Spieprzaj dziadu! ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

• Last year Spieprzaj dziadu!, an article I created, was deleted. Yesterday some new information came to my attention that 5 of the 6 who voted to delete it were involved in coordinating their editing outside WP (and they were punished for it) - see here for their names, and here for the AFD on the article in question. It seems to me that this group, pro-nationalist Poles in the main, took offence to an article which showed their late president Lech Kaczynski in a bad light and therefore nominated it for deletion, knowing that others in their group would vote for the delete. I.e., it's highly likely that the AFD was rigged. Having seen the EEML investigation now, it strikes me that the AFD should be rescinded due to this unfairness in the voting process.

I have spoken to the editor who closed the AFD ( User_talk:Angr), but he also says that he closed it because the article lacked sources. Maybe there were none at the time (2 July 2009. NB - I'm not sure if there really were no sources, due to missing the AFD because I was not informed of it), but sources did once exist and I presume that they were removed around the time of the AFD, probably by this coordinated group (though this is hard to prove without access to the history). As proof that it once had good references, the article had had the required sources in March 2008 when it was given a DYK.

For this reason, would it be possible to review the deletion and reinstate the article's history? This would allow me to easily reinclude the sources. If anyone still believed the sources to be insufficient, I would then find more. It's worth noting, btw, that the Polish WP has an article on the same subject - which suggests that the topic is worthy of a page. Thanks for your time. Malick78 ( talk) 17:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Undelete the issues raised seem enough and the DYK status would indicate sourcing was at least minimal. Worth having a discussion at AfD at the least. Hobit ( talk) 18:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review' DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Seeing that, the sources when last touched by Malick78, aren't great. But I think a new AfD would be appropriate given A) the nature of the deletion discussion and B) the massive use of the term in Polish news reporting [1]. Hobit ( talk) 19:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. I'm going away tomorrow for a few days, but I'll try to work on it in the minimal time that I'll have. Please be patient :) Malick78 ( talk) 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• I still think this is best merged into the Lech Kaczyński article, but this is sourced and significant information that should appear somewhere, so I would undelete it for now.-- Kotniski ( talk) 09:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. The EEML members made up a significant portion of those !voting and although there may be a slim consensus to delete even discounting their votes (and discounting them all together is going too far) we can never know how their comments affected other users (some of who may not even have commented because of the existing !votes). Although I think a relist is likely to result in a delete or merge result I think this AfD is so tainted and there's enough doubt that the result would be the same that a relist is appropriate. Dpmuk ( talk) 12:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn/relist - No fault at all with the closing admin's actions...and I rarely if ever call for overturns here...but if this really was tainted by now-banned editors who colluded off-wiki then it needs a clean discussion. A similar thing happened to False Moshe Ya'alon quotation last year, where the AfD was found after the fact to have been tainted by a banned sock, though noone ever got around to refiling another deletion discussion. Perhaps that one is due, too. Tarc ( talk) 14:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. Agree the outcome is tainted and should be re-visited. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 19:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist per the above. Sufficient evidence of impropriety in the original AfD to warrant a new discussion. Jclemens ( talk) 23:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist Tainted outcome with no fault to the closing admin. — Sandahl ( talk) 22:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• overturn and relist I suspect that this is going to end up deleted again, but there seems like enough doubt in this case that a rerun is easily justified. JoshuaZ ( talk) 04:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Tony Koltz ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Ruled no consensus with a poor explanation. Subsequent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfDs with little or no discussion indicates that there is some confusion as to whether administrator judgment can be used when two people commenting give good deletion reasons. Recommend simply deleting the article. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Closure is reasonable when so little participation has correct. That said, this is clearly going to turn into AfD2, so let's go there. He's co-author of 3 books that appear to be best sellers (in addition to the 2 choose-your-own adventerure books) and those best sellers have seen crazy numbers of reviews including commentary from David Brooks and other wonks. Meets WP:AUTHOR#3 and #4. #3 "Played a major role in co-creating, well-known work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." and #4 "The person's work has won significant critical attention". Examples of coverage of the books as they relate to the real world: [2], [3] and examples of review (including real-world components) [4], [5]. There are plenty more... [6]. This is _why_ we don't generally delete articles with so little participation.... Hobit ( talk) 17:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Hobit, coverage of the products of the subject doesn't equate to coverage of the subject. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • True, but they the products of the subject can be used to meet WP:AUTHOR yes? Same with WP:PROF I think. So while what you say is true, I don't think it negates my argument. Hobit ( talk) 14:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Maybe. WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF, I admit are useful. They are especially useful for predicting whether a decent article can be written, or whether a new article can be improved or is destined to remain sub-standard indefinitely. But in the end, they are indicators of whether it is likely that there exist third party coverage of the subject. Even if every SNG criterion is met, if in the end, no one else has published anything about the subject, then I don't think we can have a reasonable article based on secondary sourcing about the subject. It would be better to mention the author/inventor/developer/researcher/analyst in a section of one of the articles about the thing the person produced. If there is no such product article, I don't think that it can be said that the SNG criteria have been met.
    • I am aware of an alternative argument, that Wikipedia should attempt comprehensive coverage, and that this means having an article on every best-selling author, every ground breaking scientist, every software developer who developed software in widespread use. I am not dead against that, but I think it is a slippery slope to crossing WP:NOR when it means writing articles in the absence of independent secondary sources discussing the subject directly. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks, I think there is enough out there (from non-independent sources) to write a reasonable, if brief, bio. The question is if we should and I think the SNG in this case indicate his works have had enough of an impact that we should do so. Hobit ( talk) 01:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply
        • I think that if a subject meets an SNG, we can relax our requirement for at least 1-2 secondary sources to be independent. In this case, I am not persuaded that the subject meets a relevant SNG. What SNG criteria is met? What is one good secondary source, even if not completely independent. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Nothing prevents a renomination at AfD . Personally, I would have relisted it a second time, but the results tend to be similar to a non-consensus close. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I'm okay with a second relist as we seem to do those on occasion for a BLP. Hobit ( talk) 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Closing admin: I'm fine either way, but just a note that any prescriptive (as opposed to descriptive) policy-related discussion should be directed to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfDs with little or no discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This is currently a bit of a grey are when it comes to policy and guidelines and, although there has been some discussion, it still effectively comes down to admin discretion and as such this was a reasonable close. As a 'no consensus' close there is nothing stopping a reasonably quick re-nomination. Dpmuk ( talk) 13:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but allow an immediate relist per WP:NPASR. Though it's not currently written down in the guidelines, as far as I'm concerned any AFD closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation can be speedy renominated whether or not the closer says so. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 03:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete per AfD nom, also noting the absence of significant incoming links. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete per the consensus at the AfD. There is no quorum at AfD, and no one supported retention. The arguments for deletion were guideline-based in that the subject failed WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. I have reviewed Hobit ( talk · contribs)'s sources above and fail to see how the subject would pass the notability guidelines. As SmokeyJoe said above, coverage of the books does not equate to coverage of the author. Here is a sample of one of Hobit's sources (in it Tony Koltz is mentioned only once): "The book, Battle Ready, is by the novelist Tom Clancy, with General Zinni and another writer, Tony Koltz." A very notable individual, Tom Clancy is listed as the author, while Tony Koltz is listed as one of the co-authors. This does not allow Koltz to pass WP:AUTHOR.

  On a secondary note, I am fine with a relist of the debate to allow more discussion. Cunard ( talk) 06:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Clancy has claimed he didn't actually do any significant work on the book btw. I don't think it matters and in any case they are all co-authors. In any case the guideline says "played a major role in co-creating" which would be true of a co-author I should think. Hobit ( talk) 14:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Jasmere.com ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Hi. Because this page was deleted before a discussion occurred, I'm not sure if I am posting this request correctly. I believe this page was deleted without a valid reason. I have exchanged a few friendly emails with the admin but have not resolved the conflict. The primary reason cited was G4 (recreation of a deleted page). This version of the page is substantially different than the last page with over 20 new sources. There are 27 sources on this page, all from credible 3’rd parties (no blogs, no company websites, etc.). 13 of the 27 sources are prominent and substantial mentions (several minute long stories) of Jasmere.com in local TV news segments across the country (several of the sources are duplicates and not unique, however). Yes, a few of the sources have just a sentence or paragraph about Jasmere.com, but those are in substantial publications such as the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper and Real Simple magazine. Between the breadth of coverage as well as the depth in numerous sources, I feel this page meets the notability guidelines. I also think that it is not "exclusively" promotional (G11). While one or two sentences could appear promotional, I feel the overall piece is not overtly promotional. And I do believe there are negatives of Jasmere.com, as I have a section dealing with shopping addiction. Lastly, it appears that someone else tried to add a sentence recently, but in the process may have made some of the links to sources not appear correctly. Also, one source is a dead link (it appears twice) as I recently discovered even though it was working fine last week. Thank you very much for your consideration. Jeff Jbernfeld ( talk) 14:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I was the admin that deleted this article. The reasons I gave in the deletion log were "‎G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". I do not see any reason for regarding G4 as the "primary" reason: in fact I regard G11 as the main reason. The re-created version of the article does not seem to me to be substantially different from the one which was subject to the AfD, except in regard to the sources, which certainly have been increased. ("27 sources" is misleading, as some are duplicated, but there are certainly many of them, whatever the exact number.) The one point about the sources about which there may be most room for disagreement is the value of the television clips. To me they seem to be essentially promotional in character, but I am sure some people will disagree, and I welcome the opportunity for others to express their opinions on this. If consensus turns out to be against me I will accept that. However, I still feel that, even if the sources are accepted, the article is essentially promotional, and justifies deletion under G11. In fact at one point I actually planned to undelete the article, as the sources seemed to be at least borderline for being good enough, but then I remembered that G11 was another reason for deletion. (I had forgotten that, as the discussion that Jbernfeld engaged me in was concentrated on the issue of sources.) The inclusion of a brief two-sentence mention of the concept of "Shopping Addiction" does not remove the overall promotional tone. I am willing to accept that G4 is not certain here, as the sources are distinctly better than when the AfD took place. However, I still think that the article was promotional, and that G4 remains valid. The "few friendly emails " that Jbernfeld mentioned were in fact comments on my talk page. Anyone reading this may like to see that discussion too. Since it may be archived during the currency of this deeltion review discussion I have made a copy at User:JamesBWatson/Deletion of Jasmere.com. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• It is pretty darn promotional, but I don't think it is "exclusively promotional" or would require a complete rewrite to fix. I think it's a judgment call, but on contested speedies that are in fact debatable I'd prefer we go to AfD for more input, so overturn. Hobit ( talk) 15:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Yes, actually on reflection I have decided that it is borderline enough that I accept that. I will restore the article, and consider whether to take it to a new AfD or not. JamesBWatson ( talk) 16:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Article is now at AfD, suggest the DrV be closed. Hobit ( talk) 17:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I closed this AfD as consensus to delete. Subsequently the article author contacted me explaining that new sources had emerged, and I had the article undeleted here so that he could use those sources to overcome the referencing and notability concerns. I'm not familiar enough with the subject area to confidently assess the new sources, so I ask for a community discussion on whether recreation ought to be permitted. Thank you for your attention, Skomorokh 04:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• The AFD failed due to notability concerns. The method is apparently quite new with the original article solely referenced to the 2009 journal documenting it. Of the references in the updated article all but 2 of them predate the journal. These are not going to be providing coverage of this method. The other two references I cannot see, however they are referenced as usages of the method and appear to be as such. I would doubt these discuss the method itself as the "subject" as WP:GNG requires they are more likely to be discussion of a usage of the method. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 11:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note the collapsed section above, don't know if it's me but it's fairly inobvious that it's there. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 15:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Inspired by the references above, I discovered two additional abstracts in peer-reviewed medical journals that discuss other uses of the PAPRIKA method, which I have added to the Wikip article under discussion (in the interests of confirming notability):

