Thomas Demery – The consensus is that Demery is, under our policy, a public figure and thus there is consensus to overturn the result of the AfD in favor of keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Thomas Demery (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The AfD was closed, with a decision to Delete, by eminent admin Spartaz who invoked the part of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE that states "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." However, the subject of the deleted article is most certainly a public figure, having being a member of the Ronald Reagan cabinet as Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). He was also far from unknown during his tenure and beyond, as the many sources extant in the article and presented during the AfD show. This merits a second look. -The Gnome (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] How many people can tell me the name of the current assistant secretary of HHS without looking it up and those of their immediate 3 predecessors? Thought not! Fact is, this isn't an inherently notable.role or there would be a list of them so notability of someone in this office only comes from their own actions or misbehaviour. There is established principle that we do not have articles about people that are only about their crimes or misbehaviour and instead document the crime or scandal. My close reflecting policy and that practise is entirely in accordance with policy and well within my discretion as closing admin. I do thank you for the description eminent though. Its been a while since anyone said anything nice to me. :-).. Or maybe it was sarcasm, I don't always pick that up. As usual I express no opinion on the merits of my close but thought this one would benefit from a longer explanation than I usually offer. For clarity I based my close purely on the arguments of the afd. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] I obviously participated in the discussion, but I don't think there's anything unreasonable with the close - the majority of voters looked at this and thought he was non-notable, he fails relevant WP:SNGs which means nothing but does lend itself to the WP:NPF argument, and the argument that he's not a WP:BLP1E is weak when you tear into it. Basically, this is probably either a delete or a no consensus on the merits, but the weight of the circumstances means WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is applicable and a no consensus, default to delete is a valid and proper conclusion. SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. I generally find Spartaz's closes accurate, but this one is just dead wrong: First, there really was a consensus to keep. While the raw vote count was closely divided, the keep !votes were based on specific review of sources, while most of the delete !votes were cursory and showed little familiarity with the sources. And there was no meaningful attempt to refute the keep analysis. Second, Demery simply doesn't qualify for BLPREQUESTDELETE. That policy provision applies only to "relatively unknown, non-public figures", and Demery meets neither of those criteria. He was a top policymaking official in a US Cabinet department, subject to Senate confirmation, making him a public figure. His activities were widely covered in prominent national news media, with front-page coverage in the NYTimes and elsewhere; he cannot accurately be called "relatively unknown". Demery was actually the subject of a full-length profile article in the Times. "Rise and Fall of Key Player at H.U.D." BLPREQUESTDELETE is not intended, and should not be used, to allow self-admitted, corrupt, high-ranking public officials. And Demery is still involved in the same sort of fundraising activities which one of the associated scandals centered on. "How many people can tell me the name of the current assistant secretary of HHS without looking it up and those of their immediate 3 predecessors?" is the wrong question to ask, for more important reasons than that Demery was an official of HUD, not HHS. How many people can tell me the name of the current Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff without looking it up and those of their immediate 3 predecessors? That someone is not a recognized popular culture figure is hardly a justification for an encyclopedia's failure to cover them. Wikipedia often does a piss-poor job of covering serious subjects related to business and politics, and it is absurd, in terms of our encyclopedic purpose, to elevate all things Kardashian or promoted by the WWE over serious matters of business and politics. To say that a high-ranking policymaking official of a US Cabinet department is not a "public figure" despite sustained coverage over several in major American news media stands logic and meaning on its head. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, the deletion process appears to have been correctly followed in this instance. I do not find an explicit consensus to keep in the discussion, and the process states that in this instance, no consensus goes to a delete. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Greetings, Stifle. In AfD discussions, a case of "no consensus" results in a Keep. You can verify this by looking up any number of past AfD discussions. (On a side note, "Endorse" could be a bit confusing since we are responding to a proposal. How about "Disagree"?) Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] You can skip the condescension thanks, I’ve been around a while. The relevant consideration here is WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. So yes, I’ m endorsing. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Apologies, Stifle, if my remark appeared "condescending," which was certainly not my intention. I only tried to have your position clarified, i.e. whether you agree or disagree with my proposal. Not change your input in any way! I thought "endorse" was unclear after reading the rest of your comment. As to the part about "no consensus" in AfD discussions, I will agree that we still disagree: The text reads Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete, with italics in the original. But this is not even about a "relatively unknown, non-public figure"; it's about an Assistant Secretary in the Reagan government! Anyway, take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] ~~Overturn~~ pretty much per HW who I think I agree with in nearly all particulars. I'd have said there was a consensus to keep, but NC is within discretion. Applying WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to someone with a high-ranking government job at the time (I believe he had a higher Order of Precedence than a 4-star active general) can't be right as they can't really be "a non-public figure". Plus he was massively in the news (NYT article just on him) and he gave interviews to the press. That's generally over the bar for "public". I just think empathy may have overcome our policies here. Admirable, but not correct in my reading of things. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Update: I've realized I can't make as strong as an argument as I thought I could for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE not applying. I still feel we should have the article and would strongly !vote that way at AfD. But I can't say the closer erred based on my reading of WP:LPI. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] To distil the question, it's really whether being the Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Housing would automatically make you a public figure. Considering we don't have a list of people in this position, I can't find a list of people in this position, only one of these people is currently blue-linked, and Demery only appeared about 150 times in newspapers between 1987 and 1988 before the scandal broke (11 times less than the cabinet member for the role, and all just quotations, very little sigcov), I don't think empathy necessarily overcame policies here (it certainly did not with me.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Frustratingly, I just lost a paragraph to an edit conflict. Medium-story short, I tried to form an argument based on WP:LPI and couldn't make as solid one as I'd like. Especially given the last part (Profile change over time, which I disagree with, but it's where we are). So while I still think we should have is article, and I think it's a stretch to use BLPREQUESTDELETE for someone in such a significant public role (what more than a thousand people reported to him I'd guess?), it's not so crystal clear that I can say it was done in error. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Worry not, Hobit. The article's subject was quite notable on his own right during his tenure in the Reagan cabinet. And notability, once achieved, never fades away, per Wikipedia. The only thing we essentially discuss is whether or not to grant the subject (who is "old" and "ill" in the words of his legal representative) the right to disappear from public view. But this can only be granted to persons of low public profile; not United States Assistant Secretaries. -The Gnome (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] @The Gnome: Take a look at WP:LPI, specifically at the end (Profile change over time) which seems to indicate that just because he was a public figure doesn't mean he is now. Hobit (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] The text in Profile change over time is about the fact that, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the status of a person's profile, i.e. whether they are "high profile" or "low profile", changes over time, which is practically a tautology: No person has had the same "profile" status throughout History! But a person who once was a "high profile" individual, again as far as Wikipedia is concerned, does not lose in notability on account of his "high profile" time having passed. Even Alexander the Great or Tamurlane most certainly are not as "high profile" as they were in their time! More importantly, the text is explanatory to the policy about people known for one event. Which Demery is not as demonstrated by sources. His involvement in the HUD scandal was not the only case he got famous (or infamous). -The Gnome (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] @The Gnome: No argument that he's notable. And I'd say fairly notable. But BLPREQUESTDELETE cares about "low profile" and given we agree he's low profile now, I think BLPREQUESTDELETE could be viewed as applying. I think that's dumb, but not so dumb I can claim the closer was wrong. Hobit (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Is this really a low profile individual, though? The matter's not obvious to me and I've found it a lot harder than either the closer or the DRV nominator seem to have done. I do think it's better to err on the delete side in these cases, so I suppose I belong over there in the "endorse" camp, but I wouldn't strongly object to a relisting.—S Marshall T/C 00:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] To put forward a hypothetical, can someone be a high profile individual if it's not obvious whether they're a high profile individual? SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] You see, to me he's neither high-profile nor low-profile. He's a bloke who's risen to what I would call pretty high office -- he's not really the kind of ordinary-bystander-who-inadvertently-got-caught-up-in-something-big that they had in mind when they wrote WP:LPI, but equally he's not in an automatically-notable office. I'm really struggling to decide where he fits on that spectrum.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] That's sort of what I was getting at with my hypothetical. US defamation law splits the difference by using something called a limited purpose public figure, a category I think he falls into if we're discussing him in regards to the scandal. He's otherwise not high-profile. Since he's not otherwise notable (or a public figure) apart from the scandal, and we can and do cover the important information reliably elsewhere, I don't consider this unreasonable in the slightest. SportingFlyer T·C 01:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Cabinet level official and part of an important scandal, as noted by the keep votes. While the keep and delete votes were close, the keep votes were closely related to policy.Casprings (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Since when have assistant secretaries been cabinet level appointees? Surely they are 2 rungs below the top seat. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Okay. Senate confirmed and major figure in a huge scandal. He is notable. Likely just doesn't want a page because of the second part. That said, if he is clearly notable, which he is, he should have a page.Casprings (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and Relist, as someone who voted to Keep, while "Delete" !Voters had a weak numerical superiority, there was a swing towards Keep after the first relist and after the arguments to Keep were presented, and by swing, from the 1st of June to the close the tally was 5-1 in favour of Keeping the article. With such a clear swing, this should be relisted so a consensus can actually develop. Also, 6-5 in favour of deletion with one ambigous "Merge" vote is hardly consensus to delete. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] I voted to accept request in the discussion, largely because of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which gives the presumption of delete to people who request it and are relatively unknown. Unlike a normal AFD, I think that the presumption is that the keep votes are required to prove their case. --Enos733 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] We did, Enos733. Look up the specific discussion. We provided many sources that verify independent notability. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] As I said, I participated in the discussion. I still think the subject is a limited public figure as described by SportingFlyer. Normally, I would have voted to keep, but I believe WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is an appropriate request in this case. --Enos733 (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] A "limited public figutr" is a type of public figure, not a non-public figure as BLPREQUESTDELETE requires. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment: There have been a few claims that Demery became known only for accepting a gratuity and obstructing justice. But this is not true. Demery was an active participant in the efforts of the Reagan State Department to intervene in the Mozambican Civil War and boost the fortunes of the most anti-communist group (at least nominally) among the combattants, Renamo. Demery, a born again Christian himself, oversaw the diversion of almost $300,00 to Renamo through the back channels of local evangelical organisations. He also lobbied televangelist Pat Robertson for a donation to the same cause, which came to about $25,000.^[1] The various misappropriations of Demery-led HUD's funds were discovered by independent auditors only after Reagan left office. The Demery tenure became quite infamous at the time, though a lot of sources are off line. -The Gnome (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] As was noted in the AfD, that's the same scandal he fails WP:BLP1E on, and that book doesn't mention anything about him apart from the scandal. SportingFlyer T·C 18:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] That is utter, absolute nonsense. Demery was involved in multiple. discrete controversies, not all at HUD. One (for which he was indicted and eventually guilty in) involved trading a govt contract for favorable terms on a personal mortgage -- bribery, more or less. Another involved pressuring agency contractors to provide financial support to RENAMO. A third involved participating in a coverup, including proving false information to Congress, of illegal steering of contracts to political supporters of the Reagan administration. Yet a fourth, a decade after he left HUD, was his major role in Pat Robertson's blood diamonds business. There's no way we're in BLP1E territory, especially when coverage of his legitimate political activities is factored in. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] A Newspapers.com search for "Thomas Demery" "Zaire" between 1993 and now brings up only the article you presented at AfD, in which he is mentioned late and towards the end of the article. "Demery" "Renamo" brings up 13 hits. That's an undercount because some of the stories were wire stories. SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] SportingFlyer, the use of funds available in the HUD coffers to assist the Renamo nationalist rebel organization in Mozambique is most definitely not the same thing as lying to Congress or accepting a $100,000 bribe from a developer. All may have happened during our subject's tenure at HUD but this does not make them "the same thing"! Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and reclose by somebody else. In my view, a very senior official in a government department is a public figure, and not a "relatively unknown, non-public figure" to which BLPREQUESTDELETE could apply. The AfD should therefore be reclosed with this in mind. I do not express a view about what the correct closure would be without taking BLPREQUESTDELETE into account. Sandstein 07:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] IAR Overturn. I don't know if the close represents the discussion or not, but the idea that we're calling an assistant cabinet secretary a "non-public figure" is absurd. Especially when we compare this to something like WP:NFOOTY which says if you stepped onto the field in one game, you're notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Overturn I am persuaded by User:Stifle's arguments: this is a relatively high-level government official (i.e. he doesn't sort the paper clips), so may now not want a page here. Unfortunately, GNG-1EBLP=/=BLPREQUESTDELETE. Whether through choice or otherwise, he's notable in Wikipedia terms. ——Serial^# 10:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] By the way, neither editors being able to name other topics personally (WP:OR) or that we have/haven't got lists of them (WP:OSE) are particularly strong arguments. In fact, they're very poor. ——Serial^# 10:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Not a non-public figure, BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Overturn – there were at least 7 decent sources mentioned in the AfD, yet the closer concluded that the subject was "relatively unknown". The AfD discussion should at the very least be reopened to discuss whether those sources are sufficient to establish notability. – bradv🍁 03:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] References ^ Maier, Karl; Penglase, Ben (1992). Africa Watch Committee (ed.). Conspicuous Destruction: War, Famine and the Reform Process in Mozambique. Human Rights Watch. p. 193. ISBN 978-0300056181.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Thomas Demery – The consensus is that Demery is, under our policy, a public figure and thus there is consensus to overturn the result of the AfD in favor of keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The AfD was closed, with a decision to Delete, by eminent admin Spartaz who invoked the part of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE that states "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." However, the subject of the deleted article is most certainly a public figure, having being a member of the Ronald Reagan cabinet as Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). He was also far from unknown during his tenure and beyond, as the many sources extant in the article and presented during the AfD show. This merits a second look. -The Gnome (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How many people can tell me the name of the current assistant secretary of HHS without looking it up and those of their immediate 3 predecessors? Thought not! Fact is, this isn't an inherently notable.role or there would be a list of them so notability of someone in this office only comes from their own actions or misbehaviour. There is established principle that we do not have articles about people that are only about their crimes or misbehaviour and instead document the crime or scandal. My close reflecting policy and that practise is entirely in accordance with policy and well within my discretion as closing admin. I do thank you for the description eminent though. Its been a while since anyone said anything nice to me. :-).. Or maybe it was sarcasm, I don't always pick that up. As usual I express no opinion on the merits of my close but thought this one would benefit from a longer explanation than I usually offer. For clarity I based my close purely on the arguments of the afd. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously participated in the discussion, but I don't think there's anything unreasonable with the close - the majority of voters looked at this and thought he was non-notable, he fails relevant WP:SNGs which means nothing but does lend itself to the WP:NPF argument, and the argument that he's not a WP:BLP1E is weak when you tear into it. Basically, this is probably either a delete or a no consensus on the merits, but the weight of the circumstances means WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is applicable and a no consensus, default to delete is a valid and proper conclusion. SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I generally find Spartaz's closes accurate, but this one is just dead wrong:
- First, there really was a consensus to keep. While the raw vote count was closely divided, the keep !votes were based on specific review of sources, while most of the delete !votes were cursory and showed little familiarity with the sources. And there was no meaningful attempt to refute the keep analysis.
- Second, Demery simply doesn't qualify for BLPREQUESTDELETE. That policy provision applies only to "relatively unknown, non-public figures", and Demery meets neither of those criteria. He was a top policymaking official in a US Cabinet department, subject to Senate confirmation, making him a public figure. His activities were widely covered in prominent national news media, with front-page coverage in the NYTimes and elsewhere; he cannot accurately be called "relatively unknown". Demery was actually the subject of a full-length profile article in the Times. "Rise and Fall of Key Player at H.U.D." BLPREQUESTDELETE is not intended, and should not be used, to allow self-admitted, corrupt, high-ranking public officials. And Demery is still involved in the same sort of fundraising activities which one of the associated scandals centered on.
- "How many people can tell me the name of the current assistant secretary of HHS without looking it up and those of their immediate 3 predecessors?" is the wrong question to ask, for more important reasons than that Demery was an official of HUD, not HHS. How many people can tell me the name of the current Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff without looking it up and those of their immediate 3 predecessors? That someone is not a recognized popular culture figure is hardly a justification for an encyclopedia's failure to cover them. Wikipedia often does a piss-poor job of covering serious subjects related to business and politics, and it is absurd, in terms of our encyclopedic purpose, to elevate all things Kardashian or promoted by the WWE over serious matters of business and politics.
- To say that a high-ranking policymaking official of a US Cabinet department is not a "public figure" despite sustained coverage over several in major American news media stands logic and meaning on its head. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the deletion process appears to have been correctly followed in this instance. I do not find an explicit consensus to keep in the discussion, and the process states that in this instance, no consensus goes to a delete. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Stifle. In AfD discussions, a case of "no consensus" results in a Keep. You can verify this by looking up any number of past AfD discussions. (On a side note, "Endorse" could be a bit confusing since we are responding to a proposal. How about "Disagree"?) Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can skip the condescension thanks, I’ve been around a while. The relevant consideration here is WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. So yes, I’ m endorsing. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Stifle, if my remark appeared "condescending," which was certainly not my intention. I only tried to have your position clarified, i.e. whether you agree or disagree with my proposal. Not change your input in any way! I thought "endorse" was unclear after reading the rest of your comment. As to the part about "no consensus" in AfD discussions, I will agree that we still disagree: The text reads Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete, with italics in the original. But this is not even about a "relatively unknown, non-public figure"; it's about an Assistant Secretary in the Reagan government! Anyway, take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn~~ pretty much per HW who I think I agree with in nearly all particulars. I'd have said there was a consensus to keep, but NC is within discretion. Applying WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to someone with a high-ranking government job at the time (I believe he had a higher Order of Precedence than a 4-star active general) can't be right as they can't really be "a non-public figure". Plus he was massively in the news (NYT article just on him) and he gave interviews to the press. That's generally over the bar for "public". I just think empathy may have overcome our policies here. Admirable, but not correct in my reading of things. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've realized I can't make as strong as an argument as I thought I could for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE not applying. I still feel we should have the article and would strongly !vote that way at AfD. But I can't say the closer erred based on my reading of WP:LPI. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To distil the question, it's really whether being the Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Housing would automatically make you a public figure. Considering we don't have a list of people in this position, I can't find a list of people in this position, only one of these people is currently blue-linked, and Demery only appeared about 150 times in newspapers between 1987 and 1988 before the scandal broke (11 times less than the cabinet member for the role, and all just quotations, very little sigcov), I don't think empathy necessarily overcame policies here (it certainly did not with me.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Frustratingly, I just lost a paragraph to an edit conflict. Medium-story short, I tried to form an argument based on WP:LPI and couldn't make as solid one as I'd like. Especially given the last part (Profile change over time, which I disagree with, but it's where we are). So while I still think we should have is article, and I think it's a stretch to use BLPREQUESTDELETE for someone in such a significant public role (what more than a thousand people reported to him I'd guess?), it's not so crystal clear that I can say it was done in error. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worry not, Hobit. The article's subject was quite notable on his own right during his tenure in the Reagan cabinet. And notability, once achieved, never fades away, per Wikipedia. The only thing we essentially discuss is whether or not to grant the subject (who is "old" and "ill" in the words of his legal representative) the right to disappear from public view. But this can only be granted to persons of low public profile; not United States Assistant Secretaries. -The Gnome (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Gnome: Take a look at WP:LPI, specifically at the end (Profile change over time) which seems to indicate that just because he *was* a public figure doesn't mean he is now. Hobit (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The text in Profile change over time is about the fact that, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the status of a person's profile, i.e. whether they are "high profile" or "low profile", changes over time, which is practically a tautology: No person has had the same "profile" status throughout History! But a person who once was a "high profile" individual, again as far as Wikipedia is concerned, does not lose in notability on account of his "high profile" time having passed. Even Alexander the Great or Tamurlane most certainly are not as "high profile" as they were in their time!

More importantly, the text is explanatory to the policy about people known for one event. Which Demery is not as demonstrated by sources. His involvement in the HUD scandal was not the only case he got famous (or infamous). -The Gnome (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: No argument that he's notable. And I'd say fairly notable. But BLPREQUESTDELETE cares about "low profile" and given we agree he's low profile now, I think BLPREQUESTDELETE could be viewed as applying. I think that's dumb, but not so dumb I can claim the closer was wrong. Hobit (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a low profile individual, though? The matter's not obvious to me and I've found it a lot harder than either the closer or the DRV nominator seem to have done. I do think it's better to err on the delete side in these cases, so I suppose I belong over there in the "endorse" camp, but I wouldn't strongly object to a relisting.—S Marshall T/C 00:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To put forward a hypothetical, can someone be a high profile individual if it's not obvious whether they're a high profile individual? SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You see, to me he's neither high-profile nor low-profile. He's a bloke who's risen to what I would call pretty high office -- he's not really the kind of ordinary-bystander-who-inadvertently-got-caught-up-in-something-big that they had in mind when they wrote WP:LPI, but equally he's not in an automatically-notable office. I'm really struggling to decide where he fits on that spectrum.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's sort of what I was getting at with my hypothetical. US defamation law splits the difference by using something called a limited purpose public figure, a category I think he falls into if we're discussing him in regards to the scandal. He's otherwise not high-profile. Since he's not otherwise notable (or a public figure) apart from the scandal, and we can and do cover the important information reliably elsewhere, I don't consider this unreasonable in the slightest. SportingFlyer T·C 01:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Cabinet level official and part of an important scandal, as noted by the keep votes. While the keep and delete votes were close, the keep votes were closely related to policy.Casprings (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since when have assistant secretaries been cabinet level appointees? Surely they are 2 rungs below the top seat. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Senate confirmed and major figure in a huge scandal. He is notable. Likely just doesn't want a page because of the second part. That said, if he is clearly notable, which he is, he should have a page.Casprings (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Relist, as someone who voted to Keep, while "Delete" !Voters had a weak numerical superiority, there was a swing towards Keep after the first relist and after the arguments to Keep were presented, and by swing, from the 1st of June to the close the tally was 5-1 in favour of Keeping the article. With such a clear swing, this should be relisted so a consensus can actually develop. Also, 6-5 in favour of deletion with one ambigous "Merge" vote is hardly consensus to delete. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I voted to accept request in the discussion, largely because of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which gives the presumption of delete to people who request it and are relatively unknown. Unlike a normal AFD, I think that the presumption is that the keep votes are required to prove their case. --Enos733 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We did, Enos733. Look up the specific discussion. We provided many sources that verify independent notability. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I participated in the discussion. I still think the subject is a limited public figure as described by SportingFlyer. Normally, I would have voted to keep, but I believe WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is an appropriate request in this case. --Enos733 (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A "limited public figutr" is a type of public figure, not a non-public figure as BLPREQUESTDELETE requires. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There have been a few claims that Demery became known only for accepting a gratuity and obstructing justice. But this is not true. Demery was an active participant in the efforts of the Reagan State Department to intervene in the Mozambican Civil War and boost the fortunes of the most anti-communist group (at least nominally) among the combattants, Renamo. Demery, a born again Christian himself, oversaw the diversion of almost $300,00 to Renamo through the back channels of local evangelical organisations. He also lobbied televangelist Pat Robertson for a donation to the same cause, which came to about $25,000.^[1] The various misappropriations of Demery-led HUD's funds were discovered by independent auditors only after Reagan left office. The Demery tenure became quite infamous at the time, though a lot of sources are off line. -The Gnome (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As was noted in the AfD, that's the same scandal he fails WP:BLP1E on, and that book doesn't mention anything about him apart from the scandal. SportingFlyer T·C 18:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is utter, absolute nonsense. Demery was involved in multiple. discrete controversies, not all at HUD. One (for which he was indicted and eventually guilty in) involved trading a govt contract for favorable terms on a personal mortgage -- bribery, more or less. Another involved pressuring agency contractors to provide financial support to RENAMO. A third involved participating in a coverup, including proving false information to Congress, of illegal steering of contracts to political supporters of the Reagan administration. Yet a fourth, a decade after he left HUD, was his major role in Pat Robertson's blood diamonds business. There's no way we're in BLP1E territory, especially when coverage of his legitimate political activities is factored in. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Newspapers.com search for "Thomas Demery" "Zaire" between 1993 and now brings up only the article you presented at AfD, in which he is mentioned late and towards the end of the article. "Demery" "Renamo" brings up 13 hits. That's an undercount because some of the stories were wire stories. SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, the use of funds available in the HUD coffers to assist the Renamo nationalist rebel organization in Mozambique is most definitely not the same thing as lying to Congress or accepting a $100,000 bribe from a developer. All may have happened during our subject's tenure at HUD but this does not make them "the same thing"! Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and reclose by somebody else. In my view, a very senior official in a government department is a public figure, and not a "relatively unknown, non-public figure" to which BLPREQUESTDELETE could apply. The AfD should therefore be reclosed with this in mind. I do not express a view about what the correct closure would be without taking BLPREQUESTDELETE into account. Sandstein 07:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Overturn. I don't know if the close represents the discussion or not, but the idea that we're calling an assistant cabinet secretary a "non-public figure" is absurd. Especially when we compare this to something like WP:NFOOTY which says if you stepped onto the field in one game, you're notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I am persuaded by User:Stifle's arguments: this is a relatively high-level government official (i.e. he doesn't sort the paper clips), so may now not want a page here. Unfortunately, GNG-1EBLP=/=BLPREQUESTDELETE. Whether through choice or otherwise, he's notable in Wikipedia terms. ——Serial^# 10:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, neither editors being able to name other topics personally (WP:OR) or that we have/haven't got lists of them (WP:OSE) are particularly strong arguments. In fact, they're very poor. ——Serial^# 10:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Not a non-public figure, BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn – there were at least 7 decent sources mentioned in the AfD, yet the closer concluded that the subject was "relatively unknown". The AfD discussion should at the very least be reopened to discuss whether those sources are sufficient to establish notability. – bradv🍁 03:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Maier, Karl; Penglase, Ben (1992). Africa Watch Committee (ed.). Conspicuous Destruction: War, Famine and the Reform Process in Mozambique. Human Rights Watch. p. 193. ISBN 978-0300056181.

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

Rona De Ricci – The AfD closure that led to the article's deletion is endorsed, but editors note that it does not prevent a recreation of the article in an improved form. To the extent editors also discuss the U5 speedy deletion of the userspace draft at User:Rootview/sandbox, they support its restoration. To that end, I provide the deleted text by Rootview in its entirety here: "Rona De Ricci (born in 1965) is an American-Italian film actress. She starred in the leading female role in The Pit and the Pendulum (1991), along with Lance Henriksen, directed by Stuart Gordon. She also starred in The Penitent (1988) along with Raul Julia and Armand Assante. Reference: ^ Tebbutt, John (December 24, 2009). ”Who's that girl? Gorgeous, talented actresses with ridiculously short resume”" Sandstein 07:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rona De Ricci (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Also User:Rootview/sandbox. I have looked up the deletion thread and found that it merits a challenge, contest and hopefully the reinstating of either my entry or the one from 2015 of which I only have a recollection of and would like a copy of it. Please direct me to the right place to get it. I copied and pasted the bit about the base to which the original article got deleted: • "Seems like a pretty obvious Keep. ...Just kidding. Delete - so non-notable that I don't even know the movies. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk)(contributions) 20:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rona De Ricci. 1. The previous bit records editor Wgolf (see link) to either mock or question: “Actress who has an amazing 2 roles and has not been in anything since”. This seems to be the base to his imitative to delete the article (2015). I challenge the implication that imposes a continuous (future) work as criteria to value previous work. I could list people that have produced one public work and stopped (reasons abound), and yet their mention is justified, including in Wikipedia. However, I will pick one to simplify the example: author J.D. Salinger. The editor, New Age Retro Hippie, assumes that if he (even!) doesn’t know the movie than it’s non-notable. How closed minded and ignorant. Will information and knowledge be limited to whether one person knows of a certain fact, opinion, concept etc. to be open to all or not? 2. Her performances in those films produced an interest and positive reviews, notably an article about her and another actress, which was included as a reference in both the original article (not mine) in 2015 and mine. Please see the entries. 3. Finally, I would like to ask this: if both films merited a Wikipedia entry and are built on the cast's work, why the actor doesn't merit an entry? Why the actress in the female starring role doesn't? After all, she is what made that film (along with the other actors, etc.) 'notable". How come the parts don't make up the sum? I uploaded a JPG image of the actress along with the entry yesterday (June 8th, 2020). I have the copyright, and it is of professional quality. The entry by itself is short and simple (as recommended) and consists only of information. Thanks for your consideration, Rootview Rootview (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Endorse if the filing editor is alleging an error by the closer. This filing is lengthy but doesn't seem to be on any particular point. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Allow Re-Creation if the filing editor is stating that the actress has had additional roles in the past five years and is now notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Rootview: Don't worry too much about the tone of the AfD, that can happen sometimes when the discussion is unanimous, light, and likely clear. What you should worry about is our notability guideline for actors, which you can read at WP:NACTOR. Based on a quick search, de Ricci likely does not qualify for that guideline, as she has not been in only a few films. However, she may qualify for WP:GNG, our general notability guideline which supersedes pretty much everything else on the site, which means that secondary, reliable sources have discussed her specifically. Just being discussed as being the main actress in a film would not be enough to satisfy this - we need enough sources on her to write a decent encyclopaedia article, even if it's a stub. Even if de Ricci passes the WP:NACTOR guideline, you still need enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Also, for Wikipedia's purposes, the film's notability does not come from its actors, but from the fact reliable secondary sources have taken note of it. Unfortunately based on my search I don't support overturning this as I don't think she passes WP:GNG, but I'd support allowing you to try and rewrite the article to get it past WP:GNG if you think it can, including restoring the draft to your sandbox. SportingFlyer T·C 03:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] DRV not necessary. AFD is from over five years ago, article is not salted. Any editor may recreate the article if they can establish that the subject now meets the notability criteria. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Overturn speedy deletion of sandbox article, allow re-creation of mainspace article if new evidence of notability exists. Since the AfD was five years ago, I initially had typed "the article may be re-created if notability has increased, so DRV is not necessary, per Stifle." However, since the DRV also includes a sandbox draft of an article which was deleted just a few days ago by Fastily, and Rootview's request for restoration or a copy was rejected by Orangemike here, it looks like Rootview needs to be here at DRV after all. I don't read the WP:REFUND request as having asked to immediately restore the article to mainspace, just to provide a copy for Rootview to work with, and I don't see why allowing that in Rootview's NOINDEX'd sandbox should be a problem. To be clear, however, while I think Rootview is entitled to try to enhance this article for another run at mainspace, the effort is worthwhile and likely to succeed only if there is more evidence of notability than we've seen so far, for the reasons SportingFlyer has explained. (My mentions of specific admins here are notifications, not criticism.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rona De Ricci – The AfD closure that led to the article's deletion is endorsed, but editors note that it does not prevent a recreation of the article in an improved form.

