Ethics of animal research (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I am asking that this page be undeleted on the premises that the conditions it was deleted were inaccurate. It was deleted under section A10 (for the criteria of a speedy deletion): "This applies to any recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect." I believe that the article I submitted greatly expanded on the philosophical debates surrounding the ethics of animal testing. I went into sufficient detail only from the philosophical side with plenty of references to show that this is a stem of ethics within the philosophical community. When the article was deleted under A10 I was redirected to "Animal Testing #ethics" which only offers a few sentences on the viewpoints of a few philosophers (and only ones against animal testing) and the rest about different types of experimentation and animals that were used that sparked protest- a different angle to the one that i provided; which focused purely on going into depth on the philosophical moral arguments. I believe at minimum that the content i provided would have fit under content to be merged: "This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, merge able material. It also does not include disambiguation pages." I opened up a discussion on the talk page of the article as soon as it was published in the main space after being a draft. This was done in the hopes of editing with other wiki contributers. But instead it was speedy deleted without discussion. The structure of the article was in accordance with the philosophy guidelines. Thank you for your time. --ExistentialMariachi (talk) 11:37, 09 June 2024 (UTC) ExistentialMariachi (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I contacted the closing admin who said the page was restored. But I could not locate the actual article, instead I was redirected to "animal testing: Ethics". ExistentialMariachi (talk) 11:37, 09 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn in a general sense although the speedy deletion has already been undone. The article before it was changed to a redirect is in its history here but the redirect to Animal testing#Ethics has been protected from being changed. When requesting undeletion here you were advised to take the matter to DRV (I think rightly). The WP:A10 (and the earlier WP:A11) were wrong (the existing section was at the very least expanded upon by the article; the subject was not "obviously invented"). Also, animal research is a very much broader topic that "Animal testing". For example, there are ethical considerations concerning research into the effect on polar bears of changes in Arctic ice, but (probably) this has nothing whatever to do with "animal testing". The advice the deleting admin gives at User talk:RHaworth#Ethics of animal research article deletion is very poor and should only be construed as advice, not to be enforced by article protection. The article is suitable for normal discussion in main space. Thincat (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mills (musician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted in 2014 because there was no evidence the subject passed the WP:MUSICIAN criteria. I presented the evidence I collected to the closing admin - User_talk:Joe_Decker#Re-creating_Michael_Mills_(musician), but he seems to be taking some time off. asqueella (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment looking at your post and reviewing the sources, I'm not sure under what WP:MUSIC criteria he would now fall under/how he passes WP:MUSICBIO. I don't see any harm in allowing a draft article to be written, though I think it's an uphill battle to show notability. SportingFlyer talk 16:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to draft I'm not sure the sources presented amount to evidence of notability (indeed one of them was actually in the previous version), but it was a sparsely attended AfD four years ago and the bar to draftifying should be low. Hut 8.5 19:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @SportingFlyer: and @Hut 8.5:, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this!

I gather a draft would eventually have to go through another review of its sources to determine which WP:MUSICBIO criteria are met. If so, I'm still hoping someone would clarify what's wrong with the sources I've found and if I'm misapplying the criteria, as that would help me determine if it can be fixed by finding more/better sources -- otherwise there's little point in working on an article, is there?

I didn't just post random links from Google, I picked a few independent and not self-published (and not WP:UGC), as "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have .. considered the musician .. notable enough that they have .. published non-trivial works". (Arjen reportedly said that he found out about Toehider via one such publication.) Definitely not a WP:GARAGEBAND, while obviously not high profile - I wouldn't waste everyone's time if I didn't think the criteria were met...

Perhaps DRV is not the best place for this kind of discussion? (I assumed that my case fell under "new information has come to light since a deletion" - since the original AfD didn't discuss any specific sources.) Is there a better one? --asqueella (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion: the Beat article violates MUSIC #1, since it's a good article but not for notability: advertisement for a gig/interview with Mills himself, same with the Brag article. The Background Magazine review is difficult to tell whether it's self-published or not, though it may be okay (perhaps I'm put off by the website's layout?), and the Huffington Post's article is not substantive coverage - it's a brief mention of his recording, and the headline calls him a "man," which isn't a good sign. He hasn't toured Australia as a solo artist and the coverage of his bands which have toured isn't substantial, and the coverage of him performing nationally isn't independent (Australian Musician is a promotional tool) and J-Play is about his band. I don't see any other prongs of MUSIC he would fall under. SportingFlyer talk 03:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, I appreciate you taking time to share this; very helpful to see the details. Not to argue with you, but to clarify some points:

- I picked Beat/Brag as the 50/50 or so split between the original text and supporting quotations felt like a feature, rather than "Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". And I judged Background based on their About page, not the layout ;)

- HuffPost used "man" to indicate this is a male singer, as the song is a bit out of range for a typical male vocalist, and vocals is one of Toehider's strengths. I included it to probe what kind of coverage is expected for MUSICBIO#1, since I can't think of other types of in-depth coverage other than features and reviews, and it isn't "trivial" in the WP:GNG's "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." sense - it's what the whole short piece is about.

