Misplaced Pages

• Active discussions
• Recent discussions
• Archive
• (purge cache)

• WP:DRV

• • Deletion today
  • Undeletion
• • Deletion review
  • Deletion log
• Request a copy of a
  deleted article

• today
• all (sorted)
• closing
• log

• today
• all
• closing
• holding

• today
• all
• closing

• today
• all
  • category
• closing
• speedy
• working
• manual

• today
• all
• closing
• log

• today
• all
• closing

• candidates

• all (sorted)
• BLPs

• • Policy
  • Process
  • Guide (Images)
• Administrator guidelines

• v
• t
• e

• Deletion review
• Move review
• Administrative action review

• Bots noticeboard

• Discussions for discussion

• v
• t
• e

Click here 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 page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. 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=Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2025 January 24}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

• If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 24}}</noinclude>
• If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 24|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Sasha coen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

31.51.97.199 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Page Ref. Sasha Coen. Author.

I created the page about sasha coen, but as part of the registry page, I added the name there too - at the time I thought it was the page title that I was trying to create that you were asking for, so I entered it.

As a result, it was assumed that I had created a biography. I hadn't - I am not sasha coen. I created a page about the author sasha coen. A deletion notice was added and I contacted the administrator that entered the notice. they did not make contact back and continued to delete the page.

I hope that the page can be restored as it took me a long time - as you can tell, I am not great with computers, but still made the effort. Hopefully you will too.

Thank you for your help

Clive.

• Hi Clive, welcome to Misplaced Pages. I'm sorry, I'm afraid I'm confused. Could you please be more specific about where you tried to add this page? Thanks—S Marshall T/C 00:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This is how the article looked before deletion. 46.107.88.236 (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Article was only sourced to a self-published eBook link at Amazon, and there's nothing else to be found out there to satisfy our notability guidelines. This is just a promotion campaign by an interested party or someone close to the author, going on in multiple places, see here and here. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse pretty clearly part of a promotion attempt. And surely no reliable sources exist anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi S Marshall,

I added the page the same day as it was deleted. When asked for a name I thought I was been asked for the name of the page I was trying to create. I have since realised that it was a registration user name that I was been asked for. I have since corrected that by registering as intended. It is true that I only added a link to the ebook of sasha coen but that was because I couldn't find any other links and were hoping other users would flesh out the page at later dates. I could not find an amazon profile page. It is also true that I have talked about the writing style and content (genre) of the same book on forum chat. I had not realised that this would be an issue for user Tarc. As Tarc has also discovered, there is not much on the web about sasha coen. They are a gifted writer and I thought deserved recognition. I was under the impression that this is what users use wiki for. To make information pages about everything.

If Tarc had looked a little further, it might have been noted that my name is not sasha or coen. Moreover, Had a response been made to my application to Tarc when the deletion intention was first advertised, then these issues could have been rectified much sooner and with a lot less trouble

Thank you for your help and cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.46.19 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. User has not completed the prerequisite step of discussing the matter with User:Bbb23, the administrator who deleted the page, despite claims to the contrary above, nor has he even notified them (I have done so now). Without waiving this procedural defect, I would also endorse on the merits as the article is clearly promotional and has no clean version to revert to.
  To the creator: Misplaced Pages is here to collect, and to an extent, discuss, information that has been previously been published in reliable sources. If there is not much or any such information in the public domain, it is a very good indication that the person in question should not have a Misplaced Pages page at this time. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

hi, I replied to the user that initiated the cancellation a few minutes after he added the proposal. The reply was added in the same way as the one you are reading now so I are surprised it never reached the user. Regardless, it is evident that you have no inclination to amend the deletion order proposed by the said user so the steps taken and evidence given are all academic. It became clear very early on that there was no intention to overturn the order and were merely fulfilling the motions. I was under the false impression that wiki prided itself on users being able to present information of all types to a wider audience and other users able to add to that information in cases where information is lacking. For that to be necessary and required, the item (individual, material, theory...) is likely to be little known or difficult to research under general conditions. If the item, whatever that might be, is already thoroughly known and understood, there would be little need for a wiki page!

It is unfortunate that all of our time has been wasted. However, I thank the relevant members for taking the time to 'review' the decision made.

Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdc1cdc1 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Misplaced Pages isn't a place to post absolutely everything you feel like, nor does it cover any imaginable topic. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia which includes subjects already covered in sufficient detail by reliable sources. Just for the moment, I'm going to assume you're telling the truth: that you're "Clive" and not Sasha Coen or someone directly related to / hired by them, and that you're merely trying to get the word out about a book you liked. If that's true, Clive, please consider that your efforts aren't exactly making Sasha Coen look good, and that you've caused them some measure of embarassment through inappropriate promotion on at least 3 different websites. If you really aren't Sasha Coen, I strongly suggest not spamming their name across the web, because that's the kind of attention nobody really wants. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse. Blatant promotion. No content sourced to independent sources. Listing at AfD would be pointless. See Misplaced Pages:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Lost Girl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

On 21 January 2014, User:JDDJS twice deleted a block of information from the Infobox Template of the Lost Girl article. The template contains the pre-existing fields of "|writer" and "|director". The fields exist in the template so that information can be added to them. User:JDDJS deleted the information in the fields because in his personal opinion the information contained in the fields did not belong in the article.

If the fields did not exist in the template, there would be no reason to add information to them. Therefore, the fields serve a purpose and this purpose has been contributed to by many editors before User:JDDJS found his way to the article and undid what others had contributed before him.

