Donnie Brennan ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Speedy deletion of a valid search term with invalid reasoning (G8 - "redirect to self" which does not make sense as his name is clearly listed on the article. I created the redirect because i was reading an article about him and his connection to that unfortunate film series ( Bumfights) and seen he had no article so i created a redirect, searching his name plus the article's title clearly lays out why i think a redirect is needed. GuzzyG ( talk) 17:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The page content was

#REDIRECT [[Donnie Brennan]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Brennan, Donnie}}
[[Category:Living people]]

If you want to redirect Donnie Brennan to a page other than Donnie Brennan, please do so. — Kusma ( t· c) 17:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Jesus, it's 4 am and i am not really thinking right, my mistake, sorry for starting this nuisance. GuzzyG ( talk) 17:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

BrowseAloud ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

There has been a lot of significant press coverage in the last few days, as evidenced at https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=BrowseAloud&tbm=nws

Please will someone undelete the article, in order that I may improve it and demonstrate its subject's increased notability?

I have asked the deleting admin, but they are not being cooperative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment Andy, as the deleting admin (Sandstein) asked, correctly, and which you chose to ignore and forum shop, please provide some actual evidence that there are new sources meeting WP:N / WP:RS, rather than a google search. Fish+ Karate 14:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • That's not so: I provided "actual evidence" here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    • A google search is not "actual evidence". You've been asked twice now to provide evidence of reliable sources that meet the basic standards for notability, and don't seem to feel like doing that. Therefore, your assertion that the subject's notability has increased is baseless. Endorse close unless the requestor feels like actually providing some evidence he's been asked for that demonstrates the subject's notability has significantly increased. Fish+ Karate 15:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
      • I see Andy has unilaterally decided to ignore this DRV and just move the draft to mainspace himself. Obviously nothing will get done about that, because he is immune from the rules everyone else is expected to abide by. I still endorse the close and add keep deleted, because the additional references provided in the new AFD are not really about BrowseAloud; the fact BrowseAloud was one of many programs that has been hacked by cryptominers is an incidental detail. Fish+ Karate 10:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
        • Looks like the nom was taking advice from Facebook and canvassing. a public FB post by Andy Szzuk ( talk) 11:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- The close accurately reflected the discussion. Linking to Google isn't helpful, and neither is bitching about the closing admin for saying so. Reyk _YO! 14:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not suggesting that the close (which occurred in November 2017) was improper, at the time, but that, as I said above: "There has been a lot of significant press coverage in the last few days". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Given all the news items are relating to its use as a vector in recent cryptocurrency malware, at best an updating of the article would include 'used in 2017 to mine bitcoins'. I am unconvinced that's any indication of notability given the widespread issues with a variety of software in the last year. In short, no reason to overturn. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • No, an update would not "at best include an updating of the article 'used in 2017 to mine bitcoins'". Your assertion has no substance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse--Utterly unconvinced about any new-notability, atleast unless and until Andy stops vague hand-wavings at Google-searches. ~ Winged Blades ^Godric 15:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Andy has clearly demonstrated that there are abundant reliable sources to support an article on this topic. If you are technologically literate enough to edit Wikipedia, then certainly you are technologically literate enough to realize that a Google News search is frequently used as a tool by Wikipedia editors to find RS-compliant sources. Don't be so obstinate that you can't admit that he has plenty of RS-compliant sources. Gamaliel ( talk) 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and put in userspace, the article was 12 years old when it was deleted as not notable, in that discussion the third since it was created there was the nominator, one person who in previous nomination had implied a COI with the supply of competitor products and person saying delete. Not exactly the most comprehensive of discussions but there was no counter argument on notability. Andy has come in good faith to seek an opportunity to restore an article and improve with the belief he has sufficient sources to address notability. With the google search Andy has provided I see Government both local and national in the UK, I see Bloomberg & CNBC US, I see one African source and 2 New Zealand sources. Along with those more general I see a few industry sources thats just in the first 3 pages from 2000 plus hits through Google News. Alternative if people are concerned about earlier versions then Andy should given the ok to be bold and start from scratch. Gnan garra 16:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per Gnangarra — OwenBlacker ( talk; please {{ ping}} me in replies) 17:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Note I have taken the liberty to open the top six links in in the search results provided by Pigsonthewing, and placed them, in the order that Google showed them to me, on the closing admin's talkpage within neat 'cite news' templates, at the relevant discussion section. As I said on that page: I make no claim to accuracy or quality of these references. I have no stake in the status of this article as deleted or not. I do not see why the shift in format is necessary to debate the [potential] newfound-Notability - since it's literally the exact same 6 news articles we're referring to. It's just that before they were in a google-search result and now they're in six separate mediawiki templates in the same order. Witty lama 17:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• (Without going as far as to recommend overturning the original AfD closure) Restore per Gamaliel - that Andy insisted on linking to a Google News search instead of directly linking to sources when asked to was an exercise in pointless intractability, but that doesn't mean that the Google News search in question was worthless as Sandstein obstinately tried to assert. There exists SIGCOV in RS'es more recent than the AfD, meaning the article can be restored and expanded (and if necessary, re-AfD'ed to evaluate the article subject with the new coverage). (Note, I was made aware of this DRV by a public FB post by Andy) Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 17:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Considering the article has already been undeleted, draftspaced, mainspaced, and improved, I strongly recommend quick closing this DRV, NPASR at AfD with the new sources if someone wants to. Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 22:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Undelete and return to mainspace. This has been to AfD three times - each time it has been inconclusive. The slightest investigation (e.g. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/11/browsealoud_compromised_coinhive/) will show that this program has recently become newsworthy, and for reasons that are entirely unconnected to its past notability (marginal as that might have been). Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse entirely valid deletion, undelete to Draft for cleanup, but given past promotional editing it definitely needs independent review before going back to mainspace. Most past revisions I've checked are pure PR. Guy ( Help!) 17:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Fair close and the nom hasn't provided any refs to support undelete. Szzuk ( talk) 18:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Oops I undeleted the article about 20 minutes ago, without knowing this DRV existed, and moved it to Draft:BrowseAloud. Mea culpa, etc etc. Do what you will. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 18:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Them refs look terrible, their not helping the overturn cause! :) Szzuk ( talk) 18:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Using a smiley as a signature is no excuse for not bothering to read the DRV request, and why it's based on reasons which have only been reported since the AfD. Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

This forum is deciding on that article - I'm not fishing for refs, expect endorse unless they appear here. Szzuk ( talk) 18:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I've seen the new article and I'm not changing my vote, the company isn't becoming notable because it is involved in a news event not of its own making. 80% of the article is just that news event and incidental to the program itself. Szzuk ( talk) 09:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the AfD close looks fine and the original version was very badly sourced. (Excluding dead links we have a UK local newspaper, which is usually terrible, a newsgroup post and a page which doesn't appear to mention the subject.) I'm happy for it to stay in draftspace so it can be fixed up though. Hut 8.5 19:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse both the deletion and the return to draftspace. If it's fixable, great. It can go to mainspace once the sources that supposedly exist are actually put into the article. Repeatedly handwaving at references doesn't help, citing them does. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This could have been handled a lot more quickly and amicably without the eyeroll-worthy grandstanding. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 00:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC). reply
• Endorse and delete , not return to draft; the involvement as target for a possibly notable attack might or might not pass NOT NEWS, but still would not justify an article on the company as such. . In addition, At 20:24, on Feb 29 Pigsonthewing moved the draft article to mainspace [1] in the course of this discussion. I am not one who considers formal procedure sacrosanct, but I do not consider that a good faith response to this XfD. ( DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Agree. The nominator would have been better advised to follow typical procedure - provide refs, ask for opinion and await result. Szzuk ( talk) 09:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• As closing admin (who wasn't notified about this DRV), I maintain the view that the AfD was properly closed with a "delete" outcome. As I said on my talk page, the recent news about this software being hacked doesn't do much for its notability, because the news was about the hack, not the software. This matter should rather be covered in the article(s) about the hackers and/or the cryptocurrency. The undeletion was moreover out of process. Both the draft and the recreation should therefore be re-deleted. Sandstein 11:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, and salt. There's enough of a discussion at the (2nd nomination) that it wouldn't have needed a relist or a "no consensus". And now that it's been expanded, all that can be presented is news reports: primary sources by people who aren't experts in the field and who do not have a reputation for sufficient fact-checking and accuracy. Nyttend ( talk) 12:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Cherise Haugen ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

There were three AFDs for Miss Teen USA titleholders running at the same time all closed within about 24 hours. From what I can see, the three titleholders are notable for the same thing, referencing levels are similar. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Brown (2nd nomination) closed as keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janel Bishop initially closed as no consensus but following discussion with the closing admin, has been revised to keep as well. Whilst I understand AFD is not a headcount, the Cherise Haugen had 9 keep votes, 6 delete votes (7 with the nomination) and 1 for redirect. It appears to me that this should have been a straightforward relist or no consensus close. I have tried discussing with the closing admin but have got nowhere. Their BIO1E concerns are irrelevant because this is not a single event - winning a state title, a few months making appearances as a state titleholder, winning Miss Teen USA, a year as the reigning Miss Teen USA titleholder, competing at Miss USA etc. --- PageantUpdater ( talk) 01:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, obviously. It is absolutely correct that AfD is not a headcount. The BLP1E concerns were never really addressed. Even if we were to consider the numbers at a no consensus, it is longstanding practice that a nomination made for BLP reasons may be closed as a delete in such an instance. In this case, many of the "keep" arguments simply repeated that the individual participated in the very event that was the root of the concern. Insofar as any other discussions, while they are largely irrelevant, the concerns were much more directly addressed in them, so it does not surprise me to see their results different. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Given the split !vote, it would have been helpful to have a bit of a closing statement. Hobit ( talk) 03:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah, that would have been a good idea. I'll keep that in mind for next time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Discussion was split. It's not clear that winning the Illinois award, then the national one, then serving in the role of the winner can be viewed as "one event". I'd say discussion on that issue was pretty split. Can we get a temp undelete of the article? I'd like to see the state of the sources and over what time period those sources were published. Hobit ( talk) 03:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Delete any subsequent coverage either is a direct result of the 1Event (an article printed a week after the win on how the hoetown girl won) or is very incidental (Miss Wherever mentioned as appearing at the Santa Claus parade). That includes showing up to crown the next Miss Whereever where she has a 30 second role and is often mentioned incidently in coverage as being the predecessor. People noticed for WP:1E often get mentioned later because of the 1E and may be interviewed about the event even years later, but it's still all because of the 1E. Also, being named Miss Wherever for a year is arguably a one year long event. Legacypac ( talk) 03:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

You need to separate the event from the title. But you're not capable of that level of thinking, or thinking at all. Lol--- PageantUpdater ( talk) 03:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

There's really no call for that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I honestly don’t care if I get blocked at this point, I am sick to death of Legacypac’s hounding behaviour - well I don’t know or care if it’s within WP:HOUND but yhat’s What if feels like to me, following me around wiki targeting articles I have edited, engaging in unnecessary disrespect with regard to BLP and has completely slapped me of my will to be involved in this project. He can fuck off as far as I care. I have been involved in Wiki since 2006 and tbh I am completely over it now. So to hell with him for making me feel like that. --- PageantUpdater ( talk) 03:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Please - please - get a WP:MENTOR; I was lucky enough to have a parent who had been a long-time contributor on Wikipedia, but there is still a ton of stuff (technically-speaking) that I do not know how to do with articles, moves, and how to try and bullet-proof articles from deletionists and revisionists. I suggested that Legacypac seek mentoring, but that was more for behavioral issues. That the user has chosen to ignore that suggestion lets me know that they pretty much have a shorter shelf life than the typical user. Don't be like that.
Working with a mentor is a smart, good angel on your shoulder that you can get advice from in situations both frustrating and/or complex. I cannot recommend it enough; it only has up sides and no down sides. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 04:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment- This is a pattern I've seen played out many times previously. Someone comes along trying to uphold some semblance of minimal sourcing standards for BLPs in a specific subject area. Then enthusiasts of that subject area scream abuse at them in one breath, and in the next breath cry about how hard done by the enthusiasts are. It is not helpful. Reyk _YO! 10:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