- On touring: if by "solo" you mean performing alone on stage that would be hard to pull off as a rock band... (Toehider studio records are him alone, which he can do in the studio thanks to being a multi-instrumentalist.) I already acknowledged the disagreement as to what constitutes "touring" and "non-trivial coverage" and only included this bit in hopes of getting clarification of how this policiy is usually applied - there doesn't seem to be a value in mentioning tours explicitly in the policy if tours need the same type of coverage as for WP:GNG. Same reasoning for the TV/radio bits.

Anyway, thanks again for your time. --asqueella (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, headlining a band that doesn't appear notable (I haven't spent any time looking at this apart from checking to see if they have an article) will almost certainly not be notable enough on his own without some sort of other notable career, unfortunately, and his band is the context of most of the sources. SportingFlyer talk 00:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I treat Toehider more like a pseudonym for Mills than a separate entity, but I realize how that might have been confusing. --asqueella (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Worsley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

6 to 3 in favor of keep (including nominator default delete vote) and there was good arguments provided by keep voters (the amount of sources mentioned some of which are reliable and more than in passing) at worst this was a no consensus. This AFD close in short made no sense. JC7V-talk 16:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reading through the AFD, I'm not sure how I would have closed this. I agree that the sources don't seem very good, but we generally allow reviewers at AfD a fair bit of latitude on evaluating the quality of sources. There was a certain amount of obvious socking going on, and some of the arguments to keep were clearly non policy-based, but there were also some reasonable keep arguments from established editors. I've tempundeleted this for review here. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to no consensus The close is a little to close to a supervote. The view that the sources are as good as can be expected for the subject may or may not be correct (it is not my field) but is a reasonable keep argument, and some of the people making the argument are knowledgable WPedians. (I would say quite the opposite if they were SPAs--a proper role of a closing admin is to partially disregard SPAs, but not to evaluate whether other WPedians are correct. That decision needs to be made by the consensus, not by the admin. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse considering there were a couple SPAs, it's not a !vote, and the two best keep arguments were generally rebutted (whether the award passed WP:NMUSIC, whether the sources passed WP:GNG) by the other delete votes. It's a tough call but this is one of those where either no consensus or delete would have been appropriate, and nowhere near a supervote. SportingFlyer talk 20:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC. I agree the sourcing isn't the greatest (and I'm pretty far on the inclusion spectrum), but as far as I could tell, there were a number of editors in good standing who felt the sourcing was enough given the nature of the person's work. And there are enough sources that keeping isn't crazy. I don't see a consensus to delete here. The closer probably should have !voted instead. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Try as I may I cannot find a consensus to delete here. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the sources are both independent and contain more than a mention, if that. Interviews are not independent sources and don’t count towards demonstrating notability. I don’t know what the Keep !voters were looking at. Beware WP:Reference bombing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The discussion needed more source analysis. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC Regardless of what I might have done had I voted, I don't see a meeting of the minds favoring deletion, nor can I discern a reason in policy requiring it in light of the discussion here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC not enough consensus for delete Atlantic306 (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer's comment: I maintain the view expressed in the closure, which is also reflected in Seraphimblade's second relisting comment. The "delete" arguments were, in my view, stronger here. I wouldn't relist the discussion because it has been relisted twice already. Sandstein 17:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I.e. WP:Supervote. It would be good if you reverted your close and !voted. These discussions are a community process with important learning aspects, the casual observer needs to be able to understand what happened. It is not just about the right result. Resisting is irrelevant, more a negative distraction than anything. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The small number of sources the keep !voters used to establish notability were called out by the delete voters, and many of the keep votes weren't even grounded in policy. One keep !voter even admitted the referencing was bad. I don't think it's reasonable at all to claim this was a supervote. SportingFlyer talk 01:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Despite multiple points of similarity? I think your denial of reason behind the observation of supervote is absurd. The seriousness of this review in considering an overturn is a compelling point for labelling the close a supervote. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which similarity? It appears to me this is the inverse of a "pile-on supervote," where there's an "emotive majority." I don't think the Keep !votes had any grounding in policy, though, something noted by Seraphimblade, who relisted instead of closing. I think a relist would have been appropriate if there hadn't already been two relists, but here we are. SportingFlyer talk 09:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • SportingFlyer, Points of similarity with a supervote? (1) the close is against the numbers; (2) the close asserts opinion but does not explicitly cite discussion points; (3) the XfD goes to DRV suffers multiple "overturn" !votes from experienced editors. (1) is not much a point, except that it signals a need for a very good explanation. (2) is about that explanation not being very good. (3) is proof by hindsight. NB. I agree that the page should be deleted, and that some super-experienced closers Spartaz & Seraphimblade agree, but I dispute the correctness of the close because the typical Wikipedia editor can't be expected to understand that close, and the advice at WP:Supervote should be heeded. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I still disagree. There's a big difference between an incorrect close and a supervote. As I've noted above, this doesn't really fit into any of the supervote categories. SportingFlyer talk 23:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, AfD is not a vote. The reason I relisted, which Sandstein alluded to, is that many of the arguments preceded by a bolded "Keep" were actually delete arguments, in the vein of "I know there aren't enough sources, but...". Stop there, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, no sources, no article, no but. Some arguments were also irrelevant, such as that it's difficult to find sources on people with a given profession. If that's so, well, then we won't have many articles about people who do that job; that's true of the vast majority of occupations from doctors to software engineers to postal carriers. AfD isn't a vote, and since no further sources were introduced after the relist, I believe Sandstein interpreted it correctly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse keep votes based on opinion or sources that are clearly not good enough are never enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The close failed to address the argument made by multiple Keep !voters – that the awards won by the subject were sufficient to establish notability. The closer's own argument was a supervote which was erroneous in its reading of the notability guideline which is not a policy and so allows for exceptions and flexible interpretation. It is not the closer's job to pick the interpretation that they personally favour. Andrew D. (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the entire AfD text and found every place where somebody specifically talks about the awards. Here's what I found:

• User:Wiseseven (keep)

• Worsley won the 2018 Producer of the Year award at the Western Canadian Music Awards this past week
• Under WP:ANYBIO (see 2.1) winning an award and/or being nominated multiple times is likely to be notable.

• User:David notMD (keep)

• WCMAs are Grammys if you live in western Canada.

• User:JC7V7DC5768 (keep)

• He won multiple awards

• User:Clarityfiend (delete)

• The Western Canadian Music Awards are not the Grammys by a long shot.

• User:Bearcat (delete)

• winning a Western Canadian Music Award is not a notability freebie under NMUSIC #8
• WCMAs may be Grammys if you live in western Canada, but they ain't Grammys when it comes to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria

I apologize if I missed any; there was an amazing amount of drek to wade through to sift out these nuggets. The bottom line is that we've got three people arguing that the awards are sufficiently important to meet WP:N, and two people arguing that they're not. There's other issues to be considered, but on the specific question of the awards, I'd say we have no consensus on their significance. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I believe the sources provided shows this person passes WP:GNG. It would be unfortunate if it was closed as no consensus to overturn. A better opinion would be relisting or allowing recreation. I am confident with further participation a keep outcome is inevitable at AfD. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn to no consensus. Besides the reasons for overturning already stated here (with the supervote issue being more than enough), I have to say that I find User:Bearcat's comments at the AfD very troubling. Now I freely admit that I do not have much experience with WP:NMUSIC specifically, but there were multiple assertions made that are simply not true per policy, e.g. that podcasts cannot be reliable sources, or that only so-called "major" sources qualify. And then there is this rather chilling sentence: If an occupation "doesn't have enough mainstream interest in general", then that in and of itself is a reason why a Wikipedia article shouldn't exist. Let's not mince words here: without exaggeration, the vast majority of Wikipedia articles would need to be deleted to satisfy such a high standard. WP:NOTPAPER is just as much policy as WP:N (in fact arguably more so, as the latter is a guideline). In light of all of this, I find it quite probable that the closer was swayed by the presence of so many seemingly valid arguments for deletion, and as such I have added "speedy" to my !vote. Modernponderer (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is defined as the presence or absence of reliable source coverage in media — there is nobody in the world who is so critically important for us to have an article about that we waive the requirement for reliable source coverage. The way it works is not that some occupations are exempt from having to show quality sources just because it would be hard for them to get into Wikipedia otherwise — the whole point of Wikipedia having inclusion standards at all is that getting an article is not supposed to be "easy" or unregulated: reliable source coverage is what tells us whether somebody is important enough to have an article on here or not. Nobody, but nobody, ever gets to claim that having a Wikipedia article about him is so important that the requirement for reliable source coverage is waived — reliable source coverage is non-negotiable and the need for an article to exist at all is what's up for debate, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of that is absolutely correct of course, per policy. The primary area of disagreement is over what qualifies as reliable sourcing. Modernponderer (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in which people are talking about themselves in Q&A format don't. It doesn't matter whether they're on the radio, in podcasts, or in print — Q&A interviews can be used as supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by stronger sources, but they cannot be used as data points toward the initial matter of getting the person over GNG in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even people being interviewed about themselves can contribute to notability, depending on the interview. WP:NOR is explicitly vague on this, singling them out compared to other sources: (depending on context) interviews I would argue that there was a consensus established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saffron Henderson that as long as an interview is published by a reliable source, it can count for WP:GNG – though obviously a global consensus would override that.