4. Fitzgerald, A, Conner Spady, B, De Coster, C, Naden, R, Hawker, GA and Noseworthy, T (2009), “WCWL Rheumatology Priority Referral Score reliability and validity testing”, abstract, The 2009 ACR/ARHP Annual Scientific Meeting, Arthritis & Rheumatology, 60 Suppl 10: 54.

5. Nosewothy, T, De Coster, C and Naden, R (2009), “Priority-setting tools for improving access to medical specialists”, poster presentation, 6th Health Technology Assessment International Annual Meeting, Singapore, 2009, Annals, Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 38: S78.

Paul Hansen 115.113.11.239 ( talk) 14:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation as not a DRV matter. As this article title is not protected there's nothing to stop the user moving this back to article space. It wouldn't be a G4 candidate as there would be new sources added and this means that a) the article wouldn't be "substantially identical" to the deleted one and b) there would have been an attempt to meet the concerns at AfD. Discussion of whether the new article meets our requirements should be at AfD, not here. Dpmuk ( talk) 12:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Procedural note: There is no other forum for developing consensus on recreation; recreating and immediately taking to AfD (or even CSD) would be needlessly adversarial. Skomorokh 14:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Query from the author. Thanks for your comments, Dpmuk and Skomorokh. I am a little confused ... What next? Should I be doing anything? Thanks. Paul Hansen Paulwizard ( talk) 04:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• No, you don't need to be doing anything else. When seven days have passed since you initiated the DRV, an administrator will close the discussion and restore the article to the mainspace. Cunard ( talk) 06:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation/Restore per the changes to the article. WP:CSD#G4 is no longer applicable, and this article would likely pass an AfD. Cunard ( talk) 06:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply