View source for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 21

<noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude>
===[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 January 21|21 January 2016]]===
<!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.

Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~      -->

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
* '''[[:start.me]]''' – '''No consensus'''. A majority of editors would endorse the speedy deletion. That's not enough for a consensus to endorse it, but enough to have the decision to deletion remain in place by default, for lack of a consensus to overturn it. While it is normal practice to send speedy deletions about which there is no consensus to AfD, that was specifically proposed here and did not obtain consensus, so it would be inappropriate as an outcome of the discussion. – <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</span>]]</span></small> 08:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{DRV links|start.me|xfd_page=|article=}}
Page was speedily deleted, but a deletion discussion would have been in place. Procedure was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG#Immediate_deletion_of_start.me_article overly hasty], without any notification up front: {{Quote|text=It looks as if this CSD somehow slipped through the net as I can't see a notification at User talk:Michieldewit or in its page history|author=[[User:PamD]]}}
I discussed the matter with the deleting admin [[User:DGG]] and with [[User:Tokyogirl79]]. We don't agree on notability and the value of the provided references. The conflict of interest matter has been discussed as well. I myself failed to follow proper procedure regarding COI, which I am willing to correct. It should be noted that this conflict of interest has never intentionally been hidden. [[User:Michieldewit|Michieldewit]] ([[User talk:Michieldewit|talk]]) 10:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
::*Note: You can view the cached version [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QpuFRkZGbyYJ:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start.me+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us here]. [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]][[User talk:Tokyogirl79|'''<span style="color:#19197; background:#fff;"> (｡◕‿◕｡)</span>''']] 11:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. I am very slow to interfere with deletion decisions of DGG as his bar for inclusion is set far lower than mine. I have also reviewed the deleted content and confirm that it does not contain any indication of why the site may be important or significant. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 10:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. I have no problem with this going to AfC, but I'm concerned at the lack of (or rather, the poor quality) RS that has been provided. When it was deleted it was entirely sourced with primary sources, which lent to it being seen as a valid A7 candidate. As far as notifications of speedy deletions go, it's considered polite to notify the page creator, but it isn't mandatory. I did a run through of the sources he posted at [[User_talk:DGG#Immediate_deletion_of_start.me_article|DGG's talk page]], which I'll repost here:
{{cot| title=Sources }}
::#[http://www.forbes.com/sites/dailymuse/2015/10/20/6-browser-extensions-thatll-make-you-way-more-productive-at-work/#87367a13e9e62eac108a3e9e This Forbes link] only briefly mentions the service. This would make it a [[WP:TRIVIAL]] source on Wikipedia and could not show notability. 
::#[http://www.n24.de/n24/Nachrichten/Netzwelt/d/7439532/start-seite-fuer-chrome-browser-neu-gestalten.html N24] is something that would be seen as a reliable source. This isn't in English, which is why I mentioned that sourcing in other languages may exist that I didn't find. My main concern though is that the article is still fairly brief and it looks like it was heavily based on a press release, given the link's tone. (I viewed it via Google Translate.) If it is based on a press release this would make it a [[WP:PRIMARY]] source and would not be able to establish notability. Sources like this tend to be heavily scrutinized and it doesn't help that it doesn't identify who wrote it. This, along with the promotional tone, is usually a big sign that it's based on or is entirely taken from a press release.
::#[https://www.producthunt.com/tech/start-me-2 ProductHunt] would not be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. First is because it's ultimately a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]], given that there appears to be little to no editorial oversight on the page and it appears to be a forum-esque site. I also note that you started the discussion yourself, so this would make it primary at best. Anything that is written by you, the company, or people affiliated with the service would be primary and unable to establish notability. 
::#[http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_26839618/mailbag-what-do-when-your-favorite-personal-home The Denver Post] can be a reliable source, however this is a question and answer column. These sort of things tend to be greatly depreciated as sources because they're usually the personal opinion/advice of the person who runs the column and it's rare that these would be the type of thing that would show notability. If this was taken to AfD, I can guarantee that this would likely be considered non-usable for notability giving purposes. The service is also fairly briefly mentioned, so that doesn't help much either. 
::#[http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicaprobus/useful-dot-net#.mpJBVxxJPE Buzzfeed] is generally not seen as a reliable source per [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_189#May_Buzzfeed_sometimes_be_an_RS.3F_.28Article_about_Chris_Epps.29|discussions like this one]]. The problem is that some of their articles tend to come across as advertising. However that is somewhat of a moot point since the article in question is just a list of various services and doesn't go into enough depth for this to be a notability-giving source. 
::#[http://www.igooglealternatives.info/ iGoogleAlternatives] would not be seen as a RS on Wikipedia since it's a self-published source. They do list their criteria for picking things, but they don't actually have anything to show their editorial oversight. It is mentioned as good in a NYT advice column, but we'd need a lot of coverage to really show that they're seen as an authoritative source.
::#[http://domain.me/miss-igoogle-dont-worry-start/ Domain.me] would be seen as a primary source because they host your website/service on their domain. It's well within their best interests to not only write about start.me, but to write about it in glowing terms. This would not establish notability on Wikipedia.
::[http://ict-idee.blogspot.nl/2014/08/194- This] is a Blogspot blog. Blogs are seen as self-published sources and per their nature, they almost never go through any sort of editorial oversight. Like sites with a lack of clear editorial oversight like iGoogleAlternatives, a blog can be seen as a RS if it's routinely mentioned as reliable in other RS, but this needs to be very heavily established. Offhand I don't see where this blog would be one of the exceptions. 
::#[http://www.computeridee.nl/downloads/internet/startme-persoonlijke-startpagina-in-de-clou/ The ComputerIdee page] looks to be a routine database-esque listing, especially as the content in the page is very brief and written like a press release. Most websites that offer free downloads do not write the material themselves and instead rely on the publisher to submit their own prose to accompany the download. Whether it could otherwise be used as a RS is up for debate - this would mostly rely on whether or not the magazine offers people the chance to get more coverage via marketing packages, which is common with many publications nowadays.
::#[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/technology/personaltech/fast-and-easy-photo-albums-for-printing.html?_r=0#story-continues-4 The NYT] is usually seen as a RS, however this runs the same issue as the Denver Post in that it is part of an opinion/advice column. As stated above, these are rarely seen as notability giving sources. I also note that the source only briefly mentions start.me. It does mention iGoogleAlternatives, which can help establish that the site may be reliable, but we'd need far more than one newspaper mention in order to really establish this.
::#The last link you gave actually required that I download the page. Anything like this will raise red flags because you shouldn't have to download something to verify it. When I did open it in my browser, it didn't contain any information and as such, I cannot say that this would be seen as a RS. The only thing I could make out was something about e-mail in the background with some sparse details about the service like the website and owner/founder names, which lead me to believe that it might be a routine database listing. The default with unverifiable articles is that they are seen as non-notability giving, even if the publication is seen as a RS in most situations. 
{{cob}}
:It could possibly go to AfD (and if some of these had been on the page there might have been some argument that it would pass the very low bar of speedy criteria), but I don't think that DGG's deletion of the page was incorrect and I share his concern that none of these sources are enough to establish notability. Given the current sourcing listed above, I think that it'd almost certainly be deleted at AfD. I think that AfC is the best outcome here and the editor has been pointed in that direction on his talk page. [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]][[User talk:Tokyogirl79|'''<span style="color:#19197; background:#fff;"> (｡◕‿◕｡)</span>''']] 10:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
::I would like to point out that sources are not required to be cited in the article itself to meet the [[WP:CCOS]]: "A claim of significance need not be supported by any cited sources, much less by inline citations to reliable sources". And this statement certainly applies as well: "Any statement which plausibly indicates that additional research (possibly offline, possibly in specialized sources) has a reasonable chance of demonstrating notability is a claim of significance". So A7 as a reason for speedy deletion does not apply (cf. [[User:SoWhy/Common_A7_mistakes|Common A7 mistakes]]. Furthermore: it would have been more than polite to send a notification, as it would give opportunity to backup the page for later use. [[User:Michieldewit|Michieldewit]] ([[User talk:Michieldewit|talk]]) 11:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
