Peace Revolution (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Re-proposing a completely new version of the page, due to subject having become more notable. At Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Peace Revolution, JohnCD has advised me to request undeletion here that in case the new proposal of the page gets through, this will make it easier to post it. He says, the involved admin is retired. However, I will inform the others involved in the 2009 deletion. Also, Robert McClenon says at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How to re-propose previously deleted article we should undelete the 2009 version of the page for comparison with the new, current version. Hence this request.S Khemadhammo (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is actually a request for Requests for Undeletion rather than for deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that I have failed to communicate some details. Can you assist me at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Peace Revolution? Thanks Robert McClenon.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:S Khemadhammo - I don't think that undeletion is needed, because the merge has done what is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Because the original article is so old, there is no overlapping history between it and Draft:Peace Revolution, and the draft is substantially different and well-sourced, I have performed a history merge, moving the deleted article history into the draft article. This DRV entry may be closed, because it satisfies the needs of the requester. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Amatulić and Robert McClenon. Too bad the draft didn't get through.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @S Khemadhammo: They often don't get through on the first try. That isn't the end of it. The reviewer explained how it needs to be improved. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Amatulić!--S Khemadhammo (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Amatulić is correct: a draft being rejected once does not mean the topic can never have an article. People frequently submit drafts prematurely, but a rejected draft can still be further improved and then potentially accepted if it's improved enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooooohhh... On the Video Tip (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion was non-admin closed as keep citing WP:NALBUM point 2. However, the closer did not take into account the rest of the notability guideliner that states that the subject "must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The point about the coverage was explicitly called out by user:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars in the discussion and even persuaded one of the keep !voters to acknowledge they were okay with a redirect. The close as keep is inconsistent with teh actual guideline cited and seems to be a bit of a supervote on the part of the closer. Additionally, even counting up the !votes, the discussion had 1 delete (nominator), 2 keeps and 2 redirects with one of the keep !voters also being okay with redirect. I am requesting that this discussion be overturned and closed as a redirect. Note that I left a note on the closer's talk page but it appears they may be on vation or otherwise not editting as there has been no response for over a week. Whpq (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ENDORSE Overturn (my apologies). The closer clearly does not understand the guideline cited. The points listed on WP:NALBUM are NOT automatic indicators of notability. General notability requirements must be met. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you endorsing the close or saying that it should have been something other than keep? Sorry, just trying to be clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. NALBUM allows for an article about an album that charted. It charted, so let's keep it. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (Also, Whpq put this on my talk page as "closer" for some reason when I was just one person who added an opinion.) NALBUM lists things that would indicate prima facie notability, i.e. would a reader plausibly look for this? It was a Top 10 video, so that's pretty clearly a "yes" - it's not like it was #99 on Heatseekers or something. It could have reasonably closed IMO as a keep or a merge-and-redirect, but either way there's no good reason to overturn this close - David Gerard (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Top 10 music video (on VHS even), not really close to a Hot 100 equivalent chart. No one in the world talks about these types of charts anywhere except the trade magazines ranking sales. Charting ≠ notability. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect. All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.^WP:NALBUM Charting does not imply notability; charting only indicates that it may be notable. Without significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject the recording is not presumed to be notable. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was a Top 10 video, so that's pretty clearly a "yes" - it's not like it was #99 on Heatseekers or something.--88marcus (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and redirect. The consensus was split between keep and redirect, and David Gerard had noted that he would have been open to a redirect. Relisting would also have been an okay option, but I think a keep close wasn't warranted. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse and feel free to start merge discussion on the talk page Meets a SNG which is enough as long as there is support in the discussion. I'd probably have closed as merge personally and I think that's likely the right outcome. But close was reasonable given the situation and the discussion. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AFD nominator was apparently mistaken in thinking it hadn't charted. If it made #9 on the video chart, well, there's not a lot left to argue about really. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. The WP:SUPERVOTE issue is clear, because discounting the nomination (based on erroneous info) and the first keep (a WP:PERX that could charitably be counted as half a !vote), the other keep agrees with a redirect.

This being said, is there really a consensus for redirecting? I think not, and the discussion above borders on AfD round 2. Relisting would have been reasonable (read: that is what I would have done) and the debate is not dead - so let's relist! Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak overturn to redirect -- a technical SNG pass does not guarantee a stand-alone article. It gets the subject included in the encyclopedia, but it's generally best to put the subjects that lack sources discussing it directly and in detail on a respective encyclopedic list, which existed in this case and already included relevant information about the subject. Overall, it's not a big deal, although my preference is not to set a precedent of keeping articles where sources are insufficient to build a reasonable article per WP:WHYN. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. No obvious consensus for any result at the moment, IMO. Not suitable for a non-admin to close this (per WP:BADNAC), and I'd assume if an admin was in the process of closing the AfD, they'd simply relist it at the current point in time. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original article was deleted in 2009 as it was deemed that the artist was not notable. It looks like in the meantime he has had extensive coverage in the international press: Washington Post, Daily Mail and two articles in the Guardian newspaper. Other artists have individual pages with less press coverage. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. This artist has had multiple coverage on different occasions from reliable independent international newspapers. He is also notable as he is the founder or the Cambridge Stuckists, a widely known international art movement. see the links for the artist on the page that should be re-instated: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Udaiyan&oldid=744127825

I believe that the user who deleted/redirected the page is no longer active - so i can't add the note: DRVNote|Udaiyan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Modernist 217.33.181.41 (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse unless you can cite the exact sources about him here, which should have been offered alongside with this statement, because there is nothing to suggest we can in fact have a convincing article and there is not inherited notability simply because some news sources exist or in that they are simply from known news sources, and how he has founded his own company now. Also, as an artist, the best shots of notability would be permanent museum collections. If these new soufces can be listed, I may reconsider. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse consensus at AfD was clear, and there is nothing new that would need for it to be relisted. Like ST, I'd be open to reconsideration if additional sources can be brought here. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation Here is a short list of references post 2009 about the artist Udaiyan. The newspaper articles indicates that he is known in the art world.

Article by Jonathan Jones criticising Udaiyan's painting Saatchi & Saatchi 2014 https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/shortcuts/2014/jun/30/painting-nigella-lawson-throttled-charles-saatchi-art-world-joke

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/paintings-of-nigella-lawson-being-throttled-for-sale-on-charles-saatchi-s-website-9571263.html Article in the Independent newspaper

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/celebritynews/10933550/Paintings-of-Nigella-Lawson-being-throttled-for-sale-on-Saatchi-website.html Article in the Daily Telegraph

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2673457/For-sale-Saatchis-art-website-bizarre-paintings-mock-Nigella-Lawson-throttling.html Article in the Daily Mail https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/30/nigella-lawsons-ex-is-selling-paintings-of-him-choking-her/ Article in the Washington Post

Article by Jonathan Jones criticising Udaiyan's portrait of him in 2010 https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2010/mar/17/art-portrait-stuckism,

Biography of Darren Udaiyan on the Hepatitis C Trust 2016 (Art on a Postcard) http://www.artonapostcard.com/darren-udaiyan/

http://www.stuckism.com/Udaiyan/index.html Profile of Darren Udaiyan on the Stuckism Website

Also the original reinstater wanted this page reinstated which has no mention about any company: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Udaiyan&oldid=744127825 (Note: The original article was deleted in 2009, but this page was created in 2016 but was autodeleted as it didn't go through deletion review). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.176.92 (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional References Here is a list of exhibitions with references which includes Museum exhibitions and a Unesco exhibition.

Artists's own page http://www.udaiyan.com/profile.html

ATHENSART INTERNATIONAL ARTS FESTIVAL IZMAIL/UKRAINE 2012 at the Odessa Art Museum ref: https://issuu.com/ca4s/docs/ecatalogueizmail/146

An Hero - A celebration of Beauty. Solo Exhibition. Curated by D. Udaiyan, Oct 13-19 2010 Nolias Gallery, London.

Enemies of Art Show - Group show at the XVIII JESUS LANE Gallery - curated by D. Udaiyan, Cambridge, Mar 17 - Mar 24 2010. This is mentioned in the Guardian newspaper. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2010/mar/17/art-portrait-stuckism,.

Art on a Postcard Secret Auction 2016 to raise funds for The Hepatitis C Trust. Soho Revue, London, Nov 2016, ref: http://www.artonapostcard.com/

Gargling Sky of Gergeri, Unesco's The International Year of Astronomy 2009 - curated by Polyxene Kasda, Chrysa Vathainaki, Pierre Chirouze, Donatella Bisutti. Aug 2009 Gergeri, Municipality of Rouvas, Crete, Greece. ref: http://uraniasgardens.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/gargling-sky-gergeri-2009_01.html