And comments like yours are a pattern I've seen too. I've spent literally hundreds of hours over more than a decade adding references to articles, I've set up a Newspapers.com account through Wikipedia solely for that purpose, and yet the deletionists and pageant-haters keep wanting to frame me as the enemy. To hell with all of you. --- PageantUpdater ( talk) 12:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- This seems like a reasonable close to me. Numerically the votes were split, but clearly the strength of argument favoured deletion. Reyk _YO! 12:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This is a pageant for a certain age group in one country, so is not definitively a major competition; therefore the comments that "she's notable because she's won this" do not address her notability. To compare, our notability guidelines for sport are often considered to be overly inclusionist, but we generally don't have articles for sportspeople who have won Junior titles (or similar) unless they pass GNG in other ways (indeed, we sometimes don't even have articles for the events). If she had gone on to be noteworthy in other ways (taking part in international competitions or having an acting career that wasn't a single bit-part), then the conversation would be different. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - and Seraphimblade, what is the best way to handle the other 2 BLPs, Janel Bishop and Allison Brown, both single events that should also be deleted? ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 15:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• If you think those discussions were closed incorrectly, you'd have to talk with the closers of them. Otherwise, the only way if you think they still ought to be deleted would be to file a new AfD after some period of time, or to request review here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment My nominations in the pageant area are not targeting any particular editor, but specific problem areas. The pageant pages are very extensively wikilinked so it is very easy to identify a series of equally poorly ref'd non-notable pages. A review of my WP:MFD and User:Legacypac/CSD_log show I'm hardly pageant focused. User:PageantUpdater needs to get over his/her hostility and remove the hostile comments please. Spending hundreds of hours adding sources to pages that don't pass WP:N does not help the project. Legacypac ( talk) 15:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment This outright deletion and not even leaving a redirect in certain fields/interests that people have worked on for years and that are clearly in national interest in their home country (the president of the united states owned one so clearly some historians are going to cover this subject for many decades) only leaves open the possibility of a competitor. Not every article needs a full length bio, "he/she won this national tournament" should be enough, it's enough to get you into a biographical dictionary. GuzzyG ( talk) 17:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment I do suggest that this be made a redirect to Miss Teen USA; whilst the winners that have no other notability do not need articles, it is a reasonable search term. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• I see no issue with a redirect. AfD doesn't forbid redirecting the title, anyone can do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Relist all 3 The absurdity of these results shows the absurdity of our method of deciding on whether there should be an article. The importance of all 3 of these are on any rational basis very close to identical. We should either be keeping them all, deleting them all unless there is something of notability in their subsequent career. For someone teaching about WP, e these discussions would be very useful to show the hopelessly immature and unrealistic way it still make decisions. I personally have no interest whatsoever in these articles being in an encyclopedia , but I also have no great commitment to a need to remove them. What I do feel , is utter embarrassment by a conflict of results of this sort. Next time I start a general argument on eliminating the GNG, these will be a prime example. We would do much better to admit we have no way of handling this sort of situation, and if we do not want to adopt rational subject-related criteria for notability , we would do better to decide once and for all of them by tossing a coin or the electronic equivalent. We would even do better picking one representative one at random to keep. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I share DGG's concern about similarly-situated articles reaching dissimilar results. But re-listing is not going to be a good solution. Instead, there needs to be an RfC on the underlying question of whether becoming Miss Teen USA is a "well-known and significant award or honor" within the meaning of WP:ANYBIO. After thirty days of community discussion, we'll know the answer and that answer can then be applied to all of the similar articles, not just the three in question here. And in the meantime, restoring the status quo (i.e., "keeping" the article) is the appropriate action. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 18:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The closer provided no guidance as to the "delete" votes outweighed the "keep" votes until this DRV. There seems to be a big conflict here as to whether a teen pageant winner is notable for winning a national-level title, we're getting inconsistent results, and we're getting these sorts of articles AfD'd over and over again. I agree with a possible RfD suggestion as per NewYorkActuary. SportingFlyer ( talk) 01:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• For topics of borderline notability, we will often be inconsistent in our application of notability. That is more or less the definition of "borderline", and so I can't really say this AFD was incorrectly closed. But there is more than one way to present this information, and perhaps merging them all into a list of pageant winners (pointing to more detailed articles for the more notable ones) would make more sense spreading the information over a handful of stubs. — Kusma ( t· c) 08:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

  For lists of people great care is needed. It is possible to read WP:LISTPEOPLE as saying that people may not be included in a list unless each individual is notable. The supposed exception to the notability requirement seems to be that the person is notable (sic). I have seen this line being argued very strictly even though it is part of the Manual of Style (where it does not belong at all) and WP:NOTABILITY takes the view that notability concerns the presence of articles and not their content. Thincat ( talk) 19:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

  Looking through WP:LISTPEOPLE, I read If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E. So a list of people notable only for winning some pageant seems fine, and merging single-event notable people into an article about the event may be best. — Kusma ( t· c) 09:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

  I was remembering this AFD, which was closed "no consensus". In general I think merged "mini -biographies" should be kept. Thincat ( talk) 12:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. First, the closer's decision, against the expressed weight of opinion, and was not accompanied by an explanation. In comparable AFDs, most closers have reached contrary conclusions. The reliance here on BLP1E is particularly weak, since BLP1E is generally, both by consensus practice and the language of BLP1E itself, overridden by ANYBIO#1. Second, WP:OSE notes that, because Wikipedia is intended as a "comprehensive reference", In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items. This is exactly such a case; this subject is now the only non-bluelinked name in the template of winners of the award. An encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 23:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply