Overcoming Obstacles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I created an article for the non-profit organization Overcoming Obstacles that gives away free life skills curriculum. The page was deleted due to its "promotional tone". We tried to edit the content in order to just provide relevant information on the organization as well as multiple sources but the page keeps on getting deleted. Can you give us specifics on how we can restore the page. All we want is to have a place where users can read about the national organization. Let us know what we can do.

• Endorse deletion. The deletion was spot on correct. The company fails WP:NCORP. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, while the rewritten version was less explicitly adverting than the previous one, it still read like a brochure for the product and was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. This is why it's very strongly discouraged to write on Wikipedia about subjects with which you have a conflict of interest. Ultimately, while editing further could remove the advertising material, changing the tone would not resolve the core issue that the subject is simply not notable enough for Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Read Wikipedia:NOTADVOCACY. Read Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Wikipedia is not for you to advertise your organization. The "place where users can read about the national organization" would be your own website. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minori Suzuki (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was userfied to my userspace (at User:Narutolovehinata5/Minori Suzuki) following a discussion where a consensus was reached that, given she only had one acting role at the time of the AFD, she did not satisfy notability guidelines at that time and was at best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Since the discussion, she has been cast in at least one other major role, as a main character in the video game Danganronpa V3: Killing Harmony. I'm not sure how major that role is since I haven't played the game, but if the said role is indeed a main one, then it's possible that she now passes (if barely) WP:ENTERTAINER. If this deletion review does not overturn the AFD consensus, I would suggest recreating the article as a redirect to Macross Delta, with the original history merged into it in case it gets recreated in the future. Closing user Music1201 has not edited since January 3, 2017. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the redirect is probably the way to go. The role in Dangan Ronpa 3 is apparently fairly minor, one of the various suspect characters named Angie Yonaga - I can't say a lot as I don't want to spoil anything, but she is not a main character of the game. Even if we count it as a second significant role though, is that really enough to build a BLP article around? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment pinging AfD nominator Philafrenzy and participants SephyTheThird, AngusWOOF, and Knowledgekid87. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If it was already too soon, then news about a character we don't know much about doesn't really change that. Also if it is already userfied I don't see the rush here. Wait until the article speaks for itself. As for the redirect, again I'm not convinced there is a case. However at the same time I have no real objection. SephyTheThird (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's 10th on the list of 17 characters for Harmony so it's hard to tell if she's a lead role. Her character Angie Yonada isn't mentioned in the plot section, so she does not appear to be a main character. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lilah Parsons (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Firstly, I believe the nomination was made in bad faith, as the creation of the deletion discussion was done by a new editor who's only edit thus far is to create the deletion discussion page (which makes me strongly suspect that the nominator may be a sock). The nomination was also incorrectly transcluded at first and secondly, being the creator of the article, I was not notified that a deletion discussion was taking place and had been for two weeks, which is against WP:AFDLIST (The policy states that once nominating an article for deletion, it is considered civil to notify the good faith creator, which did not happen here). Only one editor !voted, and it was to delete, there reason just being "a non notable model". The subject meets various notability guidelines, as there is sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources (I can show them if needed), otherwise the article would have been nominated for CSD under A7 when it was created if it failed GNG! The article just hadn't been sufficiently expanded yet, as I was expecting others who had more knowledge on the subject to contribute to the article (I created the page on the basis of what I knew of her and what sourced information was available, such as she is a presenter on Capital Breakfast and MTV. Therefore, I'd like the deletion outcome to be reviewed. Thank you. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, lets just start by saying that it's not required to notify the article creator when an article is nominated for deletion, although many automated tools do so. What is required is to discuss with the closing admin before bringing things to DRV, but I don't see where you've done this with User talk:Kurykh. That being said, because the discussion was poorly attended I'd be open to throwing it open to relisting if you can provide the requisite sources here which would demonstrate that a relist might result in a changed outcome. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Further Comment, I've temp undeleted the page for the duration of this discussion. Some of the sources appear to be decent, although I've not had time to look at them in detail. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Lankiveil: I thought I was supposed to come straight here if i disagreed with the outcome rather than go to the deleting admin's talk. This is the first time I've had to come to DRV, so I do apologise if I've done anything wrong. Anyway, Here are a few sources: [1], [2] [3] (Source 3 is an interview with Metro newspaper). Lots more can be found by simply searching "Lilah Parsons" on Google.I have looked at some of the sites where other sources which I've listed and not listed here are from and they seem to be all reliable sources. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse while many do choose to notify the article's initial editor when AFDing, it's not required and not doing so does not invalidate the result. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Starblind: That's not the main reason. There are also other factors to why I brought this here. The fact that the nom's only edit to Wikipedia was to nominate the article for deletion makes it highly suspicious that the nominator could have been a sock of a blocked user, but I'm not sure who though (I've been involved in quite a few sock puppetry cases during my time), and there are also sources available which I've listed above which makes the subject pass WP:BIO. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 20:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• relist There was very little discussion and this isn't a clear case given the sources. If the article creator had been notified and !voted to keep this would almost certainly have either A) attracted more discussion or B) resulted in an outcome other than deletion. That said, Class455, the directions for starting a DRV do make it pretty clear you are to contact the deleting admin first. I suspect they'd have relisted on request. That would have been a much better way forward. Hobit (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: yeah, that was an error on my part. On the AfD, I seem to have been mislead when it said that "any further comments should be made in a deletion review",rather than saying anything regarding consulting the deletion administrator. But now we're here we might as well continue here until consensus is reached and I'll know this for next time I have to come here, which hopefully won't be anytime soon. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but Relist, I'm not completely convinced by the sources here, but this plus the low amount of participation in the original discussion indicates it might be worth a closer look. No censure against the closing admin who did the best that they could with a rather limited discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Relist for further discussion. I do not think a new editor here should be penalized for not understanding our instructions, but the relist would have probably been much simpler if they had done so. The fault is probably ours, in writing instructions so complicated that the essential parts are not included. Notifying the user would have helped also in the original discussion, and again the fault is ours in not requiring it. It should be grounds for an automatic relist unless the matter is so obvious that it would be a valid speedy. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Unacceptable AfD discussion. No notifications, notifications if not mandatory should be mandatory. The nominator should be discounted as a WP:SPA and per WP:DUCK. No disrespect to John Pack Lambert, but his !vote is not strong enough to carry the poor discussion. Has WP:BEFORE been followed? Has anyone reviewed the seven sources? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  We judge things at DRV based on what the rules are, not what we'd like them to be. If you want to make notification mandatory, I suggest starting a discussion at the Village Pump. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

  It is required to have a sufficient discussion. Holding a discussion in secret, with next to no participants, and no one to speak for stakeholders, is unacceptable. As a rule, notification should be mandatory. Sometimes, there are exception, that is why it is not technically required, the nominator is allowed to make some judgement, WP:NOTHERE authors do not need to be notified, for example. In this case, the single edit DUCK has obviously not decided with good judgement. I consider notification mandatory, with exceptions, and failure to notify a pretty good reason to overturn a discussion as defective. If the policy pages don't say that, then they are failing to document good practice and should be ignored or fixed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You're welcome to seek to gather a consensus to change policy so that it says that. And there was a banner on the article for north of three weeks – not seeing anything "secret" there. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. I'm deliberately not saying overturn, because that would imply the close was bad, which would be an overstatement. I probably would have closed this as WP:SOFTDELETE due to the minimal discussion (not just in number of comments, but in lack of depth of the arguments). The lack of notification to the author, incorrect listing, and nomination by a WP:SPA are all factors. Rather than arguing the fine points of wiki-policy, the best thing would be to just reopen the existing disucssion and see if we can get a cleaner consensus one way or the other. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note  See Template talk:Afd top#Protected edit request proposal.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Note that not only was the article creator not notified, the AfD template post on the article page has no edit summary, diff.  These are both components of gaming the system to avoid the attention of those perceived as potential opponents.  Of course, Wikipedia is not a battleground.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question  Should someone start an SPI for the AFD nom?  If it is started, I don't see it.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: I'm not so sure about who the master would be. I'm not sure if we can report to SPI without a potential sock master being found, unless you can report to SPI without a master, and CU can check whether the user is a sock or not. I have left a sock puppetry warning on the nominator's talk page. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually considered opening an SPI, since clearly it's somebody's account, but I'm not sure there's enough disruption or evidence here to justify a checkuser, so I didn't. Would not object if you want to open a case though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I'm happy to open an SPI. Considering I have been dealing with quite a few sock masters and vandals (for example Profile101), however this sock doesn't show that much evidence that would make it obvious . Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 07:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Incubate IAR  There are multiple problems here, one of which is that we have no explanation of the close.  The closer didn't need to know that the deletion nomination was bad faith, since the nomination provided no evidence of a problem that needed the attention of the community.  As per WP:ATA, WP:JNN fails to explain why the topic is non-notable.  The other !vote was also a WP:JNN so had no evidence and no explanation of why.  Further, WP:NOQUORUM calls for WP:SOFTDELETE in AfDs such as this one.

  As for a relist, the AfD community has already worked on this AfD for three full weeks, so why are they supposed to return to the grindstone to do more work here?  Overturn speedy keep WP:NPASR is possible, but the OP reports above that he expected more help with the article than he got, and of the three sources provided here one is primary, and one is an interview, and interviews are a mix of primary and secondary.  Since the OP wants to do more work on the article, incubate IAR is a path forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have opened an SPI case for Ascar123; the relevant link is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ascar123. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn on the basis of an insufficient discussion, brought about at least in part by a failure of notification. We should require it. One way in which we can require it is by overturning afd closes where there was not notification -- the rules at WP are made as much by what we do as what we say. DelRev is the place where we interpret the deletion policy, and we can and should interpret it by recognizing that the rule doesn't require it because there can be special cases with a good reason , but in all ordinary cases it should be required. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck second !vote. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it more appropriate to strike the first !vote. <smile>--SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @DGG: Since overturn and relist are not duplicates, this is not an obvious situation to strike the "second" !vote.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes it is. Unless actions are binding and irrevocable, a second action overrides the first. Your latest will overrides all previous wills, for example. Usually, we strike second !votes but usually the second !vote is identicle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either overturn or relist would do. Seeing the trend of the discussion, I now think Overturn would make the stronger statement about the need to notify in normal situations. Stifle, this is where we interpret deletion policy. About the 2nd !vote, SmokeyJoe has it exactly right, and I've marked things accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either overturn or relist is fine, but you do not get two !votes, and neither does anyone else. I've struck your first one as you prefer overturn; leaving it unstruck would give an erroneous impression that the position (overturn/relist both being !votes that the status quo should not stand) has more support than it actually does. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist for further discussion if there are now people who are willing to discuss. The closer hasn't done anything wrong, nor has the lister – if anyone wants to change the rules, you know where WP:VP is; in the meantime we apply the rules as they are not what we would like them to be – but there is also a reminder that if the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point I am not enthused to modify written rules. The fine detail is nuanced, hard to write, and lengthy rules have strong disadvantages. This sort of case is fairly rare, DRV doesn't see it often. Everyone pretty much agrees, but with different words. Although I do thing you are going easy on the lister. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. If all the nominator says is "just not notable" and the single !vote says "just not notable", that shouldn't be a sufficient basis for AFD deletion. If the closer had declared a soft/PROD-type delete, I could have lived with that; either no consensus or keep (no actual argument for deletion provided) would have been appropriate closes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is it possible the article talk page can be restored too (with all the relevant WikiProjects which were on it before deletion) or do we have to wait for the outcome of this discussion? Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 13:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]