored article because, quite honestly, no new acceptable sources have appeared in the time since its deletion (and I try to limit my edits on that article now to the addition of new sources as they're published, thanks to WP:COI). Considering that all it really needs is a good newspaper article (or three) to meet WP:WEB, I would prefer the article be taken into the Article Incubator until sources materialize. After all, if WP:N is the only issue with the article, I'd rather it be kept somewhere where it can be fixed rather than having to have these messy arguments over and over again about whether or not my next source is good enough. Veled (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse G4 deletion, oppose new AfD unless better justification provided; no opinion on userfication or incubation. Aside from the wrinkles that the requester TenPoundHammer was also the last AfD nominator and admin User:Martijn Hoekstra restored it, this is exactly the situation that G4 is intended to prevent or short circuit: an extra AfD with no material differences. duffbeerforme points out that nominators do not receive "special powers"; for example, after others have commented, they cannot force WP:Speedy keep by withdrawing. Martijn Hoekstra was uneasy with unilateral restoration without confirmation at a second AfD (1, 2). The two keeps at the new AfD were TPH and User:Veled, an active supporter of the article at the first AfD. The two minor differences I see are 7–8 months and TPH's personal opinion of the New Times San Luis Obispo source, which was discussed at the first AfD.

I don't understand why TPH filed at WP:Requests for undeletion, where it's clearly out of scope. DRV can be used to request recreation, per WP:Deletion review#Purpose #3. He also asked the AfD closer, User:Sandstein, but reverted his request a few minutes later, commenting "Don't see much point. He has a whole lot on his plate it seems." TPH provided a new source (Santa Maria Sun, List of newspapers in California) at WP:REFUND, but he did not mention it at the new AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Santa Maria Sun article is clearly a rewrite of the New Times San Luis Obispo one. It has the same author – the byline reads "Anna Weltner was an intern for New Times, the Sun’s sister paper in San Luis Obispo." – and same structure, and it was published eleven days later. The relevant section is basically unchanged. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As it was mentioned here, I reviewed TPH's Twitter account (linked from one of his user boxes). I found this tweet: "@lastres0rt I'm not an admin, so I can't do the deletion myself — community decides delete/keep. You can go to WP:DRV & ask for undeletion." TPH knew the proper process and chose to subvert it. Flatscan (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn CSD processes do not take precedence over XfD except in the clear cases of content not subject to community input (G9, office actions and G12, Copyvio) Even in the generally-applicable cases of G10 and G11, if multiple editors in good standing are arguing that an item is not an attack page or not purely promotional, then the community discussion process should settle that matter, not one admin. Again, CSD is to shortcut the process when no one disagrees with the outcome, not a way to force an outcome despite community input to the contrary. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn on the grounds of common sense . If the nominator has changed his mind, even after it has been deleted, we should let there be a new argument. Restore, and let someone who wants this deleted relist it. Details of procedure for bringing it here are irrelevant, we're NOT a BURO. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the nominator deserve special privileges? Why should the other delete supporters be ignored? I can see a rationale if it had been an excellent, comprehensive nomination with lots of WP:PERNOMs and the nominator discovered a critical error. The nomination and its source breakdown were good, but Logical Cowboy, SudoGhost, and Dricherby (to name a few) obviously did their own source evaluation. TPH merely changed his mind, apparently in response to off-wiki criticism, and has yet to provide a compelling justification.