::*They're not, but the problem here is that the article did not make any claim of significance. A look at the page showed only basic information about the service and company. The type of claim of significance referenced in the policies you're linking to would be things like it winning an award or receiving a large positive reception by notable outlets. All that the deleted article did was assert that the company and service exists, which is not considered to be a claim of significance on Wikipedia. As far as offline sourcing goes, the same issue applies. The article only showed that the company exists and didn't really suggest that there ''would'' be offline sourcing, nor does the sourcing you posted on DGG's page give off the impression that this exists either. That's the gist of A7: the article has to assert notability to pass a very low threshold or that it's likely that sourcing would exist to establish notability. While these two things are not automatically the same they do frequently tend to run hand in hand. The article as it was deleted did not assert anything that would establish that the service was notable or that there would be sourcing out there, so the deletion was valid. If you'd posted any of the above sourcing on the page that might have changed things, but you didn't and since the page ''has'' been deleted, it's well within DGG's right to express concern over the sourcing you did provide since it's not enough to establish notability on Wikipedia - and notability guidelines for companies and web related services are extremely difficult to meet. AfC is always an option here and you can view a cached version of the page [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QpuFRkZGbyYJ:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start.me+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us here]. However given the sourcing you've posted, I have to state that I'm not sure that it will pass NCORP or NWEB any time soon. [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]][[User talk:Tokyogirl79|'''<span style="color:#19197; background:#fff;"> (｡◕‿◕｡)</span>''']] 11:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
:::* I might well have posted any of the sources, if only I had the chance. I wrote the article before going to bed (I live in The Netherlands, time zone UTC+01). When I woke up, the article was gone already. No chance for me to reply. The admin was, in my humble opinion, too hasty. Now the article is deleted and I am told: "if the article were not deleted already...". Terms were too short and did not take into account time zone differences. [[User:Michieldewit|Michieldewit]] ([[User talk:Michieldewit|talk]]) 12:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
::::*This is why there's such a huge emphasis on using your draftspace rather than creating in the mainspace. As far as the sourcing goes, it wasn't on the article so it was a valid A7. However the thing is, even when we take the sourcing into consideration it's still incredibly weak and not enough to assert notability. Most of the sourcing isn't considered to be RS that would be able to establish notability and the few that are in RS only mention smart.me in passing. As far as AfD goes, we also have to take into consideration whether or not the article would even survive AfD. Offhand the sourcing here is extremely poor as far as asserting notability goes, so the chances of this surviving AfD are practically nonexistent. The reason I'm mentioning this is because DRV has to consider whether or not an article would have a reasonable chance of surviving deletion. To put it bluntly, they want to make sure that the AfD wouldn't just be a waste of time and procedure for procedure's sake. (Although again, there was nothing on the article that would assert that it would pass A7 and Alexa rankings do not count towards notability on Wikipedia per [[WP:POPULARITY]].) I understand that you're frustrated, but this is why Wikipedia tends to discourage people making articles for things that they're personally related to - especially if they stand to have some sort of gain by having a page on Wikipedia. This might not have been the main reason you thought to come on Wikipedia, but I'm sure that it was one of the other reasons, which would be natural since this is your livelihood. (It doesn't necessarily make it right or advisable, but it's understandable.) It's just so incredibly easy for you to see more notability than there might otherwise be ''and'' to take things far more personally. AfC is really your best bet here, given the weak sourcing and your extremely strong conflict of interest. [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]][[User talk:Tokyogirl79|'''<span style="color:#19197; background:#fff;"> (｡◕‿◕｡)</span>''']] 05:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

*<ec>'''List at AfD''' I can't see the article (and Google cache appears not to have it).  But while the sources provided are really weak, there's enough there this isn't a clear A7.  That places like Forbes have noted your existence is an assertion of notability IMO. [http://www.igooglealternatives.info/ iGoogleAlternatives] ranking of them as the best-in-catagory is certainly an assertion of notability.  Now that probably isn't a RS, but NYTs references it, so it's not so clearly bad that it isn't worth a discussion.  I'll assume the article as written had none of these sources in them and so was a valid A7, but now we've got them so off to AfD we should go. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 12:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
:* There actually is a [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QpuFRkZGbyYJ:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start.me+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nl cached version of the page on Google] [[User:Michieldewit|Michieldewit]] ([[User talk:Michieldewit|talk]]) 12:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - <s>to be honest I don't think this was a good A7 deletion, particularly since it was a unilateral one, without even the limited review that comes from having a separate nominator and deletor. I don't think it was a sufficiently obvious and unambiguous case, as shown by the sources mentioned in this discussion, some of which are ''vaguely'' plausible as indicators of notability. In my opinion that takes it out of A7 territory. I realize those sources may not have been in the article at the time of deletion, but I think an admin considering a unilateral deletion on A7 grounds probably ought to do a little Googling before pressing the button - not to establish notability, but to establish whether there ought to be a ''discussion'' about notability, which speedy deletion denies. I say all of this with the greatest respect to DGG whose work I have appreciated for years. I am not arguing to overturn the deletion because I do think the outcome at AfD would be "delete", and we are discussing it here now anyway.</s> <span style="border-radius: 3px; padding: 2px; border: 1px solid #808080; font-size: x-small; font-family: Lucida Console, Monaco, monospace">[[User:Thparkth|Thparkth]] ([[User_Talk:Thparkth|talk]])</span> 12:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
:* {{ping|Thparkth}} Actually, '''List at AfD''' would give me a fair chance to integrate the sources into the article and provide the admins in AfD a proper view of what the article would look like when properly sourced. Currently, the discussion is rather scattered. [[User:Michieldewit|Michieldewit]] ([[User talk:Michieldewit|talk]]) 12:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
*{{U| Thparkth}}, it was not a unilateral afd. I do not normally do unilateral A7 deletions, and I am in general of the opinion that no admin should do that. It had been nominated for deletion by {{U|Mike Rosoft}}at 21.:42 of Jan20; I deleted in a 5:58 of Jan 21. The references in the article at the time consisted of.
# the Alexa site information. 
# Their own blog
# The web page for the prototype version, Youris, 
# The about.me for Youris.
Not a single third party source at all. 
Of the ones added subsequently:
#Forbes is a mere mention -- and not written by forbes , reprinted from the Daily Muse. The full relevant text was : "And for Safari, check out start.me." Ditto for the NYT.An article about the browser add-on in either would have been certainly enough to pass AY. 
#N24 is a press release, no matter  where published. and so on, as given above. I have no object to saying the same thing at AfD.  '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 14:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
::*Apologies, I was under a misapprehension about it being a unilateral deletion. Not much of my original comment still makes sense so I am going to strike it. I still think it was a marginal A7 but with two editors involved it is far less problematic. <span style="border-radius: 3px; padding: 2px; border: 1px solid #808080; font-size: x-small; font-family: Lucida Console, Monaco, monospace">[[User:Thparkth|Thparkth]] ([[User_Talk:Thparkth|talk]])</span> 15:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
:* {{ping|DGG}} I feel to much emphasis is put on sources. The Credible Claim of Significance is not about sources, but about the described organization being credibly significant. The Alexa rank of 11,457 alone makes the organization significant. Other, bolder claims, such as the current number of users (600,000), the election as number 1 start page on iGoogleAlternatives.info or the partnership with [[Pale Moon (web browser)|Pale Moon]] were excluded, as they might be interpreted as too much of an advertisement, but would have been a clear claim of significance. So can we please return to the discussion of significance, rather than a discussion about reliable sources? Those are just not relevant in this discussion. The claims I just posted, however are. [[User:Michieldewit|Michieldewit]] ([[User talk:Michieldewit|talk]]) 16:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion.''' The question here is whether the original submission was properly deleted under A7, and I agree that it was. {{u|Michieldewit}}, you may feel that the deleting administrator should have taken time to research the company, but new articles are created at a rate of about one per minute, and the number of volunteer staff willing to do the tedious and repetitive work of screening them is limited; so the onus is on the submitter to give some hint as to why this is not just another person/band/startup business.

:However, '''encourage resubmission''' of a draft via AfC, if you believe you can show the ''substantial'' independent comment about the company required by [[WP:Notability]]. You have done an excellent job of familiarising yourself with Wikipedia's many policies and guidance pages such as [[WP:CCOS]], but I draw your attention to the good advice in the [[Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide]]. You have very properly made no secret of your connection with the business, but you undoubtedly have a COI, so that you should not be posting an article directly, but submit it for review by an uninvolved user. At this stage, discussion of what sources exist is not inappropriate, to avoid the danger of wasting your, and our, time. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 20:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
*Endorse, and do not restore to mainspace at this time.  No claim of significance at time of deletion, and no point undeleting until there's a nonzero chance of surviving afd.  "Too much emphasis on sources" is '''flatly impossible'''; they are the only thing that matters, and none have been put forward that are even arguably usable. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 21:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
**That's actually untrue here.  Having an assertion of notability doesn't require sources.  And DRV doesn't need sources to overturn an A7 (though honestly, if there aren't _any_ it's unlikely that an A7 will get overturned).   The creator could have just recreated the article with the sources and it would not be speedy eligible and would get an AfD.  I don't see why DRV should give a different result then what could have been done without asking DRV just because the creator didn't realize that was an option. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 20:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
***It's plenty true.  Without an ok source - not even a good one, just ok - the article's 100% likely to get deleted at AFD anyway.  You know it.  I know it.  Even the users calling it a marginal A7, when company A7s don't ''get'' any less marginal than [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QpuFRkZGbyYJ:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start.me+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us this], know it.  The only person who doesn't know it is the article creator, who thinks that having an Alexa rank in the eleven thousands means that Wikipedia must cover this company.  Undeleting now would be the worst possible way to eventually have an article on this company - it'll waste further volunteer resources on an afd when we've already spilled more than five times as many words on it as the average deletion discussion length, and it'll open up future articles to marginal G4s. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 04:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
:::*That's my opinion - if this was sent to AfD it'd be guaranteed to be deleted unless better sourcing becomes available. Given that I think that the OP's intent is to have this article survive past AfD, this is pretty much a disastrous choice. A deletion via AfD makes it more difficult for future versions of the article to survive without some pretty strong sourcing. The more an article is created and deleted (even via [[WP:G4]]) the harder it is to restore the article because not only do you have to provide RS, but you have to provide ''more'' because the idea is that the other sources were seen and judged as not sufficient to show notability. The OP was told at several times that AfC was an option prior to him bringing this to DRV and he's chosen to ignore that in favor of restoring it to the mainspace, again probably in the hopes that it would survive AfD. As far as the sourcing stuff goes, the reason why there's a focus on this is that there wasn't any good sourcing in the article and the sourcing provided after the fact didn't show where there was enough notability to where it'd survive even if it was restored. There's an assertion that it has a decent Alexa ranking, but that's not seen as a sign of notability on here nor is it really all that high in comparison to other sites. (For example, the award winning [[SF Signal]] only has a global Alexa ranking of 207,722, yet it's clearly notable per Wikipedia's guidelines for winning several Hugos.) I think that the most humane thing to do in this situation is to send a copy to AfC and let OP work on this there. We ''could'' send this to AfD, but we all know that it would be extremely unlikely to survive (it'd get eaten alive and maybe even close early) and would only make it ''more'' difficult to restore in the future. [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]][[User talk:Tokyogirl79|'''<span style="color:#19197; background:#fff;"> (｡◕‿◕｡)</span>''']] 07:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

*'''Send to AfD'''. This was a marginal A7 deletion, and by definition, there aren't meant to be any marginal A7 deletions. The addition of the sources identified in this discussion would have made it clearly exempt from A7. Several participants in this discussion have suggested that the article should only be recreated in draft space, but I'm not sure that there is any policy basis for that, since we are reviewing a speedy deletion, not an AfD outcome. G4 would not apply in this case. If it is to stay deleted, that can only happen on the basis of a consensus at AfD. And who knows, perhaps the community will take the view that it is notable after all. <span style="border-radius: 3px; padding: 2px; border: 1px solid #808080; font-size: x-small; font-family: Lucida Console, Monaco, monospace">[[User:Thparkth|Thparkth]] ([[User_Talk:Thparkth|talk]])</span> 15:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

*'''Endorse deletion''' the original A7 deletion was valid - the text consisted of a description of the functionality of the site and a discussion of a name change, and there wasn't anything I'd be prepared to call an assertion of significance. While significance can be asserted through the inclusion of source coverage, only one source in the article wasn't obviously primary and that was Alexa. It is true that assertions of significance don't need citations to be valid, but that doesn't mean the deleting admin has to go actively hunting for potential assertions of significance that could be added.<br/>Whether a completely different article could be written on this topic that does pass A7 (or would stand a reasonable chance at AfD) is a different question, and there isn't anything stopping you from recreating the article. If the revised version doesn't meet A7 then it won't be deleted under A7. If you'd like the content of the original article to be restored to your userspace so you can work on it (to expand it or add more sources) then I'm sure we could do that. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 22:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
:*'''Comment:''' the OP has quite properly made no secret of the fact that he is one of the founders of the site concerned. Per [[WP:COI]] that means he should ''not'' post a new article directly, but may submit a draft for review via AfC. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 16:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', at the time it was deleted I believe this was a valid A7.  That shouldn't preclude anyone from having another crack at starting an article on the same topic, provide they can provide credible indications of importance and better sourcing.  [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 11:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC).
*'''Endorse''' valid A7, and any potential further article attempts on this subject should be done by those with no conflict of interest. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><span style="color:#FF0000;">St</span><span style="color:#FF5500;">ar</span><span style="color:#FF8000;">bli</span><span style="color:#FFC000;">nd</span></b> 16:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
* '''[[:Draft:JTa Comics]]''' – '''deletion endorsed'''. The OP has evidently not read the discussion, where the word "stale" is not mentioned. – [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 11:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{DRV links|Draft:JTa Comics|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:JTa Comics|article=}}
From the creator of Draftspace, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation&diff=prev&oldid=700871768 If they're being deleted at MFD for only because stale, those MFDs are wrong. ] This deletion was wrong. [[Special:Contributions/166.170.49.77|166.170.49.77]] ([[User talk:166.170.49.77|talk]]) 05:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
* '''Endorse'''. Assuming you're not just screwing around, it wasn't deleted because it was stale, it was deleted because it was a hoax and a webhost violation. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 09:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
**What makes you think these were a hoax? [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 10:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
::: Some of those pages are for alleged YouTube videos that don't exist. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 21:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
*I'm honestly not a fan of deleting these, but I _think_ policy is on their side.  We even have a speedy criteria for stale drafts (G13).  That said, I can't tell how long it had been since these have been edited. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 10:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
:: They weren't deleted because they were stale. There were deleted because they were [[WP:WEBHOST]] with zero intent on making them into article and because they were pure hoaxes. He could have created them that day, it was still going to be deleted. For example, [[Draft:Cliques & Cliches (Web-Series)]] was created on September 18, 2015, and deleted on October 7th. No one called that stale. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 21:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''', closure reflects the consensus of the discussion. I would be open to restoring on request of the original author any article which he intends to actively work on. Most were stale since June 2015. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 10:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. (1) Several reasons were given for deletion in the deletion discussion, none of which were that the drafts were "stale", so the reason given for this review is totally spurious. (2) Even if "stale" had been given as a reason for deletion in the discussion, it would not have been a valid reason for contesting the deletion: the view that it is "wrong" for a community discussion to decide to delete a draft because it is stale is just one editor's opinion, not supported by any policy, guideline, or consensus, as far as I know. (3) The IP address used to open this review is closely similar to one that was used in the deletion discussion and determined to be an IP sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor, so it is pretty certain that this review was started by the same blocked editor, evading his or her block. <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "[[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]]" ([[User talk:JamesBWatson#top|talk]]) 11:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' per above. While this might not seem like the most obvious hoax, a search for the name of this publisher under this tile or "Angelman Books" (supposedly its original name) brings up nothing except for Wikipedia mirrors. This makes it extremely likely that this is a hoax as well. A little snooping around for other info gives off the strong impression that this is all something created by someone who is likely very young and wanted to use Wikipedia as a bit of a webhost for things that they made up one day. [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]][[User talk:Tokyogirl79|'''<span style="color:#19197; background:#fff;"> (｡◕‿◕｡)</span>''']] 05:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}