Wikipedia:Deletion review

This page deals with the Deletion discussion process. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Articles (today, all, closing) Templates (today, all, closing) Files (today, all, closing) PUF (today, all, closing) Categories (today, all, closing) Redirects (today, all, closing) Miscellany (today, all, closing) Undeletion Deletion review Request a copy Speedy deletion (candidates) Proposed deletion (all, books, BLPs) Deletion log Policy, Process, Guide Administrator guidelines

Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily for disputed deletions and speedy deletions, and for disputed decisions made in deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Deletion Review may be used:

1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly,
2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed,
3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page,
4. to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page (called a history-only undeletion),
5. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted, or
6. if there were a substantive procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion Review should not be used:

1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment,
2. to point out other pages that have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits),
3. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion to challenge these),
4. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests), or
5. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

1. discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #What is this page for?.
2. please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, please:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.
2.	Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |reason= }} ~~~~ Copy this template skeleton for files: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |article= |reason= }} ~~~~
3.	Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
4.	Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
5.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
6.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2013 June 19}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2013 June 19|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is different than the deletion review's section header:

Active discussions

17 June 2013

Anti-Muslim pogroms in India

Anti-Muslim pogroms in India (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the closing admins reasons for deletion are flawed. He has said that the title was inflammatory and this is a valid reason for deletion, it is not per POVTITLE. All sources in the article, as well as many more given during the AFD all say Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, per POVTITLE "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title" He also gave as a valid criteria for deletion "sources" However bar one source all others were to academic publishers. The subject matter obviously passes the GNG and this is a topic of both academic and MSM interest. I believe this needs to be overturned. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse - "I don't like it" is not a valid rationale for DRV filing, which despite the protests to the contrary, is what this really is. Nominator also seems to be cherry-picking the closing admin's rationale, which did not rest solely on "inflammatory title", but also noted "info is appropriately covered elsewhere under more generic terms" and "sourcing/NPOV". These types of articles come (and usually go) around all the time in this project, hyper-partisans pushing their partisan agendas. The keep votes were crap of the "it looks sourced to me" variety", so between that and the number of calls to delete, consensus of the discussion was read correctly. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not a case of IDONTLIKEIT, and I am sorry I missed a part of the closing rational, ny connection dropped out. The information in the article is not covered in other articles at all that I can see, and as already mentioned, the sources are from academic publishers so how is that a valid reason for deletion? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Lol what? "I lost my internet, so I didn't read the whole closing rationale" ranks up there with "my dog ate my homework". The subject matter is covered at Religious violence in India#Anti Muslim Violence and the specific topic articles linked from there. You're trying to fork constant into an unnecessary standalone article. Tarc (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry no, the connection dropped out while I was filing this and some got dropped without my noticing, and the content in the article is not present at Religious violence in India#Anti Muslim Violence, and even if it were, a content fork is within policy is it not? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:SIZERULE if I add the content which has been deleted it will put the Religious violence in India over the 100kb limit. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Could we get a temp undelete please? There have been wildly different claims about the sources so it's hard to evaluate these. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse As per the original nom that "Pogrom" is used to denote Jewish Historiography. This is one of the occasions (along with Indian feudalism) which is total WP:OR in Indian context. Solomon7968 19:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Which shows that the original nomination was flawed, the term has been used for years to denote other massacres. Merriam Webster gives a definition of "an organized massacre of helpless people" The term is not reserved exclusively for massacres of those of the Jewish faith. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the Muslim community is helpless in India although the opposite is true. To create it please first give Non partisan sources that the Muslim community is helpless in India. Solomon7968 20:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Any minority group is helpless when faced with overwhelming numbers, especially when the state or police refuse to help. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Your above comment is WP:OR. I will not respond to it. Please give citations. All top posts in India are occupied from the Muslim community (from finance minister to Ex-President to RAW head) What more you want? Solomon7968 20:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It is common sense, not OR. But as you insist, Women and Politics in the Third World "(Kashmir with a predominantly Muslim population) where, in the name of fighting terrorism, state security forces waged a virtual war against helpless civilians" Workers, Unions, and Global Capitalism: Lessons from India "workers saying that the victims deserved what they got: this was evidence of extreme prejudice, given that the victims were helpless innocents who were tortured, raped and killed in unspeakably brutal ways" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

So you forget about the Grand Mufti of Kashmir which issued a death fatwa because some teenage girls formed a band (that also wearing hijab). No one from Muslim community stood against this. Why are you not telling other side of story Mr. User talk:Darkness Shines Solomon7968 20:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Could the temperature in this debate be reduced, please? This argumentative back-and-forth is not conducive to thoughtful scrutiny of the issues raised. I would tend to agree with Hobit that there are widely varying claims being made and a temporary undelete would be helpful in evaluating them.

  Certainly religious violence against Muslims takes place in India. No reasonable person would claim otherwise. The question is not whether to cover religious violence against Muslims in India, because clearly we should cover it. The question is whether to cover it in its own, separate article or whether religious violence in India or persecution of Muslims are better places.

  I want to say that "pogroms" is not a word you'd normally expect to find in the title of an encyclopaedia article----it's not our usual language. I think that even if DRV decided to restore the content we would have to find a more distant, more neutral, drier title for it.—S Marshall T/C 21:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

We have a lot of articles with pogrom in the title [1]. The sources used in the article can be seen in my userspace here Darkness Shines (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

We do not care if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and every single of the other stuff are related to Jewish History. You cannot erode Indian historiography by imposing the word "Pogrom". Your aticle title seems to be Political views of Paul Brass. Solomon7968 21:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmmm. Up until I looked at Darkness Shines' list of sources, I was pretty clear that "pogrom" is a Yiddish word meaning "mass-murder of Jews by a mob of gentiles". I was intrigued to see that there really are sources (and here) that call the anti-Muslim violence in India "pogroms", and use that actual word in the actual title. Although I still don't think we should use that word, I can see how a reasonable person would disagree.

  For me, I think the key to this is that the experts don't have to be neutral, and indeed they usually aren't----it's accepted that subject-matter experts write books from an angle. We Wikipedians are constrained by WP:NPOV in a way that subject-matter experts aren't. I think our concern about neutrality underlies and underpins the consensus that emerged in the debate we're discussing, that we shouldn't have that article title. And I don't think a user would type "Anti-Muslim pogroms in India" into the search box.

  Darkness Shines, I think it's accepted that there are sources and they do use the word "pogroms". But the fact that there are sources doesn't mean that a separate article is the best way to cover the subject. Could you list all your objections to covering this under religious violence in India, please?—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:S Marshall Your summary is fine. I hope Darkness shines agrees. Solomon7968 22:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)The first problem is size, Religious violence in India already stands at 93,686 bytes, to add all the information from the pogroms article will violate WP:SIZERULE as it will put the article over 100kb. Should the pogroms article be restored and expanded it would surpass the size limitations even more. There is also the fact that this is a subject of academic interest, it passes GNG as a stand alone article under those guidelines. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Are those all of the reasons that you want us to consider?—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I reckon so, I am sadly, no policy wonk and have no ideas as to which policies I ought to be quoting. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I'm looking into this subject at the moment, refreshing my memory on all the violence since the Godhra train incident, and trying to understand the shape of the coverage we already have (across all the various articles). My first impression is there's quite a chaotic mix of articles with varying scope and focus, and I'm starting to wonder whether the whole topic area wouldn't benefit from rethinking its structure a bit.

To be quite frank I don't think the solution will be to overturn BWilkins' close; there really was a rough consensus there to support it. But I do think our coverage of anti-Muslim violence in India needs to be improved, and I agree that there's academic interest in the subject, and I don't see why the sources you list can't be used. It's a question of working out a balanced and fair way to do it. I'm minded to try to help when I've done some more reading and thinking.—S Marshall T/C 23:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:S Marshall The problem is we do not have articles on some core issues. For example check the article Syed Ahmed Bukhari which I created two days back. Solomon7968 23:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that missing articles are part of the problem. I'm just reading some of our very large number of articles about human rights in India, and I'm going through their histories. What I'm seeing is a whole lot of content written by a relatively small number of users, and it's often the same users in each article, interacting with each other again and again. I can see how pressures and tensions build up...—S Marshall T/C 00:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The thing which most frustuates me is lack of reliable sources on politics in India specifically the "Votebank politics". For example no Imam of any Indian mosque has a wikipedia entry though it is well known Imams are used for political purposes. The scale of lack of reliable source can be a headache to every editor who has a miniscule knowledge of the subject. Solomon7968 00:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@S Marshall: On why a separate article is not needed for this I had written at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Muslim pogroms in India that "If the articles, this one or the one already present, are written properly, they should only briefly be talking about various events as these events have their own separate articles. So if there is going to be only brief writing of few lines, why should there be two such briefs; one with a neutral title and another with an opinionated one?" §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm going to go with incubate. I agree that the close was within BWilkins' discretion and I think he deserves credit for being willing to make a difficult call. But the whole topic area is very complicated and difficult, and the more I look at it the more neutrality issues I see; our India-related coverage is chaotic and disorganised and an awful lot of it has been written by a fairly small number of people, many of whom have shown up in these debates. Although I see every evidence that those editors are writing in good faith, I think it's rather dangerous to allow our content of articles about violence and dissent in India to be controlled by a consensus of whoever shows up when "whoever shows up" is a small group of people. I think there may be appropriate content and sourcing that, with a little rewriting, could be incorporated into our existing coverage and I think it will all take longer than our customary seven days to assess in detail, so "incubate" looks correct to me.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"I think it's rather dangerous to allow our content of articles about violence and dissent in India to be controlled by a consensus of whoever shows up when "whoever shows up" is a small group of people." — I don't think singling India out is constructive. Same goes for the focus on only Anti-muslim violence! There is nothing wrong in letting those who are editing India-related pages in good faith, edit those pages because they form what seems like a small group of people to you! Isn't it a tad much to call it It is not dangerous.
"small group of people" - What group? AFAIK there are no group-membership services on Wikipedia. Those group members didn't sign up for something formally. Is that an euphemism for something? Small is a vague word. That article was not only not reliable it was also offensive and filled with personal inferences, opinions and conjectures.
There is no need to "incubate" this travesty of an article imbued with utterly partial insinuations and prevarications that are fudged together basing on deplorable POV. You've got to be kidding me(!) This is unacceptable. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Calm down, please. This isn't AN/I. Deletion review is supposed to be a drama-free zone.—S Marshall T/C 15:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I am calm now. I changed the comment and shifted the focus back to content. This is not a war of nerves. Don't get on my nerves. Thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Good. The first thing you need to understand is that the closing administrator will recognise my comments for what they are: I am endorsing BWilkins' close and recommending that this content is not published in the Wikipedia mainspace. The second thing is that the closer will have been paying attention and will know that there's already a copy of this material in userspace. What I'm actually asking for is no change to the status quo after the article has been deleted.