  • Regarding WP:BURO, DRV filers of all experience levels are routinely chastised for failing to contact the deleting admin first. Isn't it reasonable to expect a user who has filed hundreds of AfDs and MfDs (TPH's WP pages created) to be familiar with basic deletion process and etiquette? Even if TPH was rusty, there are explicit instructions in the header of WP:Requests for undeletion: deleting admin, then DRV. TPH gained a significant advantage by getting the article restored directly into mainspace – he has the support of G4 overturners here and benefits from no consensus at both DRV (my guess is that Spartaz will send to AfD in that case) and AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that people here recommending that the G4 speedy deletion be overturned would not necessarily !vote to keep in an AfD. For example, I have not evaluated the article at all as that is not the purpose of DRV. My concern is simply that the speedy deletion was out of process (something that is always harmful to the project) and the community should have an opportunity to express their opinion - regardless of what that opinion is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's my point, sort of. You support overturning the G4 speedy, but you might not support undeletion if this were a recreation DRV on the merits of the article. I asked Reyk to comment on this point, as I think he's the overturn most likely to switch to keep deleted. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I'm sorry to have to disappoint you. Isn't the purpose of G4 to prevent people circumventing the deletion process in bad faith by continually reposting their article? I don't see why we should necessarily apply it to what TPH has done, which I think was in good faith even though it's turned out a bit of a mess. I get where you're coming from when you say the original AfD nominator has no special privileges. However, it's a fact that nominators come under scrutiny and, often, personal attacks for their nominations ("rahrahrah you didn't WP:BEFORE" and the like), so it is not the case that the nominator is the same as anyone else. If I'm held accountable for something and I later come to believe I made a mistake, I had damn well better have the right to try and fix it. Reyk _YO! 10:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I read in a previous G4 discussion that G4 was created to handle an overwhelming flood of reposts, but I don't know its origins well. The text of the criterion does not mention the recreator's intentions or good/bad faith. I'm reasonably sure that an AfD'd article recreated months later by an inexperienced user copy/pasting a Wikipedia mirror (covers the "identical" clause) would be G4/G12'd without much consideration of his or her motives. The closing admin and DRV were available to TPH, but he made the decision to avoid them. I think I didn't communicate it clearly, so I will restate my intended hypothetical situation. Let's say that TPH contacted the closing admin, was declined, and came to DRV with a restoration/recreation request. Would you recommend restore, restore and send to AfD, keep deleted, or something else? Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I found WP:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/G4. Flatscan (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, somewhat predictably. Speedy deletion is the bluntest "this needs to be gone now" tool we have. The article adheres to the letter of G4. Still, speedy deletion should never be used to delete anything there may be disagreement about. This should weigh far heavier than the article adhering to what we happened to have written down as policy for CSD G4. Speedy deletion shouldn't be used this way. If a policy pages says we should, the policy page is wrong in this case (unless this turns out to be a clear endorse, which would mean that the policy page does actually reflect policy). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did you see TPH's request, and why did you fulfill it? It appears that you do not patrol WP:Requests for undeletion, as I found only one edit, from March 2012. Your deletion log has few restorations. You restored the page 21 minutes after TPH's initial request (TPH contribs, MH deletion log, MH contribs). Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, I didn't see this one earlier. I saw TPH's request off wiki. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Perhaps it's process wonkery to say so, but this was just done the wrong way by TPH. The original AFD outcome was overwhelming; TPH's change of opinion would not have reversed the outcome there. He should have begun with a DRV if he simply wished to reinstate an unaltered or little-altered form of the article. The fact that there's some support for keeping the article is no reason whatever for ignoring the G4 standard; the underlying AFD didn't have to be unanimous. What G4 is based on is the community consensus established in the previous AFD, not any lack of disagreement. Reversing this deletion just encourages attempts to evade consensus outcomes, shifting the burden of proof. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment while this is a valid position to hold, please do recognise that this position means there is no way to re-visit a decision to delete, made by a tiny minority of the community that showed up to an AfD. In other words, this means there should be no avenue to check if consensus may have changed on an AfD decision. DRV is certainly not the venue to do this, DRV is to review the original deletion process. I regard this as a very very bad idea. In case I'm reading you wrong, and you believe that this DRV should close, and TPH should open a new DRV on the closure of AfD1, rather than this DRV on the closure of AfD2, then yes, I would agree with you that it's process wonkery. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I linked WP:Deletion review#Purpose (it's transcluded from WP:Deletion review/Purpose) #3 above, and I quote it here: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". Identical wording, "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion", was present in WP:Deletion review/Header, September 2005. Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know, you're completely right! Thanks! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Process wonkery all you want but an arbitary overturning of a heavily populated afd is direspectfull of all its participants. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disrespectful? To re-visit (note, not overturn, but revisit) a discussion that took place almost a year ago, where one of the strongest proponents of the deletion changed his mind? Or do you actually find it a good idea to wait untill this discussion has ended, and if it ends in endorse have TPH start a new DRV on the original AfD? It is completely beyond me how you can find that a good idea, or - if that's not what you think he should do - what you do think a good venue would be to re-evaluate a deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should not have been restored at refund. That is not the venue for overturning AFDs. It should not have been arbitarily restored. Talking to the deleting admin is the first stop. Crap about too much on their plate is not an exuse not to try that. The next step is here where a discussion on it's merits can take place. This should not have been restored without some form of discussion. (No disrespect intended towards the admin that restored this at refund, a quick reading of the request may have led to the beleif that TPH was presenting a new source instead of pointing to an existing source that was specificly discussed in the afd). You note that it's revisit not overturn but it was overturned. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was an AfD, which is a new avenue for discussion - not an overturn. Whether it would have been preferable to discuss at AfD or at DRV is largely irrelevant. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was an afd. It ended with a very clear consenus to delete. It was overturnd at refund which states that it is not a venue for overturning afds. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do you propose, if TPH wants the community re-examine the suitability for inclusion of the article? The way I interpert what you are saying is close this DRV as endorse, then have TPH start a new DRV on the original AfD. That can't be it, can it? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TPH should start with a discussion with the deleting admin. A thowaway line about being busy is not a valid excues to not try. If that comes to nothing he should raise at at DRV to allow discussion on it's merits. Running to a venue that is not about restoring articles deleted by afd is not the best choise. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What advantage would that have over just having let AfD2 run its course? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What advantage would any attempt to remove spam from wikipedia have? It would help wikpedieas credibility. What advantage would letting AfD2 run its course? It would aviod helping the coi editors attempt to use wikipedia as a means of poromtion. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how would doing this through DRV2 be better to avoid spam than doing this through AfD2? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am - honestly and in good faith - trying to make sense off this. So far, I'm not succeeding. Could you pretend I'm really really stupid for a moment, and walk me through your reasoning? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Duffbeerforme has mixed up some of his facts (and had a little too much of his username). The only COI on this article is MY COI, and I've acknowledged it. I'm not the one who brought the page back (or even asked for it to be brought back), TPH did. I've made my comments above and I've already said I'm cool with putting this thing in the incubator if that's what it takes to bring this argument to an acceptable compromise.Veled (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veled, what, specifically, is your COI? I asked about this on the first AfD and you did not respond then. Thank you. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't want to mention the specifics of my COI during the previous AfD because I wanted the arguments to remain focused on notability, NOT any perceived motives on my part. That said, I've been limiting my edits to the article at this point to adding sources just because it's easiest for me to add them as they occur vs. putting the burden onto someone else, and again, I didn't ask TPH to put the page back. I was willing to "play the long game" and wait until another newspaper article or something similar came along to bolster arguments for notability; now that I know the incubator exists, I'm in favor of putting it there until that happens, so editors like Sulucamas and the folks over at WikiProject: Furry, who have expressed interest in the article, can continue to work on it in the meantime. Veled (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veled, what, specifically, is your COI? It would be worth having a look at WP:BESTCOI, including WP:BESTCOI#Don't push. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provided that Veled has declared their COI and proceeds to adhere to WP:BESTCOI, repeated inquiries into what, specifically, their COI might be do not seem especially pertinent to the ongoing discussion of the fate of this article. Sulucamas (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sulucamas, welcome to Wikipedia! It's not clear that Veled has followed the recommendations in WP:COI and WP:BESTCOI. For example, voting in this deletion review and the two AfDs, without even mentioning the COI when voting, do not seem to be in the spirit of things. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither is trying to force me to reveal my identity, which is something that you have attempted to do repeatedly. Declaring the specifics may be important in terms of enforcing WP:NPOV in the eventual article, but shouldn't come into play in debating whether or not the article should exist at all. Veled (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tried to force you to reveal your identity. However, the closeness of the relationship is relevant; this issue is mentioned in WP:COI. When you are voting on things, you should declare your COI. You didn't do that, three times. If the COI is particularly close, you probably shouldn't be voting at all. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine, it's my comic. I'm striking out my comments and vote. Do whatever the fuck you want.Veled (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Logical Cowboy. Thank you for your warm welcome, and for all of the helpful edits you made to my Talk page. It's clear from your tenacity and courtesy that you are truly an asset to Wikipedia. As such, would you be willing to provide your informed opinion on the potential placement of this article in the Article Incubator? Sulucamas (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Sulucamas (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives include userfication or projectification at WP:WikiProject Furry or WP:WikiProject Comics/Webcomics work group. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Worth pointing out that before we talk too much about project groups, we should probably make sure either of them want it. Furry seems pretty sparse with the exception of GreenReaper, and I've not spoken much with the other work group. Veled (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point – it would be polite to ask first. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Martin. AFDs are often sparcly populated. People with COIs or points to make can have more influence on the result. DRV is watched by more neutral editors so a proper balanced result is more likely. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I think we should have a fairly high bar for use of G4 to speedy. Letting this go through a regular AfD seems reasonable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment' If it was this sort of situation that G4 was intended to short circuit, it's obviously not doing its job. Rather, G4 is for cases where any responsible person who understands WP would agree. The nom or anyone else except the person who introduced the new article could have stopped the AfD before it was deleted, so there's no reason why they can't do it afterwards if any sort of a reasonable case can be made that has the support of reasonable people here. Speedy is for when any knowledgeable person who understands WP would agree. If they don't it needs a discussion, and it's usually better to discuss the merits at AfD than to discuss the procedure here. Once there's a rational contest over whether a re-creation is sufficiently improved, it should always go to the community. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see G4 as a special case, supported by the last deletion discussion, in this case, WP:Articles for deletion/Last Res0rt. Consider this comment by User:Atama (September 2011, from WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 44#Once kept, NEVER G4-able): "Alone among all of the criteria, G4 actually requires that a consensus be reached in a deletion discussion that supports the administrator's deletion. So again, it's the least unilateral form of speedy deletion." It's supported by the tagger, the admin, and the consensus of the last deletion discussion. In my opinion, they easily overcome TPH's and Veled's poor keep rationales. How can anyone argue that the "re-creation is sufficiently improved" when it hasn't been changed at all? Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I repeat my point above as you apparently haven't understood it. When there are good-faith recommendations to keep it is ineligible for G4. Always, Every time. No exceptions. Regardless of how good, bad, strong or weak the "keep" recommendations are. Regardless of who they are from. Even regardless of whether the article has changed or not. All these require evaluating the rationales, which is not a task for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion only applies when every reasonable person agrees that it would be deleted every time, when there are good-faith recommendations to keep then by definition not everybody agrees, and so it is ineligible for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have read and understood your point. I am aware that it enjoys substantial support (probably consensus struck after closer review of WP:CSD history and WT:CSD archives Flatscan (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)) among the WT:Criteria for speedy deletion regulars. I think that it is too hardline and inflexible and that it gets this case wrong. Very little evaluation is needed to see that TPH's and Veled's keeps are "TPH changed his mind about one of the sources" with no new material information – egregiously insufficient. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, It seems this DRV has somewhat returned to reason. As some background: the underlying reasoning for 'don't speedy when there is any shred of doubt' is somewhat wikisophical in nature: on a wiki pretty much everything is reversible and can be changed and can be changed - without process, discussion and what have you - by any user. Deletion is an exception to that, and as such, needs to be tested for community consensus - which is viable to change, as evidenced by TPH's change in opinion in this case. Speedy deletion was invented for those cases where it is so blisteringly obvious there is consensus that no wikipedian in his right mind would disagree, and we can forgo the discussion. We have always struggled to define who exactly is a 'wikipedian'. This long was 'everybody who ever edited', but this proved problematic for CSD, since new editors with their first article started removing speedy tags, and would themselves be the single wikipedian in their right mind (per everybody is a wikipedian and AGF). This was clearly not the intention, so the provision that the creator couldn't reject the speedy was baked in. TPH however is a long standing member, and his sole 'no, this shouldn't be speedily deleted' suffices for me to reject speedy deletion - regardless of the criterion (bar G10/11). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have browsed and searched WT:CSD's archives and examined WP:CSD's page history.
            • WP:CSD: "These criteria are worded narrowly, and generally so phrased that, in most cases, reasonable editors will agree what does not or does not fall under a given criteria. When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does, discussion is recommended, using one of the other methods under Wikipedia:deletion policy." was added in May 2006 by User:Pmanderson. The sentences were simplified ("Where reasonable doubt exists") in February 2007 by User:Xiner. "discussion ... is recommended" was reworded to "discussion ... should usually occur instead" in April 2007 by User:Amarkov. There was a dispute April–June 2007 that settled on "should occur" and a sentence about "survived a prior deletion discussion". The wording remained stable until May 2009, when there were discussions (WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Simplify policy RfC, WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 34#Fundamentals) and many edits. The outcome contains "no practical chance of surviving discussion" and "most obvious cases", which persist through today's version. There was a dispute August–September 2011 (WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 43#Declined speedies, page history), but there was no net change to the lead.
            • WT:CSD:
              • contest for any reason: WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 38#CSD of blanking by only editor? (March 2010), WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 43#Procedure for contested speedies (June–July 2011)
              • decline for any reason: WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 43#Declined speedies (August–September 2011, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive71#Disruptive CSD Tag Warring by user:TenPoundHammer), WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 36#Can a non-admin decline a speedy deletion request? (October 2009)
              • AfD keep: Nothing relevant
            • As I wrote to Thryduulf above, your restrictive interpretation ("any shred of doubt", "blisteringly obvious", "no wikipedian in his right mind") is not reflected in the wording of WP:CSD. I found support for requiring that a removal/contest dispute whether the cited criterion applies. No one has argued that the article did not meet the letter of G4.