But that isn't even the main issue here. I was referring to the (apparent?) assertion that all podcasts are inherently unreliable, even if they are done by other people. That is clearly incorrect. Modernponderer (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, you were the only person in that discussion who argued that interviews counted toward GNG per se — and even if anybody else had, consensus is not established by just one example of something happening, it's established by many repeated examples of the same thing happening. There are a considerable number of AFD discussions that were closed counter to actual consensus on the matters at hand, because the discussion got overrun by enough people who either didn't know or didn't care what the state of consensus actually is — AFD boils down a lot of the time to a debating chamber, completely at the mercy of who shows up rather than actually or consistently following the real rules. So one discussion closing as a keep does not automatically translate into a binding precedent, especially when you're citing it as a precedent for something that doesn't even have anything to do with how the article got kept in the first place. People can and do make false claims about themselves in interviews — musicians claiming hit singles they never really had, writers bluffing the distinction between "nominated for award" and "submitted to award committee by publisher for consideration" so that they can claim award nominations they don't really have, and on and so forth — so people do not get into Wikipedia by talking about themselves in Q&A format, they get into Wikipedia by being the subject of coverage written by other people in the third person. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews cannot contribute to meeting the GNG because they are not independent of the subject. The subject participated in creating the interview. The GNG requires independent sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:SmokeyJoe, that is a simple misreading of WP:GNG. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. Interviews are neither – unless they are WP:SPS or otherwise affiliated. Modernponderer (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patently not. The interview is a product of the interviewee. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The interview is not made by the interviewee. They are merely a participant. They do not normally have any editorial control or even influence over it – and in those cases where they somehow do, then the interview is certainly affiliated and not independent. Modernponderer (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merely a participant? How about: A participant! Influence? Preparation! Creation of everything in the interview that is going to be used! (Only comedy interviews feature the performance of the interviewer). Clearly this needs clarification, lets go to WT:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns are quite valid, but the problem is that those things happen all the time in third-party sources as well. Wikipedia cannot guarantee the veracity of any statements made by sources used here. We don't have WP:RS to determine truth, we have it to keep the "sources made up in one day" at bay. Regarding interviews specifically, I see it this way: once a reliable source chooses to conduct and publish an interview, even one with the subject of said interview, that source is asserting the standard of reliability that is generally associated with it. In other words, it is entirely different from "just a conversation someone might have had", which is what we often think of when we think about interviews.

Re: AfD, I agree in principle, but the issue is that we clearly do not have a global consensus on this, so that is all I have to work with right now. If you know of a different local consensus on this issue, please do link to it. Modernponderer (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the keep !votes had no basis in policy or guidelines, and Sandstein was correct to ignore them. Interviews (which podcasts are) do not count as independent coverage. This has long been our standard for interpreting the meaning of "independent" in the relevant notability guidelines, and just because users who don't know how our guidelines work think it means something else doesn't meant we keep the article. Beyond the interview thing, which was what led me to comment, I agree with Seraphimblade that most of the other keep !votes gave good reasons to delete the article based on policy and guidelines. I'm about as SNG friendly a person as you can get, but Bearcat's arguments here were spot on and no one was able to successfully counter them. This close was correct. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:TonyBallioni, if you are so certain about this notability standard for interviews that you go so far as to completely discount the numerous opposing views, why not cite a policy that supports that? Because I have done exactly that for my arguments, and what I have found in doing so is that the only actual policy on the matter is deliberately vague, and that no community consensus has been reached on the issue.