The third thing you need to understand is that my position is backed up by policy. WP:PRESERVE says "preserve appropriate content", which is wording that, more than three years ago, I wrote. It will take time to assess which of that content is appropriate and what isn't, and how it can all be phrased in a balanced and neutral way. I'm formally requesting that time to assess it should be allowed.

And the fourth thing you need to understand is that the reason why I'm "singling out" articles about India is because this DRV has caused me to read them and I have become a little concerned. I have not accused you or anyone else of bad faith and in fact I went out of my way to be clear that I think everyone concerned is editing in good faith. But with the best will in the world, you, and other editors active in the topic area, are clearly passionate about the subject, and you may benefit from support from editors who have a little more distance from it. (Yes, I'm being vague. The specific concerns I have don't belong here and would raise hackles if I mentioned them individually. Spartaz whoever closes this DRV doesn't need to read them to assess what I'm saying against policy. We can go into it at a later stage.)—S Marshall T/C 16:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe if you do a little bit of research you might learn that there are other faiths also both inside and outside India who are suffering from abject communal violence. Just to clarify, I am only against these two things. (1) Semi-exclusive focus on anti-muslim violence and (2) singling out India.(cf. WP:BALANCE, WP:DUE, WP:IMPARTIAL) And don't take this the wrong way, but claims of ignorance about vehement persecution of other faiths don't mean they don't exist. The rest of your comment is fine by me. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Request temp restore - Clearly this article is quite polarizing. In order to make a proper judgement I will need to actually see the content of the article in question. It's hard to pass judgement on something when there is no context which can be used to make said judgement! PantherLeapord (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Uhh... having a revision available where there is actually article text would usually help!PantherLeapord (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator observation) - Here Bwilkins said, "I never claimed at any point that an inflammatory title was reason for deletion." And I concur, apparently the closer summed the arguments for deletion in a line where only one of the cited reasons was "inflammatory title" others were "info is appropriately covered elsewhere under more generic terms"; "sourcing"; "NPOV". The DRV-nominator here is the creator of the article and there are many behavioral and attitudinal issues with his editing. Attitudinizing as a impartial, neutral editor, he is far from one. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn Agreed with Darkness Shines's nomination. I will strongly support undeletion. Please get the article restored. The result ought to be "no consensus". The consensus for "deletion" was never reached. Faizan 06:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want the article restored then you need to write overturn, not endorse. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean unanimity nor is it a majority vote and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Only citing just a policy or commenting based on subjective liking towards the subject to increase the head-count, is not a valid ground for nullifying a legitimate consensus. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. You have already posted your comment there on the AFD. There is no need to recreate that imbroglio all over again. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn Title argument not supported by policy. FYI, for use of 'pogroms' in a non-jewish context, see Frank Herbert's 'Dune'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

& other arguments? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse own deletion Darkness Shines is quite falsely claiming that I deleted because of an offensive title - in my close, I summarized a number of the arguments - one was that the title was inflammatory, but that was not a reason to delete. Mr Shines has been aware of this false statement for sometime after posting to my talkpage, but choosing not to listen to my responses. Mr Shines is focusing on one single false issue expecting responses like Only In Death's, and succeeding - thankfully only once. Do not allow this DRV to get as ugly as the AFD: that AFD led to blocks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the result ought to be "no consensus". The consensus for "deletion" was never reached. There had been discussion and votes for "Keep" too. Faizan 07:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse there was a consensus in the AfD for deletion. The central argument for deletion - that the article was not neutral and that the topic was covered elsewhere under more appropriate terms - is grounded in policy. The main argument for keeping the article was the existence of sources, which isn't particularly relevant to this argument. Hut 8.5 11:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse (note: I !voted delete in the discussion.) The closing admin summarized consensus accurately, including non-neutral framing, better covered elsewhere, etc. These are reasonable grounds for deletion. --regentspark (comment) 16:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Hispaniola greater funnel-eared bat in Los Haitises National Park.jpg

