Evaluative diversity – Reopen AfD discussion. No need to wait a full week to figure out that if the article was never tagged, the AfD discussion was invalid. Without such a tag, people who were watching the article would have no way to know it was being discussed. So, I'm going to reopen the original AfD, get things tagged up properly, and let that run for a week. On a procedural note, I've long ago given up using the manual AfD process; I use Wikipedia:Twinkle, which completely automates the multi-step process to get something listed properly. Using a tool like that avoids these sorts of problems. Highly recommended. And, PS, obviously no fault of the AfD closer; the discussion was unambiguous, and it's not the job of the closer to spot things like this– -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Evaluative diversity (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) My reason for listing is that there was no consensus reached about whether the topic is sufficiently notable to merit an article. The Afd arose to settle a dispute about whether the topic is notable, and it is important to reach an answer on that question so that editors (including me) will know how to be constructive moving forward. The closing admin may believe no article is merited but seems prepared to defend only that the consensus was that "the article was a violation of WP:NOR" which might suggest that the constructive next step is to post improved text. Within minutes of asking via the article's talk page whether that is the appropriate next step, two other editors posted objections to having any text for this topic at all--the dispute on notability is still live, so we need that question settled to avoid edit warring. Further, no consensus can violate Wikipedia policy (which represents a larger community), and the close decision says, "A concept may meet GNG whilst still being OR." That would contradict policy if interpreted literally. The closing must reflect a genuine consensus of what the constructive next step would be. The claim that this topic is not notable is the latest in a continuous succession of objections raised against this article. It started with SYNTH, which changed to COPY when the objecting editor noticed that at least one reliable source backed many of the same claims as in the original text, but the COPY concern was dismissed because Wikipedia has the earlier copyright date. COI was raised around concerns that I may have cited my own work (which was dismissed on the grounds that Wikipedia allows that). Then part of the article was moved to Moral psychology (which is limited to humans, so cannot cover cognitive science topics) and the rest replaced with a redirect to Pragmatic ethics. When the appropriateness of the redirect was challenged, a deletion process was initiated with WP:DEL-REASONs 6, 7, 8, and 14 (which question notability). Throughout this discussion, concerns have been raised about PROMO, but no one in the entire world makes money from this topic, as far as I know. The article could someday promote recruitment to advocacy organizations in the same way that the existence of articles about race and racism promote recruitment to race advocacy organizations, but such topics still merit articles, and the intention of the article is to accurately portray both pro- and anti-diversity views (and I made sure the article was reviewed by people of both persuasions). I have learned things in the process of editing this article, and republished my learnings elsewhere, but republishing what I learn as an editor is in no way forbidden (do not reverse the order of events!). Constructive efforts could go in a variety of directions: Additional sources could be demanded to establish notability. As far as I can tell, we have already named sources which meet the technical guidelines of GNG, and searches reveal hundreds or thousands of sources which span several decades, so we should have some clarification regarding what additional sources would be required. The text could be modified to address concerns about OR by adding clearer (or more) citations or rephrasing claims to better-reflect the sources. The article could be reworked for a different title. Originally, the article began "Evaluative diversity (also known as Moral diversity) ..." and had a redirect from Moral diversity. Perhaps this information should instead appear under the title Moral diversity or Political diversity or Cognitive diversity (which would also include IQ) or Deep-level diversity (which would also include sexual orientation), or under Evaluativism. Note that literature searches to determine notability should explore each of these potential titles to the extent that they refer to the same phenomena. Dispute over this article has been civil, but there is a dispute, and shoving that dispute under the rug would not be consistent with Wikipedia policy. There are additional sources being published about this topic every year. Consider http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24576690, for example, a literature review in a highly respected journal which concludes "Although many people want to believe that their positions on moral, religious, and political issues are the product of rational, conscious thought, the reality is that sub-threshold, biologically instantiated predispositions shape all human attitudes, leading people to rationalize their positions and actions." Several passages in this source indicate that the same biological differences underpin differences labeled "moral", "political", or "value." Rather than play wack-a-mole with any editor who attempts to find a place in Wikipedia to document this thesis and the evidence for/against it, I think it is consistent with Wikipedia policy to plot a constructive path. Step 1 is to test consensus on the question of notability. If the topic is notable, but the text needs work, then step 2 may be to userfy so help can be sought for improving the text. Langchri (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse well I only skimmed most of that rambling which has a distinct whiff of wikilawyering. "My reason for listing is that there was no consensus reached about whether the topic is sufficiently notable to merit an article." - well AFD doesn't need to establish that, so in the DRV did the process fail in someway, as the deletion policy doesn't require it to do so, there is no "case" to answer. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Temporarily undeleted for discussion'. I have not yet formed an opinion, and will not form one until I have carefully read the del rev request and the article. I do not comment on what I have not yet read but only skimmed. DGG ( talk ) 10:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] I assume that is supposed to be a dig at my comment and expression of your superiority? I however understand that you can read through (or skim through) comments without needing to read everything in intricate depth to get the thrust of the argument. The poster helpfully summaries in their opening sentence then further declare what they wish from the DRV in their closing sentence "he Afd arose to settle a dispute about whether the topic is notable, and it is important...", "Step 1 is to test consensus on the question of notability." I also don't need to go into any depth beyond skimming to understand why stuff like "been raised about PROMO, but no one in the entire world makes money from this topic" which demonstrates a broken approach to what promotion is (Someone must be making money from it). You may wish to encourage lawyering and volume of argument vs quality of argument, I however do not --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thank you, DGG, for the temporary undeletion. I agree with your comment – skimming is not what is required. There is something odd about the history. The last version before the undeletion was immediately before the AFD nomination and so before the tag was added. That wouldn't matter perhaps except the last editing to the article consisted of a lot of major edits by the AFD nominator who seemed to have taken over the article with merges and redirection so it is not clear what should be evaluated. Thincat (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] There is interesting relevant discussion here at AN. Could we have the article's talk page, Talk:Evaluative diversity, undeleted as well, please? Thincat (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done. Hut 8.5 15:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Holy cow this user - who is operating under an academic COI, citing his own work throughout wikipedia (see his contribs), will not drop the stick. The article was a nightmare of WP:OR and WP:SYN, including long lists of quotes from the bible and other religious/philosophical literature that somehow "prove" the existence of "Evaluative diversity", and making really ridiculous leaps of logic - claiming for example that the Milgram experiment was designed to distinguish between various kinds of "evaluative diversity". The editor posted this article at about the same time he published a book chapter with the exact same material (also self-published on his website here), which caused some copyright consternation before we worked out the time sequence. He is also advocating that in the real world, and in Wikipedia, discrimination based on differences in evaluative diversity is a bad bad thing and people should be made aware of that and it should be illegal etc etc. He writes elsewhere that "It might take years before the value of these fields (i.e. evaluative diversity) can be assessed, but I assure you that my efforts come from a sincere desire to serve my fellow man the best I can." I believe he is coming from a good-hearted place, but despite a long effort by me (see User_talk:Jytdog#Evaluative_Diversity and by SandyGeorgia, he is displaying WP:IDHT behavior with regard to what Wikipedia is, and is not, and how we use sources here. I believe at the end of the day, he is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia - he is here to advocate his views on this topic. Please re-delete and salt this article.Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Yes, we can see there is a squabble between academics. The main question for DRV is whether the AFD was closed properly and, to a lesser extent, what, if anything, should be done next for this topic on Wikipedia. User behaviour is not the current concern. Thincat (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] There is no "squabble between academics". I am not an academic. The article is WP:OR - a gigantic example of WP:SYN. Anyway, I've said my piece. Good luck with the review. I will say that I was surprised when the AfD was closed; I expected it to be re-listed to get more community feedback before closing. I cannot imagine the feedback would change much, but more feedback would have provided better grounds to get the creator to accept the result. I would support you all either accepting the close ( the result is inevitable in my view) or re-opening the discussion to get more feedback. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse for a start the AfD was not about notability: the article was nominated for deletion on the grounds that it was original research and was deleted on the grounds that it was original research. It doesn't look like anyone other than the article's author has concluded that it wasn't original research and being original research is a valid reason to delete an article if the problem is sufficiently pervasive, so the closure was fine. Contrary to what's been said above it is perfectly possible to have a notable topic which we can't write about without violating WP:NOR - it might be that the topic has plenty of coverage in primary sources, or that the sources can't be put together to talk about the topic in the article without synthesising them. Even if it is possible to write a policy-compliant article on the topic I would recommend that a different editor write it, as even the request above suggests using a source which doesn't appear to even mention the term. Hut 8.5 15:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Endorse with caveats and move to draft. The rough consensus was to delete and it is quite correct that a topic can be notable but, if an article consists (almost) entirely of original research, it can be properly deleted. However, the decision was marred by the article possibly not being AFD-tagged and someone incorrectly saying the topic was only mentioned once on Google scholar. Sometimes the phrase is used merely descriptively but at other times it seems to be used to specify a concept (though this might not be the same as the topic of this article?).[1] The AFD nominator, before restoring a lengthy historic version of the article for AFD purposes, had been removing large amounts of text and then converted the article to a redirect where the topic is not mentioned. Some of this seems to have met with the article creator's acceptance (User talk:Jytdog#Evaluative diversity), and some of the material removed was on the basis that it was worth keeping elsewhere: for example "moved content to Moral psychology where this content was sorely lacking".[2] However this copying was done without specific attribution[3] which really relies on the source article not being deleted. Maybe attribution can be restored in some other way. It is a pity this was allowed to happen. The offer to email a copy of the text was in my view not adequate because I suspect everyone agreed that the last version probably was not the best. I think the entire article and its history should be placed in draft space for further consideration of the content by those interested. I feel a mainspace stub at least could be OK for OR, notability and lacking promotion, maybe this version or this for a start? The copyright concerns were raised with very good cause but this matter has been resolved. Thincat (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Overturn/relist. Article was apparently never properly tagged for deletion.Unfortunate but necessary, since the OR/SYNTH problems don't justify speedy deletion.. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment Several folks here have said that the article was apparently never properly tagged for deletion. I could have swore I did but I don't find that in the article history nor in my contribs. (unless it was somehow revdelled in the deletion/undeletion, but I doubt that) It looks like I made a mistake by not tagging the article, and I apologize to everybody for that. Bad mistake. But the article was not speedy deleted - there was a proper deletion discussion here. As I mentioned above, I would not be opposed at all to re-opening the deletion discussion to get more feedback, with the article appropriately tagged this time. Again, my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist: our main job is to see the deletion process is correctly followed and the failure to tag the article is therefore a fatal error. However, I think it's unlikely that the article will survive the second AfD. This research really needs secondary sources before our rules will permit it to be published here.—S Marshall T/C 18:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist on the purely procedural basis of the article not being tagged --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment If it helps to separate OR concerns from notability concerns, I have begun a stub here [4]. Langchri (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] As I explained at some length to the nominator, the fact that the article is irredeemably OR was the main reason for deletion. The fact that it was not properly tagged for deletion is of some concern, and while it seems that it did not prevent people from finding and commenting on the deletion discussion, I would reopen purely for procedure while endorsing my own closure as appropriate. The relist should be a continuation of the discussion I closed and not a completely blank slate, and User:Langchri is strongly urged to refrain from attempting to refute every comment. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and Relist, at which point the article will almost certainly be deleted, but there seems to be no compelling reason not to do this by the book. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Evaluative diversity – Reopen AfD discussion. No need to wait a full week to figure out that if the article was never tagged, the AfD discussion was invalid. Without such a tag, people who were watching the article would have no way to know it was being discussed. So, I'm going to reopen the original AfD, get things tagged up properly, and let that run for a week. On a procedural note, I've long ago given up using the manual AfD process; I use Wikipedia:Twinkle, which completely automates the multi-step process to get something listed properly. Using a tool like that avoids these sorts of problems. Highly recommended. And, PS, obviously no fault of the AfD closer; the discussion was unambiguous, and it's not the job of the closer to spot things like this– -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

My reason for listing is that there was no consensus reached about whether the topic is sufficiently notable to merit an article. The Afd arose to settle a dispute about whether the topic is notable, and it is important to reach an answer on that question so that editors (including me) will know how to be constructive moving forward. The closing admin may believe no article is merited but seems prepared to defend only that the consensus was that "the article was a violation of WP:NOR" which might suggest that the constructive next step is to post improved text. Within minutes of asking via the article's talk page whether that is the appropriate next step, two other editors posted objections to having any text for this topic at all--the dispute on notability is still live, so we need that question settled to avoid edit warring.

Further, no consensus can violate Wikipedia policy (which represents a larger community), and the close decision says, "A concept may meet GNG whilst still being OR." That would contradict policy if interpreted literally. The closing must reflect a genuine consensus of what the constructive next step would be.

The claim that this topic is not notable is the latest in a continuous succession of objections raised against this article. It started with SYNTH, which changed to COPY when the objecting editor noticed that at least one reliable source backed many of the same claims as in the original text, but the COPY concern was dismissed because Wikipedia has the earlier copyright date. COI was raised around concerns that I may have cited my own work (which was dismissed on the grounds that Wikipedia allows that). Then part of the article was moved to Moral psychology (which is limited to humans, so cannot cover cognitive science topics) and the rest replaced with a redirect to Pragmatic ethics. When the appropriateness of the redirect was challenged, a deletion process was initiated with WP:DEL-REASONs 6, 7, 8, and 14 (which question notability).

Throughout this discussion, concerns have been raised about PROMO, but no one in the entire world makes money from this topic, as far as I know. The article could someday promote recruitment to advocacy organizations in the same way that the existence of articles about race and racism promote recruitment to race advocacy organizations, but such topics still merit articles, and the intention of the article is to accurately portray both pro- and anti-diversity views (and I made sure the article was reviewed by people of both persuasions). I have learned things in the process of editing this article, and republished my learnings elsewhere, but republishing what I learn as an editor is in no way forbidden (do not reverse the order of events!).

Constructive efforts could go in a variety of directions:

Additional sources could be demanded to establish notability. As far as I can tell, we have already named sources which meet the technical guidelines of GNG, and searches reveal hundreds or thousands of sources which span several decades, so we should have some clarification regarding what additional sources would be required.
The text could be modified to address concerns about OR by adding clearer (or more) citations or rephrasing claims to better-reflect the sources.
The article could be reworked for a different title. Originally, the article began "Evaluative diversity (also known as Moral diversity) ..." and had a redirect from Moral diversity. Perhaps this information should instead appear under the title Moral diversity or Political diversity or Cognitive diversity (which would also include IQ) or Deep-level diversity (which would also include sexual orientation), or under Evaluativism.

Note that literature searches to determine notability should explore each of these potential titles to the extent that they refer to the same phenomena.

Dispute over this article has been civil, but there is a dispute, and shoving that dispute under the rug would not be consistent with Wikipedia policy. There are additional sources being published about this topic every year. Consider http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24576690, for example, a literature review in a highly respected journal which concludes "Although many people want to believe that their positions on moral, religious, and political issues are the product of rational, conscious thought, the reality is that sub-threshold, biologically instantiated predispositions shape all human attitudes, leading people to rationalize their positions and actions." Several passages in this source indicate that the same biological differences underpin differences labeled "moral", "political", or "value." Rather than play wack-a-mole with any editor who attempts to find a place in Wikipedia to document this thesis and the evidence for/against it, I think it is consistent with Wikipedia policy to plot a constructive path. Step 1 is to test consensus on the question of notability. If the topic is notable, but the text needs work, then step 2 may be to userfy so help can be sought for improving the text. Langchri (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse well I only skimmed most of that rambling which has a distinct whiff of wikilawyering. "My reason for listing is that there was no consensus reached about whether the topic is sufficiently notable to merit an article." - well AFD doesn't need to establish that, so in the DRV did the process fail in someway, as the deletion policy doesn't require it to do so, there is no "case" to answer. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily undeleted for discussion'.

I have not yet formed an opinion, and will not form one until I have carefully read the del rev request and the article. I do not comment on what I have not yet read but only skimmed. DGG ( talk ) 10:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that is supposed to be a dig at my comment and expression of your superiority? I however understand that you can read through (or skim through) comments without needing to read everything in intricate depth to get the thrust of the argument. The poster helpfully summaries in their opening sentence then further declare what they wish from the DRV in their closing sentence "he Afd arose to settle a dispute about whether the topic is notable, and it is important...", "Step 1 is to test consensus on the question of notability." I also don't need to go into any depth beyond skimming to understand why stuff like "been raised about PROMO, but no one in the entire world makes money from this topic" which demonstrates a broken approach to what promotion is (Someone must be making money from it). You may wish to encourage lawyering and volume of argument vs quality of argument, I however do not --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, DGG, for the temporary undeletion. I agree with your comment – skimming is not what is required. There is something odd about the history. The last version before the undeletion was immediately before the AFD nomination and so before the tag was added. That wouldn't matter perhaps except the last editing to the article consisted of a lot of major edits by the AFD nominator who seemed to have taken over the article with merges and redirection so it is not clear what should be evaluated. Thincat (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is interesting relevant discussion here at AN. Could we have the article's talk page, Talk:Evaluative diversity, undeleted as well, please? Thincat (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hut 8.5 15:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow this user - who is operating under an academic COI, citing his own work throughout wikipedia (see his contribs), will not drop the stick. The article was a nightmare of WP:OR and WP:SYN, including long lists of quotes from the bible and other religious/philosophical literature that somehow "prove" the existence of "Evaluative diversity", and making really ridiculous leaps of logic - claiming for example that the Milgram experiment was designed to distinguish between various kinds of "evaluative diversity". The editor posted this article at about the same time he published a book chapter with the exact same material (also self-published on his website here), which caused some copyright consternation before we worked out the time sequence. He is also advocating that in the real world, and in Wikipedia, discrimination based on differences in evaluative diversity is a bad bad thing and people should be made aware of that and it should be illegal etc etc.

He writes elsewhere that "It might take years before the value of these fields (i.e. evaluative diversity) can be assessed, but I assure you that my efforts come from a sincere desire to serve my fellow man the best I can." I believe he is coming from a good-hearted place, but despite a long effort by me (see User_talk:Jytdog#Evaluative_Diversity and by SandyGeorgia, he is displaying WP:IDHT behavior with regard to what Wikipedia is, and is not, and how we use sources here. I believe at the end of the day, he is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia - he is here to advocate his views on this topic. Please re-delete and salt this article.Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can see there is a squabble between academics. The main question for DRV is whether the AFD was closed properly and, to a lesser extent, what, if anything, should be done next for this topic on Wikipedia. User behaviour is not the current concern. Thincat (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "squabble between academics". I am not an academic. The article is WP:OR - a gigantic example of WP:SYN. Anyway, I've said my piece. Good luck with the review. I will say that I was surprised when the AfD was closed; I expected it to be re-listed to get more community feedback before closing. I cannot imagine the feedback would change much, but more feedback would have provided better grounds to get the creator to accept the result. I would support you all either accepting the close ( the result is inevitable in my view) or re-opening the discussion to get more feedback. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse for a start the AfD was not about notability: the article was nominated for deletion on the grounds that it was original research and was deleted on the grounds that it was original research. It doesn't look like anyone other than the article's author has concluded that it wasn't original research and being original research is a valid reason to delete an article if the problem is sufficiently pervasive, so the closure was fine. Contrary to what's been said above it is perfectly possible to have a notable topic which we can't write about without violating WP:NOR - it might be that the topic has plenty of coverage in primary sources, or that the sources can't be put together to talk about the topic in the article without synthesising them. Even if it is possible to write a policy-compliant article on the topic I would recommend that a different editor write it, as even the request above suggests using a source which doesn't appear to even mention the term. Hut 8.5 15:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse with caveats and move to draft. The rough consensus was to delete and it is quite correct that a topic can be notable but, if an article consists (almost) entirely of original research, it can be properly deleted. However, the decision was marred by the article possibly not being AFD-tagged and someone incorrectly saying the topic was only mentioned once on Google scholar. Sometimes the phrase is used merely descriptively but at other times it seems to be used to specify a concept (though this might not be the same as the topic of this article?).[1] The AFD nominator, before restoring a lengthy historic version of the article for AFD purposes, had been removing large amounts of text and then converted the article to a redirect where the topic is not mentioned. Some of this seems to have met with the article creator's acceptance (User talk:Jytdog#Evaluative diversity), and some of the material removed was on the basis that it was worth keeping elsewhere: for example "moved content to Moral psychology where this content was sorely lacking".[2] However this copying was done without specific attribution[3] which really relies on the source article not being deleted. Maybe attribution can be restored in some other way. It is a pity this was allowed to happen. The offer to email a copy of the text was in my view not adequate because I suspect everyone agreed that the last version probably was not the best. I think the entire article and its history should be placed in draft space for further consideration of the content by those interested. I feel a mainspace stub at least could be OK for OR, notability and lacking promotion, maybe this version or this for a start? The copyright concerns were raised with very good cause but this matter has been resolved. Thincat (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/relist. Article was apparently never properly tagged for deletion.Unfortunate but necessary, since the OR/SYNTH problems don't justify speedy deletion.. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several folks here have said that the article was apparently never properly tagged for deletion. I could have swore I did but I don't find that in the article history nor in my contribs. (unless it was somehow revdelled in the deletion/undeletion, but I doubt that) It looks like I made a mistake by not tagging the article, and I apologize to everybody for that. Bad mistake. But the article was not speedy deleted - there was a proper deletion discussion here. As I mentioned above, I would not be opposed at all to re-opening the deletion discussion to get more feedback, with the article appropriately tagged this time. Again, my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist: our main job is to see the deletion process is correctly followed and the failure to tag the article is therefore a fatal error. However, I think it's unlikely that the article will survive the second AfD. This research really needs secondary sources before our rules will permit it to be published here.—S Marshall T/C 18:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist on the purely procedural basis of the article not being tagged --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it helps to separate OR concerns from notability concerns, I have begun a stub here [4]. Langchri (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained at some length to the nominator, the fact that the article is irredeemably OR was the main reason for deletion. The fact that it was not properly tagged for deletion is of some concern, and while it seems that it did not prevent people from finding and commenting on the deletion discussion, I would reopen purely for procedure while endorsing my own closure as appropriate. The relist should be a continuation of the discussion I closed and not a completely blank slate, and User:Langchri is strongly urged to refrain from attempting to refute every comment. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist, at which point the article will almost certainly be deleted, but there seems to be no compelling reason not to do this by the book. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.