          • Flatscan (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • I encourage you to read the linked discussions in Archive 43 (mid-2011) before you draft a RfC. It's a messy dispute that ended with no consensus for any wording changes. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - If it was the same content as as an article previously deleted, then that is what G4 is in place for. Period. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What a mess. I think nearly everyone involved did something wrong here. Given the high-participation discussion, I don't think the article should have been undeleted at the request of the nominator--I'd buy it if there were only 2 or 3 folks and the discussion wasn't close, but I just don't see it here. But it was undeleted. And then sent to AfD. Speedy deleting something that has keep !votes on it at AfD is nearly always a bad idea (BLP and other issues aside) and so _that_ was a bad idea. I'm loath to endorse any of the actions taken here, but feel keep deleted is probably the right policy-based idea with some fishwacks going to the admin that undeleted and the admin doing the G4. Not real smart guys. struck as snarky, sorry That said, I'd personally prefer to see the AfD go forward as there are some worthwhile issues here and I think it has a chance of being kept. But that's not policy-based, that's Hobit's personal preference. Hobit (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I humbly accept your offerings of trout: going DRV would have been better than going restore - AfD (though I maintain with little practicle difference). Going Restore - AfD - G4 - DRV - (endorese | overturn - relist) as we are doing now is positively the worst route we could have taken, so I completely occur with your analysis apart that I think the proper - eventual - outcome would be to userfy or incubate. The pragmatic closure here would probably be one of those, but it is hard to find consensus here for that (good luck, closing admin!). Unfortunatly, we seem to have driven off the editor who could possibly make this article work in the indeterminate future. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I'd likely be inclined to do exactly what you did if TPH asked for something similar from me--if he thinks an article has a chance it probably has a chance. Hobit (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Martijn, I have a lot of respect for your views. But surely what you are suggesting (getting that one editor to make this article work) would violate the letter of WP:COI and the spirit of WP:AUTOBIO. Cheers. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • LC, I see and understand your point. In theory, articles are collaboratively edited. Some articles work that way. Most article have one, or a handfull of de-facto maintainers. While they must not exhibit WP:OWN issues, that is generally not a problem. I expect this article to be no different. A regard where it is different though, is that that maintainer has a strong COI. That is as we all know and realise problematic. I have seen good faith behavior despite the COI. Acknowledging it, opinionating that the article as it currently stands doesn't meet WP:N. It's tough to keep an article NPOV while you have a COI, and it sure requires extra eyes. On the other hand, as long as the article is out of view, in the incubator to be worked on, I frankly don't really care who the person is that is nurturing the article, or if they have a COI. As long as NPOV is checked thorroughly once it comes out of the incubator, that's fine by me. Once it has had a good NPOV check, then the COI issue should be prevented. Once it's out in main, things can be arranged with editrequests. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi MH. I suppose so. But the question is not whether the article is notable, but whether the topic is notable. "Work"ing on the article shouldn't change the notability of the topic, and the community already opined on that, strongly. (The consensus looks even stronger if you leave out the author's own vote.) To make the topic notable would require something in the outside world to change, like the comic winning some kind of award or at least some more 3rd party coverage. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • A year ago the community expressed its opinion on this article. Subsequently the nominator changed their mind following the community expressing the opposite consensus about an article with similar sources. Based on this the nominator sought a second AfD to see whether the community's consensus had changed - imho an entirely reasonable course of action. If there are COI issues then these need to be evaluated by the closing administrator of the AfD - such evaluation is not within the competence of speedy deletion. Almost all defences of the speedy deletion seem to be attempts to ensure that consensus cannot change, without any plausible reason given for why this prejudgement must take place rather than allow the community to decide whether it holds the same opinion as it did a year previously. Thryduulf (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi Thryduulf. Schlock Mercenary isn't at all similar. Those sources are stronger: Wired Magazine, Washington Post, Ars Technica, the Inquirer, a couple of books, etc; and there are multiple award nominations and awards. Cheers. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Going from 7–8 months to a year is pretty aggressive rounding. I would be happy to treat this as the recreation DRV and discuss the article's merits, if TPH (or anyone else) would update and improve his argument. I made the effort to investigate the Santa Maria Sun source. Flatscan (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hey LC, keeping a preliminary article on a (so far) non notable subject in userspace or the incubator - as long as it's not horribly spammy - is not really a problem AFAIC. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yah, userfying or projectifying or incubating all sound OK. I sincerely hope the comic gets some more 3rd party recognition--it looks pretty good. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

              Hey, look, a compliment! FWIW, I continue to strongly suggest incubation - other editors have requested access besides me, and because of the aforementioned COI issues, I'd much rather get people other than just me used to working on it, which is the whole point of putting it in the incubator vs. userfication. Veled (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

              • For the record, I have no objection to userfication or incubation it's easier to post this here than disrupt the discussion strand following my recommendation above. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]