Art In Mind - Group show at Brick Lane Gallery - curated by Tony Taglianetti. Brick Lane, London, Nov 24-Dec 7 2009 ref: http://www.thebricklanegallery.com/Art_in_Mind_NovemberPT2_09.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.176.92 (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse regardless of the sources above. The AfD was closed fair and square, without any extra protection (WP:SALT or something). If new sources do establish notability, recreation is allowed by default. Even sources from before the AfD but that were not brought up there would be enough to recreate (if demonstrating notability). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse All the reference and sources listed above are New. The article was originally deleted in 2009 so all the newspaper references in 2010, 2014, 2016 are new. So as Tigraan said: 'If new sources do establish notability, recreation is allowed by default.' But, the article was deleted 'fair and square' 7 years ago maybe that is the end of that article even if new sources appear in the meantime. If that is the case then the deletion should be endorsed. Note: the deletion discussion is here i believe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Udaiyan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.176.92 (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Actually, re-reading the newspaper references cited above, I'm concluding that the sources just indicate a minor controversial artist of the Stuckist movement and doesn't merit a standalone article. So leave as it is with the redirection to Stuckist artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.176.92 (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N. Balasubramaniam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It is true that there is no consensus to grant ambassadors inherent notability. However, it is also true that there is no consensus not to grant them inherent notability. The issue is certainly not cut and dried and the debate on it has ground to a stalemate several times, with supporters on both sides. A number of editors consider that, as top-level representatives of their country, all ambassadors should be treated in the same way that politicians who have sat for one day in a national or sub-national legislature are treated (note that it has been argued by different opponents of this view that this should not apply both because some ambassadors are political appointees and because most ambassadors are career diplomats and are not elected, as though elected politicians are somehow inherently more notable than people with long and distinguished careers! I'm not sure why either should be the case, but that's not at issue here). Failing that, they consider that at least ambassadors to and from major countries or who have had long ambassadorial careers in several different postings should be granted this notability. In addition, this particular individual (as director-general of the foreign office) appears to me to fall into the second criterion given under WP:POLOUTCOMES, which does illustrate a general consensus to keep such senior sub-cabinet officials. Given all this, these AfDs come down purely to a matter of opinion and it was wrong for the closer to give less weight to the keep opinions, as they admit to having done. This was a clear no consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment: As outlined in the AfD, I think that closers must not only count heads – opinions in this AfD were divided – but that they must also weigh the strength of the arguments made, and that the basis on which to do so is the wider community consensus codified in our policies and guidelines. The issue about which editors disagreed here – whether ambassadors should be considered inherently notable – is one that has apparently been frequently discussed, and my reading of these discussions is that there has never been consensus at the community level to assume such inherent notability. I think that this broader global consensus (or lack thereof) must inform my closure of a divided local discussion among very few people. As to WP:POLOUTCOMES, it is an essay and therefore does not represent any project-wide consensus, and it must therefore be disregarded when weighing arguments. In any case, the non-ambassador aspect of the biography was only peripherally discussed. Accordingly I maintain the view that my "delete" closure was appropriate.  Sandstein  08:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just about counting heads, but it's also not just about ignoring views that don't parrot policies and guidelines, especially where there has been so much debate on a subject. To claim that the keep arguments were not as strong on this basis is ridiculous. Re WP:POLOUTCOMES: not true; although an essay, it does illustrate broad consensus, is commonly taken to do so by editors (including closing admins), and should not just be ignored in this cavalier fashion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. If the question of inherent notability for ambassadors had never been discussed before this AfD, I would be arguing that the result should be overturned to "no consensus". But it has been discussed, over and over again, and a reliable consensus has been established (and reflected in guideline language) that ambassadors are not inherently notable. The AfD closer was correct to rely on this wider consensus when weighing the arguments made. It would have taken a better-attended, better-argued, and much more decisive discussion than the one we are currently reviewing to overturn that established consensus. Thparkth (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, for one, would love to see this so-called "reliable consensus" that ambassadors are not inherently notable. All I've seen in a number of debates is no consensus either way. If there was such a consensus then I would agree with you. There is none. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that there's no consensus that ambassadors are automatically notable does not mean that an article has to be kept because of the "lack" of a separate corollary consensus officially establishing that they're not — if there's no consensus that says they are, then that fact in and of itself is all the consensus required. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- When one side of the debate relies entirely on "inherent notability" (which does not exist), and the other side discusses the lack of sourcing, it's clear which side should be given more weight. Reyk _YO! 22:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I completely agree with Necrothesp that ambassadors to major states should be considered notable. But unfortunately the consensus is otherwise. It is not wrong to bring up the argument again from time to time to see if consensus is changing, but it seems clear that this is not happening. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, there is no consensus that diplomatic officers posted in "major countries" are automatically notable. You might think there should be, but there's not, and such a proposal would be highly controversial. Arguments appealing to this non-existent agreement, as well as argumentatum ad inclusionism, were properly ignored. Perhaps this person is notable per WP:N, but nobody in the discussion made that case. Good close. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse not the outcome I'd prefer, but I agree with DGG here. Hobit (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. As I've always said in AFDs on diplomats, ambassadors are accepted as notable if they can be reliably sourced over WP:GNG — but they are not accepted as "inherently notable" in the sense of getting a special exemption from having to be properly sourceable. (No class of topic ever actually gets that type of exemption.) As I noted in this discussion, diplomats are still real people, whose lives and reputations can be harmed if we get stuff wrong, and Wikipedia badfaithers have created WP:HOAX articles about diplomats who never actually existed at all — so just like any other class of people, diplomats have to be reliably sourced to media coverage to earn their keep, and cannot be given an automatic "keep because diplomat, sourceability be damned" pass. But the "coverage" here wasn't about him in the substantive manner necessary to properly support a Wikipedia article about him — it was sourced entirely to glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things, and that is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a person over GNG regardless of their occupation. And while there may be a valid case that ambassadors should be treated as senior sub-cabinet officials for the purposes of WP:NPOL, that argument actually backfires on its proponent in a way they didn't expect: senior sub-cabinet officials are also accepted as notable if they can be properly sourced over GNG, but they are not given a "keep because existence, no sourcing required" freebie either — we quite regularly delete articles about "senior sub-cabinet officials" if they can't be sourced properly. (And even for the elected legislators, they're kept because they're sourceable, not because serving in a legislature grants them an exemption from sourceability — it's the sourcing that gets them in the door, not the unsourced claim of serving as a legislator.) Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]