File:Hispaniola greater funnel-eared bat in Los Haitises National Park.jpg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The deletion of this image as being replacable fair use ignited a debate on WT:NFCC that is turning into yet another war between those trying to uphold policy as such (like me; a certain editor only called me a deletionist because of my actions in another, very different NFCC 1 case, best described as being carrots to pineapples in comparison), free content purists, and deletionists. The deleting admin stated that "Fair use doesn't apply just because you find it hard to get a free photo. The bat still exists and a picture can be taken of it, therefore grabbing a non-free picture isn't legit." However, this seems to be a special case because this particular species has only really been caught on camera in this particular non-free image; we should just use common sense here and put this up for further discussion with third-parties who have better knowledge of our consensus in NFCC 1 cases. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Although I am an involved party, I would like to point out that User:Nthep deleted the image with no comment, just that it fails criterion 1. User:Eeekster was the one with the comment above, and I don't believe he is an admin. Surfer43 (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This is correct. I deleted the file for failing to meet NFCC#1 namely that a free use image of the bat could reasonably be created. If the concensus is that a free image could not reasonably be created then I'm more than happy to restore the file but then there is a possible discussion about whether NFCC#2 (respect for commercial opportunities) is being met, if the image is that rare. The NFCC are a package so while this discussion maybe about the application of one criteria, just check that chosing a different interpretation of one doesn't potentially mean that others are now not being met. NtheP (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

User:PantherLeapord was the only one calling names. Surfer43 (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn as an improper F7 and send to FfD. Disputed fair use != Invalid fair use, a discussion is certainly called for, and not just an escalating back-and-forth between the uploader and the tagger. Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• On the one hand, I agree with Jclemens to the extent that speedy deletion should be reserved for clearer-cut cases. The purpose of the speedy deletion rule is to empower sysops to delete material without a discussion, but the community has set many limits on that. They're wearisome to read in detail but the underlying principle is always: it should be absolutely obvious to a neutral observer why the deletion is right. In cases where a neutral, good-faith observer might think "that's arbitrary" or "that's a matter of opinion", speedy deletion isn't the right tool for the job. In this case there is good faith doubt so a discussion is necessary.

  But on the other hand, I don't think there's any point in sending it back to FFD, because our FFC and NFCC pages are attractive to people who're focused on the "free content" part of Wikipedia rather than improving the actual articles. FFD will just delete it again because that's what FFD does. The people who're focused on encyclopaedia-building find FFD and NFCC a bit alien from the rest of the encyclopaedia because those venues are so militant in their focus on free content. To me, it's quite obvious that material that (a) it's lawful for us to use, (b) nobody objects to us using, and (c) enhances our encyclopaedia should be used. Deleting such material is obstructive, destructive, and grossly and blatantly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia.

  FFD and NFCC have become so free-content-focused and so deletionist that there's little point in having them. We might as well go the de.wiki route of not hosting image files locally at all and putting everything on Wikimedia Commons.