To the extent editors also discuss the U5 speedy deletion of the userspace draft at User:Rootview/sandbox, they support its restoration. To that end, I provide the deleted text by Rootview in its entirety here:

"Rona De Ricci (born in 1965) is an American-Italian film actress. She starred in the leading female role in The Pit and the Pendulum (1991), along with Lance Henriksen, directed by Stuart Gordon. She also starred in The Penitent (1988) along with Raul Julia and Armand Assante. Reference: ^ Tebbutt, John (December 24, 2009). ”Who's that girl? Gorgeous, talented actresses with ridiculously short resume”"

Sandstein 07:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also User:Rootview/sandbox. I have looked up the deletion thread and found that it merits a challenge, contest and hopefully the reinstating of either my entry or the one from 2015 of which I only have a recollection of and would like a copy of it. Please direct me to the right place to get it.

I copied and pasted the bit about the base to which the original article got deleted: • "Seems like a pretty obvious Keep. ...Just kidding. Delete - so non-notable that I don't even know the movies. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk)(contributions) 20:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)"

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rona De Ricci.

1. The previous bit records editor Wgolf (see link) to either mock or question: “Actress who has an amazing 2 roles and has not been in anything since”. This seems to be the base to his imitative to delete the article (2015). I challenge the implication that imposes a continuous (future) work as criteria to value previous work. I could list people that have produced one public work and stopped (reasons abound), and yet their mention is justified, including in Wikipedia. However, I will pick one to simplify the example: author J.D. Salinger.

The editor, New Age Retro Hippie, assumes that if he (even!) doesn’t know the movie than it’s non-notable. How closed minded and ignorant. Will information and knowledge be limited to whether one person knows of a certain fact, opinion, concept etc. to be open to all or not?

2. Her performances in those films produced an interest and positive reviews, notably an article about her and another actress, which was included as a reference in both the original article (not mine) in 2015 and mine. Please see the entries.

3. Finally, I would like to ask this: if both films merited a Wikipedia entry and are built on the cast's work, why the actor doesn't merit an entry? Why the actress in the female starring role doesn't? After all, she is what made that film (along with the other actors, etc.) 'notable". How come the parts don't make up the sum?

I uploaded a JPG image of the actress along with the entry yesterday (June 8th, 2020). I have the copyright, and it is of professional quality. The entry by itself is short and simple (as recommended) and consists only of information. Thanks for your consideration, Rootview Rootview (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse if the filing editor is alleging an error by the closer. This filing is lengthy but doesn't seem to be on any particular point. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Re-Creation if the filing editor is stating that the actress has had additional roles in the past five years and is now notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rootview: Don't worry too much about the tone of the AfD, that can happen sometimes when the discussion is unanimous, light, and likely clear. What you should worry about is our notability guideline for actors, which you can read at WP:NACTOR. Based on a quick search, de Ricci likely does not qualify for that guideline, as she has not been in only a few films. However, she may qualify for WP:GNG, our general notability guideline which supersedes pretty much everything else on the site, which means that secondary, reliable sources have discussed her specifically. Just being discussed as being the main actress in a film would not be enough to satisfy this - we need enough sources on her to write a decent encyclopaedia article, even if it's a stub. Even if de Ricci passes the WP:NACTOR guideline, you still need enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Also, for Wikipedia's purposes, the film's notability does not come from its actors, but from the fact reliable secondary sources have taken note of it. Unfortunately based on my search I don't support overturning this as I don't think she passes WP:GNG, but I'd support allowing you to try and rewrite the article to get it past WP:GNG if you think it can, including restoring the draft to your sandbox. SportingFlyer T·C 03:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DRV not necessary. AFD is from over five years ago, article is not salted. Any editor may recreate the article if they can establish that the subject now meets the notability criteria. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion of sandbox article, allow re-creation of mainspace article if new evidence of notability exists. Since the AfD was five years ago, I initially had typed "the article may be re-created if notability has increased, so DRV is not necessary, per Stifle." However, since the DRV also includes a sandbox draft of an article which was deleted just a few days ago by Fastily, and Rootview's request for restoration or a copy was rejected by Orangemike here, it looks like Rootview needs to be here at DRV after all. I don't read the WP:REFUND request as having asked to immediately restore the article to mainspace, just to provide a copy for Rootview to work with, and I don't see why allowing that in Rootview's NOINDEX'd sandbox should be a problem. To be clear, however, while I think Rootview is entitled to try to enhance this article for another run at mainspace, the effort is worthwhile and likely to succeed only if there is more evidence of notability than we've seen so far, for the reasons SportingFlyer has explained. (My mentions of specific admins here are notifications, not criticism.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

1 Pavilion – Nominator blocked as a promotion-only account with nobody else wanting to overturn. DRV notes that a technical breach of process has occurred here, and corrects this by reclassifying the speedy deletion of User:1 Pavilion/sandbox from U5 to G11.—S Marshall T/C 12:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I'm no doing advertising or violates any copyrights, i'm just trying to write the article for the company. 1 Pavilion (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] I presume that you are referring to Draft:Pavilion Damansara Heights, in which case this is the wrong venue to contest the speedy deletion tag. I'll copy your reason to Draft talk:Pavilion Damansara Heights which is where it goes. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment /edit conflict: It looks like the original request refers to the page User:1 Pavilion/sandbox, deleted by User:Fastily on 3 June under CSD:U5 misuse of Wikipedia as a free web host. Subsequent to this request I have also deleted the page User:1 Pavilion and Draft:Pavilion Damansara Heights by this user under CSD:G11 advertising or promotion. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment: User:1 Pavilion: you need to read WP:COI and WP:NOT#WEBHOST. If you'd like to write about your own company, you would need to do so on your company's own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Wikipedia does not make a distinction between "doing advertising" and writing "the article for the company". The conflict of interest policy covers both activities, and neutral point of view is still the second pillar of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] To the extent this was originally about User:1 Pavilion/sandbox, endorse as a G11 (like it was tagged). As usual, the claim that an attempt to write a draft article, however poorly done, isn't closely related to Wikipedia's goals is preposterous, even if drafts weren't specifically exempt from U5. —Cryptic 18:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment: The nominator has been indefinitely blocked by User:Cullen328 as a spam-only account. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 Pavilion – Nominator blocked as a promotion-only account with nobody else wanting to overturn. DRV notes that a technical breach of process has occurred here, and corrects this by reclassifying the speedy deletion of User:1 Pavilion/sandbox from U5 to G11.—S Marshall T/C 12:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm no doing advertising or violates any copyrights, i'm just trying to write the article for the company. 1 Pavilion (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that you are referring to Draft:Pavilion Damansara Heights, in which case this is the wrong venue to contest the speedy deletion tag. I'll copy your reason to Draft talk:Pavilion Damansara Heights which is where it goes. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment /edit conflict: It looks like the original request refers to the page User:1 Pavilion/sandbox, deleted by User:Fastily on 3 June under CSD:U5 misuse of Wikipedia as a free web host. Subsequent to this request I have also deleted the page User:1 Pavilion and Draft:Pavilion Damansara Heights by this user under CSD:G11 advertising or promotion. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:1 Pavilion: you need to read WP:COI and WP:NOT#WEBHOST. If you'd like to write about your own company, you would need to do so on your company's own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia does not make a distinction between "doing advertising" and writing "the article for the company". The conflict of interest policy covers both activities, and neutral point of view is still the second pillar of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent this was originally about User:1 Pavilion/sandbox, endorse as a G11 (like it was tagged). As usual, the claim that an attempt to write a draft article, however poorly done, isn't closely related to Wikipedia's goals is preposterous, even if drafts weren't specifically exempt from U5. —Cryptic 18:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has been indefinitely blocked by User:Cullen328 as a spam-only account. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Patruni Chidananda Sastry – Unsalt draft. Given that the mainspace title protection has already expired, it seems silly that the draft should still be protected, so I'll unsalt that. But, to be clear, any new draft will need to pass the appropriate notability guidelines (which look to be web notability and/or organizational notability) before it can move into mainspace. I assume we've got enough people who have these titles on their watchlist that any attempt to bypass WP:AfC will be noticed. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] PS, @Deepfriedokra: so they're aware I'm undoing their protection. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Patruni Chidananda Sastry (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) this is a page for LBGT queer activist from india and as a part of pride month we need more visibility of their work. i belive the notability should match, please do check and if notablity is in place, kindly remove the lock and allow article creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmayya (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] It is customary for sources showing notability to be offered by the person asking for a review, rather than asking others to check. Please note that we do not go in for advertising here, so "we need more visibility of their work" is not a valid reason for us to have an article. You need to show that their work has already had visibility elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Comment - The lock expired one-and-one-half years ago, but you still must satisfy web notability or organizational notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] FWIW, Draft:Patruni Sastry is still salted. —Cryptic 18:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] I'm not minded to change anything in the absence of a draft article or at the very minimum some up to date sources. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Patruni Chidananda Sastry – Unsalt draft. Given that the mainspace title protection has already expired, it seems silly that the draft should still be protected, so I'll unsalt that. But, to be clear, any new draft will need to pass the appropriate notability guidelines (which look to be web notability and/or organizational notability) before it can move into mainspace. I assume we've got enough people who have these titles on their watchlist that any attempt to bypass WP:AfC will be noticed. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS, @Deepfriedokra: so they're aware I'm undoing their protection. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

this is a page for LBGT queer activist from india and as a part of pride month we need more visibility of their work. i belive the notability should match, please do check and if notablity is in place, kindly remove the lock and allow article creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmayya (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary for sources showing notability to be offered by the person asking for a review, rather than asking others to check. Please note that we do not go in for advertising here, so "we need more visibility of their work" is not a valid reason for us to have an article. You need to show that their work has already had visibility elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The lock expired one-and-one-half years ago, but you still must satisfy web notability or organizational notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, Draft:Patruni Sastry is still salted. —Cryptic 18:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not minded to change anything in the absence of a draft article or at the very minimum some up to date sources. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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