I reversed said deletion of information by User:JDDJS and he again deleted the information after it was restored (which I then, once again, restored to the article). It is my opinion that no one user has the right to undo what other contributors to Misplaced Pages articles have contributed in good faith and via means invited by Misplaced Pages. Just because editors of articles "A" "B" and "C" have not made good use of all the fields in the templates used in their articles does not mean that editors of "Z" cannot add information to the fields in the template used in theirs. Please stop User:JDDJS from continuing to vandalize the article. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is not the correct venue, it's an editing dispute. The correct place is initially a discussion on the talk page of the article and if that fails then dispute resolution --86.5.93.42 (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Obviously this is not the place to discuss it, but Looking at the transclusions, I see 3/4 of the major shows do not have it but 1/4 do. I also see there is no discussion of when to use it in the template documentation. We do not need another round of The Template Wars, and someone interested should start a centralized discussion somewhere, DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ritmeyer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was deleted per WP:A7. A search on google showed that the article did make a claim of notability and therefore the article does not qualify under A7. I requested the article be undeleted and my request was refused here . Op47 (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at AFD. Article contained reasonable claim of notability, which defeats an A7 deletion. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: As of this moment the text of the deleted article is still visible in the Google cache. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse simply including the word 'prominent' isn't enough to dodge A7, especially when paired with the word 'niche' which appears to contradict it. For what it's worth, other claims in the article appear to be false, so I would consider the rest of it suspect as well. The company itself may indeed be notable, and may be a potential article subject, but restoring the former text would in no way help the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - Words such as prominent, high quality, influential, much sought after, 'high' prices in the deleted article are promotional and subjective characterization, not A7 importance/significance. Leen Ritmeyer is the only Ritmeyer for which there appears to be source information. Given the poor state of the article and the lack of online access to information on the 1930s-1970s German piano manufacturer, it's better to way for someone to come along and put together a reasonably source article. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn clearly a claim of notability was made. The only real issue is if it's credible. The company existed and made pianos. They aren't exactly in high demand from what I can tell. But I can't show that the claim is not credible. Further, I'd be somewhat surprised if there isn't enough RSes in paper form to meet our inclusion guidelines--reviews of pianos seems a likely thing. So not an A7 unless someone can state with authority that the claims are not credible. Certainly worth an AfD. Hobit (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• overturn when an article like this is challenged in good faith, it's fairer to have the community decide -- which also gives a chance for the community to find sourcing. It seems reasonable that a piano company with a 40 year history might be notable,-- it depends on whether there are reviews etc. to be found. 7 yearsafo, we sometimes absurdly interpreted claim for importance as meaning that the article lead had to contain the word "important" or "notable." In recent years wemean there is material in the article that gives a good faith indication of significance, no matter how the article is worded. DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• List at AfD as a contested speedy. I'm not seeing any obvious good sources, but they sell on eBay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AFD, if there is any doubt at all with an A7, reject the speedy and deal with it another way. I don't think this'll survive AFD, but it's not clearcut enough for A7. Lankiveil 11:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC).
• Overturn and list at AFD. Not clearly an A7, and the puffery in the text was curable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse. Removing the puffery leaves just the opening sentence. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - valid A7? Yes, I'd have done it. If there are sources, the sensible course of action is to userfy, add them, then push back to the mainspace. If there ain't, AfD is going to axe it. This seems like the wrong venue. WilyD 10:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I view A7s as "my band that just started playing at a local bar for the first time yesterday" not "company that made real products still identified with it by brand name for 30+ years". Even ignoring the puffery, there is good reason to suspect it has a real shot at meeting our inclusion guidelines (though sources are likely all paper). That seems like something that belongs at AfD. Hobit (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
    • The article gives no indication it has any shot at meeting WP:N after a search. Most A7s are not explicitly non-notable, but read like this one "John's table company makes tables", or "We Recycle is a band from Australia". Any subject could be notable, but most aren't. There's nothing here to make one suspect there are sources. But that's neither here nor there - if there are sources to be found, the wise thing to do is find them, and render this discussion moot - otherwise, it'll get sent to AfD, which might as well be sending it to the wood chipper - it has no chance of survival. WilyD 13:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• List it at AfD. There's reasonable doubt about the A7, and "wouldn't survive an AfD" isn't a speedy deletion criterion.—S Marshall T/C 13:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No, but "does not make an assertion of significance" is a speedy deletion criterion, and "will be deleted at AfD" is a good reason to choose an outcome other than "Send to AfD to be deleted" at DRV. If there are really any sources (I'm sceptical, but let's say), and someone is willing to put in the work to find them, then it should be userfied to that person so they can do so. This conversation is strongly suggestive that no such person exists. "Undelete, then send to AfD to redelete" is just silly (and a waste of everyone's time). WilyD 14:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
    • These remarks, and some others here, seem to bear rather little relationship to the WP:CSD policy statement or to the A7 criterion in particular. It really is worth reading them through from time to time. However, I realise that the document may be so badly written that it does not describe consensus decisions regarding appropriate CSD standards. If so, a substantial rewrite is overdue. Thincat (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn but list at AFD. This is not one of the "most obvious cases" of an article with "no indication of importance". There are several claims that, if true, are of substantial importance. Likewise, if the article has been impartially written and the statements are true (and I think this is possible), they are not puffery. Matters like this require discussion. Thincat (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse no claim of notability; mere puffery is insufficient. If I write an article about my goldfish and say it's a notable niche goldfish, it survives A7 in some editors' views??? We waste much time on "saving" unsourced garbage that has no claim to notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse, I can't find a single source. Nobody at this DR has presented a single source. Not one! Only the ebay item on auction which has just ended now, which could be digitally manipulated for all we know. I'd be more inclined to consider this request seriously if someone indicated they have sources that they could add. The article under review did not provide information required to make the article credible - names, facts, figures, ... details. None to be found. (i.e. why is it notable? who has purchased one? how many were made, etc) All we have is the org name and a year range which is extraordinarily long. If it isnt A7, it is G3 (hoax) until proven otherwise, either by sources, or by statements that can be researched. Userfy it if necessary. John Vandenberg 11:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Wow. I apologize for being rude here, but I'd hope most long-standing admins would have a better sense of our speedy deletion criteria than this. If you were at RfA with an answer like this, you'd have little chance of passing. Please read the speedy deletion talk page (where this case is being discussed). We don't speedy delete anything, even BLPs, solely because it isn't sourced (that's for BLP prod). And while this may be a hoax (I can't find a RS on-line) there are about 10 auctions, with pictures and in many case buyers, for Ritmeyer pianos. So it certinaly isn't a blatant hoax which is what A3 requires. If you think it's a blatant hoax, I'll take a $100 bet on the issue. I'm much more than 50% certain a company named Ritmeyer produced pianos. And if you aren't a lot more than 50% sure, you shouldn't be calling it a blatant anything. Given the time frame claimed, it is likely that paper sources cover this in detail. There are lots of notable topics that the web doesn't cover. At least until we do. Hobit (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed it does not need to be sourced, but it does need to be credible. The company may not be a hoax (I personally would say greater than 50% chance it is real, as I have found one advert from 1957), but the article content appears to be one. 90% of it would be tagged with fact tags and removed quite promptly. The most easily falsifiable is the article states that "influential inventions within the area of piano development". That isnt credible. Who was influenced? I have access to most digitalised resources, including abstracting services not part of 'the (googlable) web', and I dont get any hits other than the above advert. I personally would have shipped it off to Afd, but we're at DR, and the only argument put forward is a bureaucratic one, with nobody even attempting to put forward any sources. I'm usually a stickler for bureaucratic processing with there is a real dispute, but I cant see how it helps here, as nobody has given any evidence that this could be a viable topic. If the author or others believe it is viable, the userifying it lets them continue working. The admin made a decent call from what I can see. Could you please link to the 10 ebay auctions you have found? John Vandenberg 15:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
      • My concern is that if DRV upholds something that isn't actually a speedy deletion candidate, we'll see more and more out of process deletions. It isn't an A7 or a G3 and DRV shouldn't uphold it as one. It isn't close IMO, but I realize that could be debatable. Given your resources (which I lack) it may well be there isn't anything of significance here. But sending it to AfD gives people a realistic chance to source it. There may well be someone with paper sources that would see this (again, I find it very likely a company that has been around as long as this one has reliable paper sources). There is no reason not to give it a shot at AfD. As far as auction goes this search gets most of them. (Most, but but all are on e-bay). Hobit (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
        • I think(read:hope) there are lots of people watching to prevent individual cases like this becoming justification for CSDs becoming useless. I also expect(but again read:hope) the admin made a judgement call here-it is one I cant find a reason to contradict at least. There will definitely be print sources, and it may be that they can prove significance, but i'll bet it isnt they cant back the statements in this article. That would require many extensive compendium of music history (Oxford, Cambridge, etc) all omitting the contribution of the Ritmeyer, which also happened to never file a patent. There may be some other significance, and as an inclusion I would be happy with only a factual account of a mediocre contribution to the relevant discipline if it is niche. But this looks like an ebay item description recycled as an encyclopedia article, with no sources, and time to coincide with an actual ebay listing. My alarm bells are ringing! When I search ebay, and skimming the search results you point at, I can only find items which mention the one ebay auction as a 'see also'. i.e. lots of hits, but only one item. If there are more than one item on ebay, I missed it in my initial search and also now when I've looked at your results. i.e. links to ebay items instead of search results would be great. John Vandenberg 16:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse- There's a good case that A7 applies and, even if it didn't, it's obvious that this article could not survive an AFD so undeleting it would just be process for the sake of process and a huge waste of time. Reyk _YO! 04:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Decade of Darkness (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

DRV does not tolerate discussions being used to attack other users. It requires a collegial tone to be able to best evaluate content under policy. Emotional and political arguments cut no ice here and I will summarily close this discussion if it appears that the discussion is veering in that direction. Finally, if I close this, I will discard arguments that appear to be motivated by political animus rather then policy - that's you I'm looking at JOttawa16. Keep it clean folks if you want this to run the course. Spartaz 04:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

In 2012 Decade of Darkness was speedily deleted because some users tagged it as an attack page. In early 2014 the page was re-created using numerous media and journalistic references. Yet again, the page was speedily deleted without the opportunity for discussion or review.

The topic itself, the "decade of darkness" for Canada's federal government while under Liberal governments from 1994 to 2005, is an important topic for Canada's military and the federal government as a whole.

The page was recreated in 2014 with newer, more reliable sources, especially considering that some media sources were considering whether Prime Minister Harper's budget restraints would plunge the Canadian Forces into a "new" decade of darkness.

Similar additions to the Rick Hillier page, who coined the term, have been deleted, usually by the same user who speedily deleted this page. This is a relevant and important topic in Canadian government, Canada's military, and it deserves recognition. Request that the page be restored and allowed to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARMY101 (talk • contribs)

Please note that this article was originally deleted at WP:AFD as discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Decade of Darkness, due to an overwhelming consensus that the subject was highly biased and failed to meet NPOV. The subsequent WP:CSD were done under WP:G4 "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". - Ahunt (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep deleted User:ARMY101 is the original creator of the page. In the original AFD only one other editor, supported keeping the page. A google news search for "Decade of Darkness" yields only 8 results. The article itself contains no useful information. There is no reason for this page, other than to attack liberals. JDDJS (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The AfD conclusions were overwhelming. Every recreated version of this article has proven to be just another highly biased and politically motivated attack piece. - Ahunt (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse. Close accurately reflects AFD consensus and analysis. Moreover, as a simple GBooks search demonstrates, this is a rather generic political cliche applied by political comments of all stripes to time periods marked by actions they criticize. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endrose. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow the deletion policy and process. It is not a venue to seek a second bite at the cherry or advance new arguments (or re-advance old arguments) that were/should have been made at the AFD discussion. Stifle (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

1. There was certainly not "overwhelming" or "unanimous consent" given to delete the original article. Some of the original complaints, when the original page was created in 2012-2013, were that the article was poorly sourced. The new article has provided several sources, including those that relevantly apply to current Canadian politics as they suggest a new decade of darkness may be approaching or already underway.

2. If there are additional uses of the word (e.g. in other governments) then the page should be expanded to broadly label what a decade of darkness is and instances where governments or departments went through said decade.

To continually reject the noteworthiness of this topic is to refuse that such a decade ever happened. Federal employees, including defence officials, will tell you it happened and is indeed noteworthy, even if some Liberals don't like it.ARMY101 (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOttawa16 (talk • contribs)

Comment: I would say 13 editors in favour of deletion or redirecting and one opposed to it in the AfD is "an overwhelming consensus". Also by even using this venue to make politically-motivated comments as you just did tends to support the identification of problem of a lack of WP:NPOV in the original article. - Ahunt (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse per the consensus at AfD and inability of article creator to put forward NPOV arguments. --Randykitty (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Admin Comment If I don't close this, could the closer not what appears to be canvassing by the nominator. . Thanks Spartaz 10:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse. Clear consensus at AfD. Appears to be advocacy, implying original research. It could be redrafted, I recommend this, assuming that anything new is more strongly based in sources that are more independent and more distant from the subject. I recommend academic articles or reputably published books, and not newspaper stories. The title "Decade of Darkness" is not suitable, as it is provocative, aka non-neutral. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy close as WP:SNOW. There is absolutely no other reasonable closure besides delete for this AFD, and DRV is not a venue to get a second bite at the cherry when AFD hasn't gone your way. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC) For clarity, this is a process request; my endorse !vote above stands. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - This does not prohibit the writing and posting of an article on the media's use of Rick Hillier's 2007 Decade of Darkness phrase that overcomes the reasons for deletion listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Decade of Darkness. Hillier was not the first to utter the phrase decade of darkness, (an older usage - New York Times August 17, 1986), but, given the significant coverage of Hillier's term, I think that an article on the topic could be put together to meet WP:NEO. You may want to put together a draft that overcomes the reasons for deletion listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Decade of Darkness and ask at DRV that the draft be moved to article space. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • University of Regina political sociologist John F. Conway noted in March 2006 that Hillier used the term, so the article lead statement "The Decade of Darkness was a term coined in 2007 by then Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier." was not correct. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AfD. Whether or not the AfD was overwhelming or not is irrelevant here - I see no mention of how strong the consensus was in the G4 criteria. What is important here is whether it's "substantially identical" and it's clearly not - the text is quite different and all the references are different. It shouldn't be up to a single admin to decide whether these sources are enough to meet our requirements as that should be decided by consensus at AfD. We don't ask admins to assess references for A7 and nor should we for G4. New references = new AfD as far as I'm concerned and this is also my understanding of policy. And to be clear here I'm not questioning the original AfD closure which was clearly correct, I'm !voting to overturn the G4. Dpmuk (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It will be pointless to start another AFD. It is clear that it won't survive. And the recreate might no be the exact same version as the one deleted, but it does have the exact same problems, namely violating WP:NPOV. JDDJS (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse clear consensus at the AfD. No new information brought forth making this a case of an editor disagreeing with the outcome. Mkdw 08:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse, crystal clear consensus at the AFD and no new arguments advanced here either. I am disappointed to see accusations of party partisanship being made here; DRV is oddly enough usually somewhere where good faith is assumed by all participants. Lets keep it that way. Lankiveil 11:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC).
• Note: the original page creator just today tried to take the article text we are discussing here and insert it into Canadian Forces and Jean Chrétien, although it has now been removed from both articles. - Ahunt (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it certainly was added to the Canadian Forces and Jean Chretien pages, as that's what was suggested here. JOttawa16 (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Um, no, it hasn't? I can't see where that was suggested, please point to where it was. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• In fact this DRV has not come to a conclusion yet, but it looks right now that it will endorse the deletion of this subject and text in the original AfD as not suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages and that means that it should not be reinserted by stealth elsewhere. - Ahunt (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse as Stifle points out, DRV is for where a deletion is reasonably contestable, not for when you don't like the AfD result. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Kent_Evans (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kent Evans — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 11:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The article was deleted because of an insufficient amount of references as there was only one that mods found satisfactory. I now have a list of references which I have included below. I request that the article be undeleted so that I may go in expand the article and cite correct references and change the content to more closely follows Misplaced Pages guidelines.

Articles/Reviews/Blogs
Cambridge Day
http://www.cambridgeday.com/2012/09/28/trip-hop-gets-new-meaning-with-monday-musical-novel-reading-for-crash-course/

Kirkus Reviews
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/kent-evans/a-crash-course/
Indie Music
http://www.indie-music.com/ee/index.php/blog/comments/interview_with_kent_evans_accomplished_experimental_author_and_musician
Portland Book Review
http://portlandbookreview.com/confessional-literature-or-fictional-memoir-by-kent-evans/
Why I write
http://www.patriciadunnauthor.com/why-i-write-by-kent-evans/
Think like a Label
http://www.thinklikealabel.com/interview-with-kent-evans-experimental-accomplished-author-and-musician/
Henk Jan Vanderklis
http://www.henkjanvanderklis.nl/2012/10/kent-evans-a-crash-course-on-the-anatomy-of-robots/
Chicago Center for Literature and Photography
http://www.cclapcenter.com/2012/12/30_books_in_30_days_a_crash_co.html
Unconventional Librarian
http://unconventionallibrarian.com/2012/09/17/kent-evans-crash-anatomy-robots/
Fairy Cakes
http://maimoonamayrahman.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/a-crash-course-on-the-anatomy-of-robots-kent-evans/
Rat Race Refuge
http://www.ratracerefuge.com/bookreviews/evans-a-crash-course.html
The Next Best Book Blog
http://thenextbestbookblog.blogspot.mx/2012/09/a-crash-course-on-anatomy-of-robots.html
Moonlight Gleam
http://moonlightgleam.com/2012/09/author-guest-post-with-kent-evans.html
Offbeat Vagabound
http://offbeatvagabond.blogspot.mx/2012/09/arc-review-crash-course-on-anatomy-of.html

Appearances
Franklyn Street Works
http://articles.courant.com/2012-09-14/community/hcrs-65332hc-stafford-20120912_1_robots-novel-anatomy
http://www.franklinstreetworks.org/k/
http://www.fairfieldcountylook.com/index.php/calendar/icalrepeat.detail/2012/09/20/1059/26/franklin-street-works-presents-a-reading-and-musical-performance-with-kent-evans
Brazos Bookstore
http://events.chron.com/houston_tx/events/show/281368765-kent-evans-a-crash-course-on-the-anatomy-of-robots
http://www.artshound.com/event/detail/441708781/Kent_Evans_book_signing_and_discussion_
Book Soup
http://www.timeout.com/los-angeles/music/kent-evans
http://www.visitwesthollywood.com/event/kent-evans-discusses-and-signs-crash-course-on-the-anatomy-of-robots/
Books Inc.
http://www.booksinc.net/event/kent-evans-books-inc-opera-plaza
Radio Bean
http://www.radiobean.com/cal/view_entry.php?id=3916&date=20121005
Biblioteca San Miguel
http://www.atencionsanmiguel.org/2013/05/17/a-crash-course-on-the-anatomy-of-robots/

Radio/Video
The Front Row with Dean Dalton Interview, KUHF (Houston Public Radio)
http://www.kuhf.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10780
Martini Productions Interview
http://martiniproductionsnyc.com/2012/10/04/interview-with-kent-evans-author-of-crash-course-on-the-anatomy-of-robots/
It’s Relevant Interview
http://www.itsrelevant.com/content/11616/Music_&_Readings_at_Franklin_Street_Works
Big Blend Radio Interview
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/big-blend-radio/2012/10/15/big-blend-happy-hour-radio

Awards
Indie Excellence Books Awards
http://www.indieexcellence.com/indie-results-2013-finalists.htm
New England Book Awards
http://www.newenglandbookfestival.com/winners2012.html
Beverly Hills Book Awards
http://www.beverlyhillsbookawards.com/2013-BHBA-Winnners-and-Finalists.htm

DizaBlah (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse admittedly I didn't click every single link but the ones I did look at are either not reliable sources, not primarily about Evans, not more recent than the AFD (and thus not new information), or a combination thereof. Also, it seems a primary issue with the article was promotion, so even if the subject is indeed notable it may be better to start from scratch. A new draft article may be the best way forward. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I can only evaluate the information for the books. I see from worldcat that one is in 2 libraries only, the other in 5, which is below what is expected for the most experimental of experimental literature. Kirkus is unreliable nowadays for independent publishers. The awards are mere listings as honorable mention, and only at minor festivals. The blogs are blogs. Appearances are trivial. There is no imaginable case for notability as an author based on the books. Whether there is a conceivable case as a performer or otherwise I cannot evaluate. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse per Starblind and DGG. Closer accurately evaluated consensus and no significant new material showing notability. --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse That looks like a wp:BOMBARD to me. The notability guidelines for third party reliable sources aren't difficult to understand - and the half dozen I checked failed those standards. There might be a couple of notables in there - but two good references beats fifty bad ones. And if there are any good ones in there I'm never going to find them. Closer accurately summarised consensus. Neonchameleon (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse Please review WP:RS before taking it to DRV over it. Most of those sources are immediately disqualified as user submitted content and unreliable. Other editors above have pointed out important key points. Mkdw 08:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Callum Reynolds (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted twice over 6 and 15 years ago when the player didn't meet WP:NFOOTY requirements of the time (since outdated, but would pass now based on that criteria), and there were numerous repeated attempts to recreate the article by various different people which led to an admin protecting the namespace. Since then however, he has arguably met WP:GNG just as much as the articles of his teammates at Bromley as a recently created draft page has shown. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Unsalt and allow recreation. The appellant is an experienced page reviewer. I have no qualms about trusting his assessment of the current draft. If disputed, this can always be renominated to AfD. Owen× ☎ 21:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Unsalt and allow recreation Lower league footballer, but has done enough and received enough coverage to merit a page. SportingFlyer T·C 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• Unprotect and accept the draft immediately, and let’s see if we can improve the AfC script. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  User:Primefac unprotected the title, and I accepted the draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• CSMention269 (talk · contribs) has been giving wrong information one the draft page was prevented from accepting the draft. This should not come to DRV until there is a dispute over unsalting. The draft needs first to be approved. Then, the mainspace title will be UNSALTed, by asking the protecting admin to unsalt, or by asking at WP:RFUP, or by asking at WT:AFC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, the AFCH script does not handle this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Raising this issue at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Accepting when the mainspace title is create-protected (SALTed) SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure what User:SmokeyJoe is saying is wrong with the script's handling of this case. The script says to request unprotection. It is true that it would be helpful for the script to provide more detailed instructions about unprotecting, but the script does handle it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Downgrade Protection to ECP so that a reviewer can accept the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - We (DRV) should not be accepting the draft when a reviewer has raised questions as to whether general notability is met. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Where do we see that a reviewer has raised such questions? Nevermind, I see it on the talk page of the AfC. Also, I note that per N either GNG or an SNG can be met to satisfy notability concerns. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Administration
• News
  • The Signpost
  • Goings-on
  • In the media
• Meetups
• Mailing lists
• Wikipedians
• Statistics
• The Misplaced Pages Library
• Centralized discussion
• Village pump
  • Idea lab
  • Policy
  • Proposals
  • Technical
  • Miscellaneous
  • WMF
• Holidays
• Bots

• Requested articles
• Most-wanted articles
• Images needing articles
• Articles needing images
• Articles for creation
  • WP:AFC/R
  • WP:AFC/C
  • Creating articles
  • Help
• Vital articles
• Articles for improvement
• Peer review
• Good article nominations
• Featured article candidates
  • Lists
  • Pictures
  • Topics
• Article translation
  • Pages
• Main Page
  • Errors

• Directory
• Culture and the arts
• Geographical
• History and society
• Science, technology and engineering
• Misplaced Pages assistance and tasks
• Patrols
  • Recent changes
• Counter-Vandalism Unit
• Accessibility
• Organizations category

• Reward board
• Contests
• A nice cup of tea and a sit down
• Charitableness
• WikiLove
  • Compliment before criticism
  • Kindness Campaign
• Thanks!

• Task Center
  • Open tasks
• Backlog
  • Category
  • Admin category
• Edit requests
  • Category
• Database reports
• Category tracker
• Dusty articles
• Special pages
  • New pages
  • Recent changes
• Controversial issues

• Administrators' noticeboard
  • Incidents
  • Edit warring
  • Vandalism
• Admin dashboard
• Admin requests
  • Closure
  • Page protection
  • User permissions
  • Sockpuppets
  • Open proxies
• Revision deletion
• Oversight
  • Request
• Usernames
  • Changing
  • Title blacklist
• OTRS
• Bureaucrats'
  • Requests for adminship and bureaucratship
• Arbitration Committee
  • Requests
  • Enforcement

• Requests for comment
• Third opinion
• Dispute resolution noticeboard
  • Biographies of living persons
  • Conflict of interest
  • External links
  • Fringe theories
  • Neutral point of view
  • No original research
  • Reliable sources

• Regional notice boards
• Requests for help
  • Category
• Asking questions
  • Teahouse
  • Help desk
  • Reference desk
  • Adopt-a-user
• Copyright assistance
  • Copyright investigations
  • Text problems
  • Media questions
• Resource requests
• Mergers
  • History mergers
• Moves
  • Page importation
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Bots
• Education
• General sanctions
• Editor sanctions
• Long-term abuse

• Guide
  • Admin
• Today
• Articles
• Templates
• Files
• Categories
• Redirects
• Miscellany
• Speedy
• Proposed
  • BLP
• Review
  • Undeletion
• Arguments to avoid
• Arguments to make
• Article Rescue

• Requests for comment (meta)
• Wikimedia Foundation elections
• WP Democracy
  • Milestones

• Departments
• Edit summary legend
• Editor's index
• Essays
• FAQs
• Glossary
  • Abbreviations
• Help
• Manual of Style
  • Simplified
• Rules
  • Five pillars
  • Policies
  • Guidelines
• Shortcuts
• Templates
  • Citation templates
• Tips
  • Today
• Tools
• Wiki markup

• Media
• Category
• Templates

Sasha coen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

31.51.97.199 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Page Ref. Sasha Coen. Author.

I created the page about sasha coen, but as part of the registry page, I added the name there too - at the time I thought it was the page title that I was trying to create that you were asking for, so I entered it.

As a result, it was assumed that I had created a biography. I hadn't - I am not sasha coen. I created a page about the author sasha coen. A deletion notice was added and I contacted the administrator that entered the notice. they did not make contact back and continued to delete the page.

I hope that the page can be restored as it took me a long time - as you can tell, I am not great with computers, but still made the effort. Hopefully you will too.

Thank you for your help

Clive.

• Hi Clive, welcome to Misplaced Pages. I'm sorry, I'm afraid I'm confused. Could you please be more specific about where you tried to add this page? Thanks—S Marshall T/C 00:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This is how the article looked before deletion. 46.107.88.236 (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Article was only sourced to a self-published eBook link at Amazon, and there's nothing else to be found out there to satisfy our notability guidelines. This is just a promotion campaign by an interested party or someone close to the author, going on in multiple places, see here and here. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse pretty clearly part of a promotion attempt. And surely no reliable sources exist anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi S Marshall,

I added the page the same day as it was deleted. When asked for a name I thought I was been asked for the name of the page I was trying to create. I have since realised that it was a registration user name that I was been asked for. I have since corrected that by registering as intended. It is true that I only added a link to the ebook of sasha coen but that was because I couldn't find any other links and were hoping other users would flesh out the page at later dates. I could not find an amazon profile page. It is also true that I have talked about the writing style and content (genre) of the same book on forum chat. I had not realised that this would be an issue for user Tarc. As Tarc has also discovered, there is not much on the web about sasha coen. They are a gifted writer and I thought deserved recognition. I was under the impression that this is what users use wiki for. To make information pages about everything.

If Tarc had looked a little further, it might have been noted that my name is not sasha or coen. Moreover, Had a response been made to my application to Tarc when the deletion intention was first advertised, then these issues could have been rectified much sooner and with a lot less trouble

Thank you for your help and cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.46.19 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse. User has not completed the prerequisite step of discussing the matter with User:Bbb23, the administrator who deleted the page, despite claims to the contrary above, nor has he even notified them (I have done so now). Without waiving this procedural defect, I would also endorse on the merits as the article is clearly promotional and has no clean version to revert to.
  To the creator: Misplaced Pages is here to collect, and to an extent, discuss, information that has been previously been published in reliable sources. If there is not much or any such information in the public domain, it is a very good indication that the person in question should not have a Misplaced Pages page at this time. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

hi, I replied to the user that initiated the cancellation a few minutes after he added the proposal. The reply was added in the same way as the one you are reading now so I are surprised it never reached the user. Regardless, it is evident that you have no inclination to amend the deletion order proposed by the said user so the steps taken and evidence given are all academic. It became clear very early on that there was no intention to overturn the order and were merely fulfilling the motions. I was under the false impression that wiki prided itself on users being able to present information of all types to a wider audience and other users able to add to that information in cases where information is lacking. For that to be necessary and required, the item (individual, material, theory...) is likely to be little known or difficult to research under general conditions. If the item, whatever that might be, is already thoroughly known and understood, there would be little need for a wiki page!

It is unfortunate that all of our time has been wasted. However, I thank the relevant members for taking the time to 'review' the decision made.

Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdc1cdc1 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Misplaced Pages isn't a place to post absolutely everything you feel like, nor does it cover any imaginable topic. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia which includes subjects already covered in sufficient detail by reliable sources. Just for the moment, I'm going to assume you're telling the truth: that you're "Clive" and not Sasha Coen or someone directly related to / hired by them, and that you're merely trying to get the word out about a book you liked. If that's true, Clive, please consider that your efforts aren't exactly making Sasha Coen look good, and that you've caused them some measure of embarassment through inappropriate promotion on at least 3 different websites. If you really aren't Sasha Coen, I strongly suggest not spamming their name across the web, because that's the kind of attention nobody really wants. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse. Blatant promotion. No content sourced to independent sources. Listing at AfD would be pointless. See Misplaced Pages:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Lost Girl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

On 21 January 2014, User:JDDJS twice deleted a block of information from the Infobox Template of the Lost Girl article. The template contains the pre-existing fields of "|writer" and "|director". The fields exist in the template so that information can be added to them. User:JDDJS deleted the information in the fields because in his personal opinion the information contained in the fields did not belong in the article.

If the fields did not exist in the template, there would be no reason to add information to them. Therefore, the fields serve a purpose and this purpose has been contributed to by many editors before User:JDDJS found his way to the article and undid what others had contributed before him.

I reversed said deletion of information by User:JDDJS and he again deleted the information after it was restored (which I then, once again, restored to the article). It is my opinion that no one user has the right to undo what other contributors to Misplaced Pages articles have contributed in good faith and via means invited by Misplaced Pages. Just because editors of articles "A" "B" and "C" have not made good use of all the fields in the templates used in their articles does not mean that editors of "Z" cannot add information to the fields in the template used in theirs. Please stop User:JDDJS from continuing to vandalize the article. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is not the correct venue, it's an editing dispute. The correct place is initially a discussion on the talk page of the article and if that fails then dispute resolution --86.5.93.42 (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Obviously this is not the place to discuss it, but Looking at the transclusions, I see 3/4 of the major shows do not have it but 1/4 do. I also see there is no discussion of when to use it in the template documentation. We do not need another round of The Template Wars, and someone interested should start a centralized discussion somewhere, DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ritmeyer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was deleted per WP:A7. A search on google showed that the article did make a claim of notability and therefore the article does not qualify under A7. I requested the article be undeleted and my request was refused here . Op47 (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at AFD. Article contained reasonable claim of notability, which defeats an A7 deletion. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: As of this moment the text of the deleted article is still visible in the Google cache. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse simply including the word 'prominent' isn't enough to dodge A7, especially when paired with the word 'niche' which appears to contradict it. For what it's worth, other claims in the article appear to be false, so I would consider the rest of it suspect as well. The company itself may indeed be notable, and may be a potential article subject, but restoring the former text would in no way help the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - Words such as prominent, high quality, influential, much sought after, 'high' prices in the deleted article are promotional and subjective characterization, not A7 importance/significance. Leen Ritmeyer is the only Ritmeyer for which there appears to be source information. Given the poor state of the article and the lack of online access to information on the 1930s-1970s German piano manufacturer, it's better to way for someone to come along and put together a reasonably source article. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn clearly a claim of notability was made. The only real issue is if it's credible. The company existed and made pianos. They aren't exactly in high demand from what I can tell. But I can't show that the claim is not credible. Further, I'd be somewhat surprised if there isn't enough RSes in paper form to meet our inclusion guidelines--reviews of pianos seems a likely thing. So not an A7 unless someone can state with authority that the claims are not credible. Certainly worth an AfD. Hobit (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• overturn when an article like this is challenged in good faith, it's fairer to have the community decide -- which also gives a chance for the community to find sourcing. It seems reasonable that a piano company with a 40 year history might be notable,-- it depends on whether there are reviews etc. to be found. 7 yearsafo, we sometimes absurdly interpreted claim for importance as meaning that the article lead had to contain the word "important" or "notable." In recent years wemean there is material in the article that gives a good faith indication of significance, no matter how the article is worded. DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• List at AfD as a contested speedy. I'm not seeing any obvious good sources, but they sell on eBay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AFD, if there is any doubt at all with an A7, reject the speedy and deal with it another way. I don't think this'll survive AFD, but it's not clearcut enough for A7. Lankiveil 11:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC).
• Overturn and list at AFD. Not clearly an A7, and the puffery in the text was curable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse. Removing the puffery leaves just the opening sentence. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - valid A7? Yes, I'd have done it. If there are sources, the sensible course of action is to userfy, add them, then push back to the mainspace. If there ain't, AfD is going to axe it. This seems like the wrong venue. WilyD 10:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I view A7s as "my band that just started playing at a local bar for the first time yesterday" not "company that made real products still identified with it by brand name for 30+ years". Even ignoring the puffery, there is good reason to suspect it has a real shot at meeting our inclusion guidelines (though sources are likely all paper). That seems like something that belongs at AfD. Hobit (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
    • The article gives no indication it has any shot at meeting WP:N after a search. Most A7s are not explicitly non-notable, but read like this one "John's table company makes tables", or "We Recycle is a band from Australia". Any subject could be notable, but most aren't. There's nothing here to make one suspect there are sources. But that's neither here nor there - if there are sources to be found, the wise thing to do is find them, and render this discussion moot - otherwise, it'll get sent to AfD, which might as well be sending it to the wood chipper - it has no chance of survival. WilyD 13:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• List it at AfD. There's reasonable doubt about the A7, and "wouldn't survive an AfD" isn't a speedy deletion criterion.—S Marshall T/C 13:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No, but "does not make an assertion of significance" is a speedy deletion criterion, and "will be deleted at AfD" is a good reason to choose an outcome other than "Send to AfD to be deleted" at DRV. If there are really any sources (I'm sceptical, but let's say), and someone is willing to put in the work to find them, then it should be userfied to that person so they can do so. This conversation is strongly suggestive that no such person exists. "Undelete, then send to AfD to redelete" is just silly (and a waste of everyone's time). WilyD 14:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
    • These remarks, and some others here, seem to bear rather little relationship to the WP:CSD policy statement or to the A7 criterion in particular. It really is worth reading them through from time to time. However, I realise that the document may be so badly written that it does not describe consensus decisions regarding appropriate CSD standards. If so, a substantial rewrite is overdue. Thincat (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn but list at AFD. This is not one of the "most obvious cases" of an article with "no indication of importance". There are several claims that, if true, are of substantial importance. Likewise, if the article has been impartially written and the statements are true (and I think this is possible), they are not puffery. Matters like this require discussion. Thincat (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse no claim of notability; mere puffery is insufficient. If I write an article about my goldfish and say it's a notable niche goldfish, it survives A7 in some editors' views??? We waste much time on "saving" unsourced garbage that has no claim to notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse, I can't find a single source. Nobody at this DR has presented a single source. Not one! Only the ebay item on auction which has just ended now, which could be digitally manipulated for all we know. I'd be more inclined to consider this request seriously if someone indicated they have sources that they could add. The article under review did not provide information required to make the article credible - names, facts, figures, ... details. None to be found. (i.e. why is it notable? who has purchased one? how many were made, etc) All we have is the org name and a year range which is extraordinarily long. If it isnt A7, it is G3 (hoax) until proven otherwise, either by sources, or by statements that can be researched. Userfy it if necessary. John Vandenberg 11:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Wow. I apologize for being rude here, but I'd hope most long-standing admins would have a better sense of our speedy deletion criteria than this. If you were at RfA with an answer like this, you'd have little chance of passing. Please read the speedy deletion talk page (where this case is being discussed). We don't speedy delete anything, even BLPs, solely because it isn't sourced (that's for BLP prod). And while this may be a hoax (I can't find a RS on-line) there are about 10 auctions, with pictures and in many case buyers, for Ritmeyer pianos. So it certinaly isn't a blatant hoax which is what A3 requires. If you think it's a blatant hoax, I'll take a $100 bet on the issue. I'm much more than 50% certain a company named Ritmeyer produced pianos. And if you aren't a lot more than 50% sure, you shouldn't be calling it a blatant anything. Given the time frame claimed, it is likely that paper sources cover this in detail. There are lots of notable topics that the web doesn't cover. At least until we do. Hobit (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed it does not need to be sourced, but it does need to be credible. The company may not be a hoax (I personally would say greater than 50% chance it is real, as I have found one advert from 1957), but the article content appears to be one. 90% of it would be tagged with fact tags and removed quite promptly. The most easily falsifiable is the article states that "influential inventions within the area of piano development". That isnt credible. Who was influenced? I have access to most digitalised resources, including abstracting services not part of 'the (googlable) web', and I dont get any hits other than the above advert. I personally would have shipped it off to Afd, but we're at DR, and the only argument put forward is a bureaucratic one, with nobody even attempting to put forward any sources. I'm usually a stickler for bureaucratic processing with there is a real dispute, but I cant see how it helps here, as nobody has given any evidence that this could be a viable topic. If the author or others believe it is viable, the userifying it lets them continue working. The admin made a decent call from what I can see. Could you please link to the 10 ebay auctions you have found? John Vandenberg 15:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
      • My concern is that if DRV upholds something that isn't actually a speedy deletion candidate, we'll see more and more out of process deletions. It isn't an A7 or a G3 and DRV shouldn't uphold it as one. It isn't close IMO, but I realize that could be debatable. Given your resources (which I lack) it may well be there isn't anything of significance here. But sending it to AfD gives people a realistic chance to source it. There may well be someone with paper sources that would see this (again, I find it very likely a company that has been around as long as this one has reliable paper sources). There is no reason not to give it a shot at AfD. As far as auction goes this search gets most of them. (Most, but but all are on e-bay). Hobit (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
        • I think(read:hope) there are lots of people watching to prevent individual cases like this becoming justification for CSDs becoming useless. I also expect(but again read:hope) the admin made a judgement call here-it is one I cant find a reason to contradict at least. There will definitely be print sources, and it may be that they can prove significance, but i'll bet it isnt they cant back the statements in this article. That would require many extensive compendium of music history (Oxford, Cambridge, etc) all omitting the contribution of the Ritmeyer, which also happened to never file a patent. There may be some other significance, and as an inclusion I would be happy with only a factual account of a mediocre contribution to the relevant discipline if it is niche. But this looks like an ebay item description recycled as an encyclopedia article, with no sources, and time to coincide with an actual ebay listing. My alarm bells are ringing! When I search ebay, and skimming the search results you point at, I can only find items which mention the one ebay auction as a 'see also'. i.e. lots of hits, but only one item. If there are more than one item on ebay, I missed it in my initial search and also now when I've looked at your results. i.e. links to ebay items instead of search results would be great. John Vandenberg 16:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse- There's a good case that A7 applies and, even if it didn't, it's obvious that this article could not survive an AFD so undeleting it would just be process for the sake of process and a huge waste of time. Reyk _YO! 04:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Decade of Darkness (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

DRV does not tolerate discussions being used to attack other users. It requires a collegial tone to be able to best evaluate content under policy. Emotional and political arguments cut no ice here and I will summarily close this discussion if it appears that the discussion is veering in that direction. Finally, if I close this, I will discard arguments that appear to be motivated by political animus rather then policy - that's you I'm looking at JOttawa16. Keep it clean folks if you want this to run the course. Spartaz 04:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

In 2012 Decade of Darkness was speedily deleted because some users tagged it as an attack page. In early 2014 the page was re-created using numerous media and journalistic references. Yet again, the page was speedily deleted without the opportunity for discussion or review.

The topic itself, the "decade of darkness" for Canada's federal government while under Liberal governments from 1994 to 2005, is an important topic for Canada's military and the federal government as a whole.

The page was recreated in 2014 with newer, more reliable sources, especially considering that some media sources were considering whether Prime Minister Harper's budget restraints would plunge the Canadian Forces into a "new" decade of darkness.

Similar additions to the Rick Hillier page, who coined the term, have been deleted, usually by the same user who speedily deleted this page. This is a relevant and important topic in Canadian government, Canada's military, and it deserves recognition. Request that the page be restored and allowed to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARMY101 (talk • contribs)

Please note that this article was originally deleted at WP:AFD as discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Decade of Darkness, due to an overwhelming consensus that the subject was highly biased and failed to meet NPOV. The subsequent WP:CSD were done under WP:G4 "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". - Ahunt (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep deleted User:ARMY101 is the original creator of the page. In the original AFD only one other editor, supported keeping the page. A google news search for "Decade of Darkness" yields only 8 results. The article itself contains no useful information. There is no reason for this page, other than to attack liberals. JDDJS (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The AfD conclusions were overwhelming. Every recreated version of this article has proven to be just another highly biased and politically motivated attack piece. - Ahunt (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse. Close accurately reflects AFD consensus and analysis. Moreover, as a simple GBooks search demonstrates, this is a rather generic political cliche applied by political comments of all stripes to time periods marked by actions they criticize. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endrose. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow the deletion policy and process. It is not a venue to seek a second bite at the cherry or advance new arguments (or re-advance old arguments) that were/should have been made at the AFD discussion. Stifle (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

1. There was certainly not "overwhelming" or "unanimous consent" given to delete the original article. Some of the original complaints, when the original page was created in 2012-2013, were that the article was poorly sourced. The new article has provided several sources, including those that relevantly apply to current Canadian politics as they suggest a new decade of darkness may be approaching or already underway.

2. If there are additional uses of the word (e.g. in other governments) then the page should be expanded to broadly label what a decade of darkness is and instances where governments or departments went through said decade.

To continually reject the noteworthiness of this topic is to refuse that such a decade ever happened. Federal employees, including defence officials, will tell you it happened and is indeed noteworthy, even if some Liberals don't like it.ARMY101 (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOttawa16 (talk • contribs)

Comment: I would say 13 editors in favour of deletion or redirecting and one opposed to it in the AfD is "an overwhelming consensus". Also by even using this venue to make politically-motivated comments as you just did tends to support the identification of problem of a lack of WP:NPOV in the original article. - Ahunt (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse per the consensus at AfD and inability of article creator to put forward NPOV arguments. --Randykitty (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Admin Comment If I don't close this, could the closer not what appears to be canvassing by the nominator. . Thanks Spartaz 10:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse. Clear consensus at AfD. Appears to be advocacy, implying original research. It could be redrafted, I recommend this, assuming that anything new is more strongly based in sources that are more independent and more distant from the subject. I recommend academic articles or reputably published books, and not newspaper stories. The title "Decade of Darkness" is not suitable, as it is provocative, aka non-neutral. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy close as WP:SNOW. There is absolutely no other reasonable closure besides delete for this AFD, and DRV is not a venue to get a second bite at the cherry when AFD hasn't gone your way. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC) For clarity, this is a process request; my endorse !vote above stands. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - This does not prohibit the writing and posting of an article on the media's use of Rick Hillier's 2007 Decade of Darkness phrase that overcomes the reasons for deletion listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Decade of Darkness. Hillier was not the first to utter the phrase decade of darkness, (an older usage - New York Times August 17, 1986), but, given the significant coverage of Hillier's term, I think that an article on the topic could be put together to meet WP:NEO. You may want to put together a draft that overcomes the reasons for deletion listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Decade of Darkness and ask at DRV that the draft be moved to article space. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • University of Regina political sociologist John F. Conway noted in March 2006 that Hillier used the term, so the article lead statement "The Decade of Darkness was a term coined in 2007 by then Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier." was not correct. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AfD. Whether or not the AfD was overwhelming or not is irrelevant here - I see no mention of how strong the consensus was in the G4 criteria. What is important here is whether it's "substantially identical" and it's clearly not - the text is quite different and all the references are different. It shouldn't be up to a single admin to decide whether these sources are enough to meet our requirements as that should be decided by consensus at AfD. We don't ask admins to assess references for A7 and nor should we for G4. New references = new AfD as far as I'm concerned and this is also my understanding of policy. And to be clear here I'm not questioning the original AfD closure which was clearly correct, I'm !voting to overturn the G4. Dpmuk (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It will be pointless to start another AFD. It is clear that it won't survive. And the recreate might no be the exact same version as the one deleted, but it does have the exact same problems, namely violating WP:NPOV. JDDJS (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse clear consensus at the AfD. No new information brought forth making this a case of an editor disagreeing with the outcome. Mkdw 08:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse, crystal clear consensus at the AFD and no new arguments advanced here either. I am disappointed to see accusations of party partisanship being made here; DRV is oddly enough usually somewhere where good faith is assumed by all participants. Lets keep it that way. Lankiveil 11:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC).
• Note: the original page creator just today tried to take the article text we are discussing here and insert it into Canadian Forces and Jean Chrétien, although it has now been removed from both articles. - Ahunt (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it certainly was added to the Canadian Forces and Jean Chretien pages, as that's what was suggested here. JOttawa16 (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Um, no, it hasn't? I can't see where that was suggested, please point to where it was. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• In fact this DRV has not come to a conclusion yet, but it looks right now that it will endorse the deletion of this subject and text in the original AfD as not suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages and that means that it should not be reinserted by stealth elsewhere. - Ahunt (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse as Stifle points out, DRV is for where a deletion is reasonably contestable, not for when you don't like the AfD result. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Kent_Evans (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kent Evans — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 11:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The article was deleted because of an insufficient amount of references as there was only one that mods found satisfactory. I now have a list of references which I have included below. I request that the article be undeleted so that I may go in expand the article and cite correct references and change the content to more closely follows Misplaced Pages guidelines.

Articles/Reviews/Blogs
Cambridge Day
http://www.cambridgeday.com/2012/09/28/trip-hop-gets-new-meaning-with-monday-musical-novel-reading-for-crash-course/

Kirkus Reviews
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/kent-evans/a-crash-course/
Indie Music
http://www.indie-music.com/ee/index.php/blog/comments/interview_with_kent_evans_accomplished_experimental_author_and_musician
Portland Book Review
http://portlandbookreview.com/confessional-literature-or-fictional-memoir-by-kent-evans/
Why I write
http://www.patriciadunnauthor.com/why-i-write-by-kent-evans/
Think like a Label
http://www.thinklikealabel.com/interview-with-kent-evans-experimental-accomplished-author-and-musician/
Henk Jan Vanderklis
http://www.henkjanvanderklis.nl/2012/10/kent-evans-a-crash-course-on-the-anatomy-of-robots/
Chicago Center for Literature and Photography
http://www.cclapcenter.com/2012/12/30_books_in_30_days_a_crash_co.html
Unconventional Librarian
http://unconventionallibrarian.com/2012/09/17/kent-evans-crash-anatomy-robots/
Fairy Cakes
http://maimoonamayrahman.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/a-crash-course-on-the-anatomy-of-robots-kent-evans/
Rat Race Refuge
http://www.ratracerefuge.com/bookreviews/evans-a-crash-course.html
The Next Best Book Blog
http://thenextbestbookblog.blogspot.mx/2012/09/a-crash-course-on-anatomy-of-robots.html
Moonlight Gleam
http://moonlightgleam.com/2012/09/author-guest-post-with-kent-evans.html
Offbeat Vagabound
http://offbeatvagabond.blogspot.mx/2012/09/arc-review-crash-course-on-anatomy-of.html

Appearances
Franklyn Street Works
http://articles.courant.com/2012-09-14/community/hcrs-65332hc-stafford-20120912_1_robots-novel-anatomy
http://www.franklinstreetworks.org/k/
http://www.fairfieldcountylook.com/index.php/calendar/icalrepeat.detail/2012/09/20/1059/26/franklin-street-works-presents-a-reading-and-musical-performance-with-kent-evans
Brazos Bookstore
http://events.chron.com/houston_tx/events/show/281368765-kent-evans-a-crash-course-on-the-anatomy-of-robots
http://www.artshound.com/event/detail/441708781/Kent_Evans_book_signing_and_discussion_
Book Soup
http://www.timeout.com/los-angeles/music/kent-evans
http://www.visitwesthollywood.com/event/kent-evans-discusses-and-signs-crash-course-on-the-anatomy-of-robots/
Books Inc.
http://www.booksinc.net/event/kent-evans-books-inc-opera-plaza
Radio Bean
http://www.radiobean.com/cal/view_entry.php?id=3916&date=20121005
Biblioteca San Miguel
http://www.atencionsanmiguel.org/2013/05/17/a-crash-course-on-the-anatomy-of-robots/

Radio/Video
The Front Row with Dean Dalton Interview, KUHF (Houston Public Radio)
http://www.kuhf.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10780
Martini Productions Interview
http://martiniproductionsnyc.com/2012/10/04/interview-with-kent-evans-author-of-crash-course-on-the-anatomy-of-robots/
It’s Relevant Interview
http://www.itsrelevant.com/content/11616/Music_&_Readings_at_Franklin_Street_Works
Big Blend Radio Interview
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/big-blend-radio/2012/10/15/big-blend-happy-hour-radio

Awards
Indie Excellence Books Awards
http://www.indieexcellence.com/indie-results-2013-finalists.htm
New England Book Awards
http://www.newenglandbookfestival.com/winners2012.html
Beverly Hills Book Awards
http://www.beverlyhillsbookawards.com/2013-BHBA-Winnners-and-Finalists.htm

DizaBlah (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse admittedly I didn't click every single link but the ones I did look at are either not reliable sources, not primarily about Evans, not more recent than the AFD (and thus not new information), or a combination thereof. Also, it seems a primary issue with the article was promotion, so even if the subject is indeed notable it may be better to start from scratch. A new draft article may be the best way forward. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I can only evaluate the information for the books. I see from worldcat that one is in 2 libraries only, the other in 5, which is below what is expected for the most experimental of experimental literature. Kirkus is unreliable nowadays for independent publishers. The awards are mere listings as honorable mention, and only at minor festivals. The blogs are blogs. Appearances are trivial. There is no imaginable case for notability as an author based on the books. Whether there is a conceivable case as a performer or otherwise I cannot evaluate. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse per Starblind and DGG. Closer accurately evaluated consensus and no significant new material showing notability. --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse That looks like a wp:BOMBARD to me. The notability guidelines for third party reliable sources aren't difficult to understand - and the half dozen I checked failed those standards. There might be a couple of notables in there - but two good references beats fifty bad ones. And if there are any good ones in there I'm never going to find them. Closer accurately summarised consensus. Neonchameleon (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse Please review WP:RS before taking it to DRV over it. Most of those sources are immediately disqualified as user submitted content and unreliable. Other editors above have pointed out important key points. Mkdw 08:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)