  For that reason input from the wider community is to be sought, not the free-content crowd who congregate around FFD and NFCC. I'd recommend that this goes to RFC, but I see that there's already one open on this very subject on WT:NFCC. DRV should wait for the community to decide at that RFC and then enforce the community's will.—S Marshall T/C 07:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  • "our FFC and NFCC pages are attractive to people who're focused on the "free content" part of Wikipedia rather than improving the actual articles". I'm sure your handful of GAs qualify you to write off the opinions of people like Masem and I as nutjob extremists who aren't really here to improve the encyclopedia. You're the one suggesting we do away with one of our central policies. You're the one with a minority fringe view. You're the one ignoring the "community's will". J Milburn (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • EXCUSE ME!? AFAIK the greater community's will is that fair use images should be used where the free alternative is not of acceptable quality (Such as the initial free replacement for the Playstation 4 image). I would hardly call that a "Minority fringe view"! PantherLeapord (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Marshall is of the view that if an image meets three criteria: "(a) it's lawful for us to use, (b) nobody objects to us using, and (c) enhances our encyclopaedia [then it] should be used." This amounts to doing away with the non-free content policy, which is deliberately far stricter than his very liberal ideas about non-free content use. That is the fringe view. I am making no comment about this image, I am defending myself and others from his attack against us. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Also, of course that's not the community's will. "I know there's a free image, but I don't like it very much, so we'll continue to use the non-free image." Bullshit. J Milburn (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Free image purism is just as detrimental to the encyclopedia! When a fair use image is of much higher quality AND encyclopedic value than the free image then it is obvious that using the free image will only DEGRADE the quality of the article the image is used on. Would you rather use the free version and degrade the article or stick to the higher quality fair use image? PantherLeapord (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Take a look at non-free content criterion 1. We do not use non-free content when a free image could reasonably be created that would serve the same purpose as a non-free image- we certainly don't use non-free content when free content is already available. This is not particularly controversial. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• WP:NFCC#1 is the very REASON that this image was falsely deleted in the first place! WP:NFCC#1 is why we are here today! If WP:NFCC#1 was not CONSTANTLY misinterpreted by free image purists and deletionists then this image would NOT have been deleted to begin with! As this bat is EXTREMELY RARE and ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to get a photo of then it SHOULD be kept! PantherLeapord (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment S Marshall is quite mistaken about FFD. A file was kept as recently as 12 May.[2] One was also kept on 19 May but that was withdrawn by the nominator.[3] On 3 June one was "not deleted" with a supervote because someone gave "a correct reason".[4] The normal procedure is not to close discussions with a consensus to keep[5] and so by no means all images are deleted. Thincat (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Giving examples of images that were kept does not invalidate what I said.—S Marshall T/C 11:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Respect for Commercial Oppurtunities There is complete respect for commercial opportunities because the owner allows it to be on Google Earth and it is freely accessible online. Having it freely available on Wikipedia will not change a thing. Surfer43 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I've left a comment on the photo's page asking if the author would be willing to release it under a free license. As far as I can tell, no one has even attempted this yet (which, frankly, is ridiculous). Hopefully this will be able to solve the entire problem. If anyone speaks it, it may be worth trying to contact the photographer in Spanish, too. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That is definitely a good thing to have done. If you get a reply of "no", for me that would make the situation clear cut. Thincat (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I will leave the comment en español. I doubt he won't allow it. Surfer43 (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I sent him a private message in Spanish. Hopefully he gets it. Surfer43 (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• undelete and list I agree with S Marshall in nearly all respects on this one and would like to see an RfC on the broader issue. But DRV's job isn't to worry about how broken FfD is, it's to overturn bad deletions. And this one is clearly not a speedy case or even close to it. A new picture can't be reasonably gotten by anyone at this time so IMO it should be kept at FfD. Just needs to get there. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The broader issue is already a RFC. Please comment on it at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Surfer43 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Unless you mean the entire NFCC policy. Surfer43 (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, obvious case of replaceability, and as such obvious and legitimate use of admin judgment in processing an F7 case. No case was made that this bat is significantly more difficult to find and take a photograph of than all the thousands of other species we have free nature photographs of on Commons. Any competent nature photographer could do again what the author of this photograph has done: travel to the Dominican Republic, visit its National Park, go to one of the caves (tourists do that every day), find a bat. There is not a shred of evidence that the opportunity to take the present photograph was somehow unique or overwhelmingly difficult to repeat. This is a slam-dunk case; not even anywhere close to borderline. Note also that on the image talk page, where the uploader first contested the speedy deletion proposal, he did not in fact bring forward any argument challenging the replaceability charge. He was arguing about whether the photographer had a commercial interest in the picture and other such things, but that just demonstrates he unfortunately failed to understand the NFCC criterion, which says "is available, or could be created". No substantive counterargument to the replaceability tag was made. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • If the animal is hard enough to photograph that only one picture exists (which is my understanding), that it _could_ be recreated at some point is pretty crazy. Where is the bar here? Someone could take a picture of an extinct species by recreating it from a preserved cell at some point in the future. Is that "could be created?". Or I suppose time travel could be found to be workable at some point so everything could be created. Yes, those are extreme, but the bar here to someone going out and getting such a picture is huge and unreasonable. My examples (ok, not the time travel one) are not significantly higher as creation of certain animals from cells is doable, if damn expensive at this point. Hobit (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty certain walking into that cave and finding a bat sleeping in it is not significantly more difficult than getting access to the current Prime Minister of Kazakhstan and gaining permission to take a free portrait shoot of him (which nobody seems to have managed so far either, but he's still covered by our "living persons" rule). The fact that this particular bat has not been photographed more often is apparently not due to it being super-rare or super-secretive; it's just that its habitat happens to be limited to a relatively small part of the world (but still, that part of the world is not somewhere in the middle of Antarctica or at the bottom of the ocean; it is inhabited by some 10 million people and visited by thousands of tourists each year.) – And no, it is certainly not the case that only this one image of it exists; it's just that so far none of the existing ones happen to be free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Just so you know, this is the only picture taken of it on the internet. If it is so common, why is so little known about it? Surfer43 (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
        • False- as Thincat has shown below, there are other pictures out there. Further, there seems to be plenty of literature on the species- note my quick expansion of the article, and note the large number of hits on Google Scholar. Further, even if it was little-known, that wouldn't preclude it from being common. The IUCN seems to be quite clear that it's "locally common in specific areas" and "reasonably widely distributed". J Milburn (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Edit: There are only a few photos of it on the internet. Surfer43 (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
            • This is getting silly. We don't judge the replaceability of an image based on how many images of the subject we can find on the Internet. J Milburn (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn Needs an actual discussion of the full set of issues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn I'm sure it was outside deletion policy to have speedy deleted the image. It was not one of "the most obvious cases". Whether it would or should survive a deletion discussion is not a present concern. Thincat (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have found a photo published in the US in 1980, seemingly without notice but I don't know how to tell whether copyright was subsequently registered.[6][7] I think ASM are making their early Mammalian Species notes available deliberately.[8][9] And, of course, someone could ask. Thincat (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I've sent an email. I'll keep people posted. J Milburn (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. A lot of the claims being thrown around in support of using a non-free image here are just plain wrong. The image this discussion concerns is not the only one on the Internet, as Thincat has shown. There may be more out there, as there are plenty of hits on Google Books and Google Scholar. This leads me to the second point- this does seem to be a fairly well-documented species. I've started to expand the article a little, but there's no doubt plenty more that could go in (the taxonomic history alone seems to be highly complex and interesting). Concerning the replaceability of this image, however: it is neither the case that the species is super-rare (the IUCN notes that it is "locally common in specific areas") nor that it is super-isolated (it is "reasonably widely distributed", according to the IUCN, on an island with a human population of 20 million). Also, for what it's worth, it looks pretty much the same as the Mexican funnel-eared bat (for which we do have free images), only bigger. There's really no way that a non-free image of this species would meet NFCC#1, and so the deletion seems quite appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I quote Miller, who first identified the species: "Except for its greater size, Natalus major so closely resembles specimens of N. stramineus from Dominica as to require no further explanation." (p. 399). J Milburn (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • And for what it's worth, I've just come across another photo online, in this article. J Milburn (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent discussions

8 June 2013

Lisa Lavie

Lisa Lavie (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) * AFD1

• Overturn+Restore: I am requesting that this June 2, 2013 version be restored. Background: On June 2, 2013 I posted the new version as an improved version (not a recreation) of this 2009-2013 article which was deleted by AfD on April 1, 2013. Unfortunately the new version was summarily speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#G4 even though it is definitely "not substantially identical to the deleted version." I've since communicated with both the April 1 deleting admin Spinningspark (here) and the June 2 speedy-deleting admin RHaworth (here); RHaworth recommended DRV. Reasons to restore: The June 2 version should be restored as being improperly speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#G4, since at 16KB the June 2 version is not a mere "recreation" of the ~65KB article from 2009-2013. Significantly, a list of differences between the two versions is provided below ("Changes") to conclusively demonstrate that the June 2 version is not an "identical and unimproved copy" of the article deleted on April 1. Substance: More relevant to the April 1 AfD: Consensus was that the article had puffery and bombardment; there was substantial disagreement (no true consensus) whether puffery and bombardment masked notability or masked lack of notability. See list of notability-related occurrences in Table N (below) and list of AfD Delete commenters' factual and reasoning errors in Table E (below). RCraig09 (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC). Updated 19 June.
• I have restored the edit history and replaced the redirect with a temp undelete. The difference between the version deleted at AFD and the one G4 is here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• This content has a distinct whiff of advertisement about it and the content is not neutrally-written. The references are wearisome to check, so I only checked a random sample of them; whenever I did finally track down the passing mention of Lavie somewhere in the showbiz page linked, it seems like----without actually falsifying anything----the passing mention has been stretched to its absolute limit. The effect overall is to make Lavie seem far more remarkable and successful than a close examination of the references would support. I'm of the view that this page fails WP:NPOV too egregiously to allow inclusion in its current form. However, I would be minded to permit creation of a much shorter, much less promotional article a few lines in length.—S Marshall T/C 19:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Esp. to S Marshall: A subtle but important point missed by many passers-by is that the subject's way of music promotion—outside major music labels—was part of what subject was notable for early on, and therefore describing such promotion and its results is 100% permissible here. If by "showbiz page" you mean ET Canada then I understand your concern that the quoted language is open adulation; I included it as showing a result of the subject's music promotion and not for its truth value: that is, I included that particular tv coverage to help establish threshold notability (Table N). Nothing in this article approaches "falsification." RCraig09 (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Sure, I understand that. Part of the problem we have on Wikipedia (or more accurately, part of one of the problems we have on Wikipedia) is that AfD has a constant and obsessive focus on notability, often to the exclusion of all else, so that the only way to re-create an article that's been deleted on notability grounds is to establish the subject's notability once and for all. Achieving this sometimes involves NPOV issues. I was careful to say that you hadn't falsified anything. I do think you've stretched the references to their limit and I think overall the article gives the impression that this lady has been a great deal more successful, and attracted a great deal more attention, than is really the case.

      We could allow this exact content because it's fixable, but to do so is to elevate the notability guideline above the NPOV policy (because on Wikipedia notability issues lead to deletion but NPOV issues don't). Rather than permit that I'd prefer this review led to the creation of a short and neutrally-worded stub that can be expanded based on her subsequent achievements (if any).—S Marshall T/C 07:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

      • Thanks for a thoughtfulness that's somewhat rare. After notability is established, I certainly can see removing ETCanada's quoted adulation, the phrase "following in the footsteps of ... Arcade Fire", mention of Yanni's CD being Billboard #1—which I added for completeness and for notability reasons (Table N). RCraig09 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC) My procedure for this rewrite was to start with notability-endowing facts (movie soundtracks, YouTube music pioneer, We Are the World remake, Yanni tours/CD/DVD/PBS) and find reliable references for those facts; with all respect to your perceptions, in fact I wasn't "stretching" the references; the intangible tone can be improved through normal editing. RCraig09 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Procedural question for admin. At this point, should we be talking only about reversing the WP:CSD#G4 speedy delete (see "Changes"), or also about notability (Table N)? RCraig09 (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Nothing is out of scope at DRV. Not that I'm saying either applies here but just to illustrate my point, If the process of deletion was wrong but the article sucks then editors can say so and that gets factored into the final close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
    • What Spartaz says is exactly my understanding of the process here. It goes the other way too: if the process was technically right but substantially unfair because the article has very clear merits, we find some device for permitting it. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse. The close is also my reading of AfD2, although I ask the closer to give more explanation. Also as per S Marshall. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Procedural ——> Substantive discussion. Since this DRV has moved from procedural (WP:CSD#G4) to substantive (AFD2, notability) considerations, and commenters do not appear to have considered Table N, I have pasted it below. Errors in AFD2 Delete comments are still at Table E.

The following chart shows occurrences corresponding to various notability provisions.

Table N (notability)

	Wikipedia notability provision	How notability criteria are met (only one criterion needs to be met)
N1	WP:MUSICBIO § 10: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., ... performance in a television show or notable film"	2006 notable film: Wrote and performed song for Stick It major ($31M) motion picture soundtrack (Jeff Bridges) 2006 notable film: Performed song for The_Guardian_(2006_film) major ($94M) motion picture soundtrack (Kevin Costner, Ashton Kutcher) 2012 notable CD and concert DVD: Featured vocal performance of two tracks on Billboard New Age #1 album Yanni Live at El Morro, Puerto Rico 2012 notable television show: Featured vocal performance of two tracks on PBS television feature Yanni Live at El Morro, Puerto Rico 2010 television show: Performed "Angel" on Canada AM
N2	General Notability Guideline: "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..." • "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." • Examples of "trivial" coverage: "articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." • Related: WP:BIO provides that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]" and Note [6] recites that "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing." (emphasis added)	2007-2010. National TV coverage in Entertainment Tonight Canada (2007), eTalk (2007) and Canada AM (2010) for being among the first to successfully use the Internet to promote her music outside major music labels (remember: YouTube was only two years old in 2007). 2010: National TV interviews (CNN, ABC News) and articles (in USA Today and numerous others) for conceiving, producing and performing in We Are the World 25 for Haiti (YouTube edition) music video. Coverage was mainly about subject's making the video rather than about subject herself. 2010-present: numerous publications on four continents mention her performances on Yanni's concert tours; descriptions are brief but not trivial. 2008-: Numerous interviews--see External Links section for early examples.
N3	WP:MUSICBIO § 12: "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network"
N4	WP:MUSICBIO § 1: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works..." (similar to WP:GNG)
N5	WP:MUSICBIO § 4: "Has received non-trivial coverage ...of an international concert tour"	2010-present: numerous publications on four continents mention her performances on Yanni's concert tours; descriptions are brief but not trivial
N6	WP:MUSICBIO § 9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition"	2008: Finalist in the 2007 YouTube Awards, top 6 music videos from among all music videos on world's largest video sharing website

RCraig09 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Allow restoration to version requested by RCraig09. The woman meets are our notability requirements several times over for multiple reasons, per RCraig09's table. Huh, she's highly notable even for her secondary contributions, like her outstanding work for hunger relief. I note that the article on We Are the World is the only FA class article in our Hunger relief portal. This is despite there being libraries full RSs on other hunger relief topics. Most of the other topics have none existent or at best C class articles. Unlike We are the World , they haven't been blessed by the leadership of a crowd sourcing trailblazer like Lisa Lavie. Here's an ABC source for an interview with Lavie, just one more example of the dedicated coverage she gets from global media. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Allow restoration This is sufficiently improved to overcome G4, and there's at least a reasonable chance at notability. If anyone feels that the notability has to be discussed again, another AfD is the place for it. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn Per DGG. If it's debatable, it's NOT speedyable. All speedy criteria only apply to unambiguous situations, period. Really, a DRV of a speedy should be closed as 'overturn' as soon as there are multiple editors in good standing who agree that speedy was improperly applied. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse. Not sufficiently improved from the version originally deleted by consensus. The original article used WP:BOMBARD tactics to disguise the underlying lack of notability. Lightening up on the BOMBARD is not enough to cure the more important notability problems, unaltered from the originally deleted version, as S Marshall quite accurately points out. And certainly no sound reason has been advanced to undo the redirect; this is fundamentally a BLP1E-type situation, and nothing in the newer version is sufficiently improved to rebut that conclusion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • A specific refutation is called for. ● Improvements are noted in "Changes" list, below. ● Notability is outlined in Table N, above. ● Consensus (5 Delete versus 3 Keep/SpeedyKeep/LeaningtoKeep comments), not commented on by the April 1 closing admin, was filled with factual and legal errors noted in Table E, below. ● Shortening content & references by ~75% is not "lightening up"; it's a from-scratch rewrite. ● Notability (movie soundtracks, YouTube music pioneer, We Are the World remake, Yanni tours/CD/DVD/PBS) is not BLP1 (BLP1 being H.Wolfowitz's theory, and not consensus) ● S Marshall brought up NPOV concerns, not notability concerns. RCraig09 (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Changes. Some participants don't appear to be reading the ("Changes") linked above, so I paste them here:

The June 2, 2013 article is "redone from scratch" per a Delete commenter's suggestion. Changes present in the June 2 version:

1. Content has been trimmed by about 75% to avoid assertions of "fluff" and "peacock"
2. Sourcing is limited by about 75% and of prime quality to avoid assertions of "bombardment" and "dubious sourcing"
3. The brevity of this new article should make subject's notability apparent, especially through WP:MUSICBIO § 10 which was not previously considered.
4. New content from sources, including ET Canada, eTalk and Canada AM (not merely stating that "subject received coverage" on these tv shows).
5. New sourcing in June 2 version includes: (fn 2,3) Allmusic for two movie soundtrack listings; (fn 16) eight sources establishing 2010-present affiliation with Yanni on tours; (fn 17) Allmusic for Yanni Live at El Morro credits; (fn 18) Allmusic for Yanni Live at El Morro awards; (fn 19) PBS and MLive, for Yanni's PBS special.

RCraig09 (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Errors in AfD2. Some participants don't appear to be reading Table E so I paste it here.

The 2009-2013 article was deleted on April 1, 2013 (five "Delete" comments, versus three comments of "Keep" and "Speedy Keep" and "leaning towards keep").

To curtail factual misunderstandings, the following chart shows some of the errors made by the "Delete" commenters in the deletion discussion for the 2009-2013 version.

Table E (Errors)

	The March 2013 deletion comments/process	How Delete commenters' reasoning was in error
E1	"most (all?) of the MUSICBIO criteria require coverage to be non-trivial"	WP:MUSICBIO §§ 1, 4 do require non-triviality, but other sections relate to factual determinations rather than "coverage."
E2	"the first AfD was unanimously for "delete" and ... the BLP was recreated in 2009 without any actual notability still."	The first AfD was for a 2007 stub existing before most notability-bestowing events, and is now irrelevant. Further notability accrued after the article's February 2009 version; what counts now is the present article.
E3	"sourcing is primarily youTube (self-published) and Bloginity (which is a blog…)"	Both statements are simply false: Few if any of the YouTube sources were of the "self-published" variety (see explanation of permissible YouTube referencing here in (3b)), and the one (1) Bloginity reference was replaced in March 2013
E4	"reviews from you tube users"	There were no "reviews from YouTube users" (again, see explanation of permissible YouTube referencing here in (3b)).
E5	"backup singer to Yanni"	Subject has been a lead/featured vocalist continually for >2.5 years, not a "backup singer".
E6	"YouTube is not a music competition"	The YouTube Awards indeed was a music competition -- across all music videos, over an entire year, on the largest video sharing website on earth.
E7	"subject doesn't "WP:INHERIT anything without a durable (cf. occasional) ensemble membership"	WP:MUSICBIO § 4 is more relevant concerning Yanni: Subject has been a lead/featured vocalist on all Yanni's tours since Sept. 2010, plus on his CD, DVD, PBS special; this arrangement is not "occasional."
E8	"whatever legitimate notability the subject may have is BLP1E-ish"	Notable coverage is not simply for the We Are the World remake video, but also: ● national television coverage over 3 years for being among earliest to use Internet to independently promote music career ● lead/featured vocalist on Yanni's world tours since 2010 ● contribution to notable work Yanni Live at El Morro, Puerto Rico (Billboard #1 New Age album, etc.) ● performed in Yanni's nationally televised PBS special ● vocal tracks in soundtracks of two major movies

RCraig09 (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• RCraig09, it would be helpful if you could refrain from: (1) posting huge replies to absolutely everyone you disagree with, individually; (2) posting tables three or four times as long as the post you're actually disagreeing with; and (3) using copious amounts of bold text to emphasize your points. Thanks.—S Marshall T/C 17:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse per lack of reasoning that notability or verifiability has substantially changed since April. There's a troubling trend at Deletion Review lately where someone will fight a supposedly invalid G4 deletion claiming they improved the article, which is usually technically correct but since the subject still isn't notable it just gets re-deleted at AFD again anyway. This results in a lot of wasted time both for the community and for the person trying to restore the article. There is no point trying to fight a G4 if the article will unquestionably fail a AFD discussion, which is nearly always the case when it's already failed once and there isn't any new unquestionable notability like a hit single to give reason to running a debate again. We're volunteers here, so don't waste our time or yours. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Specific to this article. Above Tables show the "notability or verifiability" clearly visible to AfD participants (not buried in fluff) has changed. RCraig09 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Archive

2013
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2012
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2011
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2010
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2009
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2008
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2007
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2006
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December