On top of that, both you and User:Seraphimblade essentially assert that the notion of what constitutes reliable sourcing in general is anywhere near a settled issue, and that any opinions to the contrary are to be disregarded. As I pointed out above, such a standard if applied objectively (but of course it would not be) would result in the deletion of most of Wikipedia. It obviously follows from the fact that that has not happened that your views are simply not representative of the average AfD participant's. Modernponderer (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It fails the independence requirement of WP:N. That is the clear policy. We always interpret it this way at AfD, which is what matters, not how we document it. Practice is policy, and Sandstein got it right. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is now a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Interviews are not independent sources, and cannot be used to satisfy the WP:GNG. Modernponderer (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dollshot (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Dollshot was deleted at AfD, then recreated as a virtually identical copy. SportingFlyer brought this to my attention on my talk page and I ended up deleting it under WP:G4. Artaria195 disagreed with my deletion, but has resisted my suggestions that DRV would be a better forum to argue their case than my talk page, so I'm opening this on their behalf. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was doing AfC patrolling and noticed a bluelink to this page. It sounded familiar to me, so I followed it and remembered I had been involved in an XfD. I checked the page and it didn't appear to contain much if any new information since the date of the XfD, but I can't view history to check for G4 (non-admin) so asked RoySmith in an attempt to continue learning Wikipedia procedure, who confirmed and deleted per G4. SportingFlyer talk 02:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The new sources are [1] and [2]. The first is primary. While the second is something, it's not much; between that and the lack of substantial change to the content, this shouldn't be overturned outright. I'm not in favor of another AFD, either, given the transparent and completely unrepentant sockpuppetry at the first one. —Cryptic 03:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you for your comments. This article was updated with two new sources that when added to WNYC and NPR easily pass WP:NBAND #1: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." The first new source is an interview with the band which helps the case for notability based on the fact that its an interview by an independent third party. According to WP:USEPRIMARY: "Again, "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad". Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources." In this case, both The Annie O interview and the New Music Box article are highly reputable, reliable, note self-published, and independent sources. In addition, they are clearly not the only sources being cited, as I also understand that on their own they do not pass WP:NBAND #1. What does that mean that the BlackBook source isn't much? It's a detailed feature in a prominent music magazine and blog with a distribution of 150,000. It seems like editors commenting on source quality are not familiar enough with the press outlets and their importance in the music scene. NPR and WNYC are nationally broadcast, major media outlets (Dollshot was featured alongside Kesha in this source). BlackBook is a very prominent magazine and blog that recently did a feature on the band (see above). NewMusicBox is the foremost publication in New Music, and they commissioned a full piece by Dollshot asking the band to talk about their music. The band was interviewed and presented by a 'venerable' music presenter (BlackBook's words not mine, so independent and objective). Not to mention the many in print album reviews and concert listings Dollshot has received (NYC Jazz Record, TimeOut NY, Red Hook Star Revue to name just a few). It's frustrating to me that standards are being applied to this article that aren't being applied elsewhere, stemming from objections early on from a couple of editors. Artaria195 (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If the consensus is that my article on Dollshot is not ready to be published in the mainspace, would someone be willing to return it to my sandbox for future editing? I will wait until I can find more sources to prove notability before resubmitting, if the consensus is against it this time. Thank you, Artaria195 (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, can't see this surviving Afd. No problem with draftifying. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was deleted by Dlohcierekim as unambiguous promotion, then restored by Nyttend per request at WP:AN, and finally re-deleted by PresN. The user Shortspecialbus wanted to find a non-spammy revision, but failed to do so. To have another chance, we should try DRV. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The AN discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive303#StarForce, to save other folks the trouble of looking for it. It doesn't contain anything about the merits of the content.
  As to those merits, the only thing I find objectionably spammy about the most recent non-redirect version is the Products section. That could've just been removed entirely without harming the rest of the article a bit. —Cryptic 02:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, the main reason I re-deleted the article is because Nyttend had restored it as a cross-namespace redirect to userspace (and not even a user page that had anything to do with the subject), which is not a valid state of existence. It should either exist as an article or not. --PresN 02:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, absolutely nothing wrong with your redeletion. —Cryptic 02:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh God. 1300 revisions. I asked for help restoring it when I found I could not myself. I guess someone redirected after restoration? Not at all opposed to restoration.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any way to restore with a single mouse click? The aalternative is 1300 mouse clicks. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  My first thought was WP:AutoWikiBrowser, but reviewing the docs, I don't think it supports undeletion. Anybody with stronger AWB-fu than mine know for sure? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  ...you know that it defaults to all revisions if you don't specifically enable any, right?

  And if it's not that, and the transaction times out if you try to restore all at once, any reasonable browser will let you left-click the first checkbox of a range and shift-left-click the last, and it'll check all the boxes. —Cryptic 20:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Cryptic: I'll remember if that if something like this comes up again. They're all restored now.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  'restoring-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If I'd looked before deleting in the first place, I'd have seen 1300+ revisions and balked at the idea. May need clean up.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has been restored. Now someone should restore the talk page too, Talk:StarForce. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]