Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2014 October 31
2014 November 2 >

1 November 2014

[edit]
  • Polandball – Undelete. The problem with reviews like this is that the issues are muddled. Various people are arguing whether the article is suitable or not, whether the close was done correctly or not, and/or if there are issues with one particular editor which would reflect on the article. The one thing that's clear is that there is a reasonably good consensus here to undelete the article, so that's what I'm going to do. I assume this will quickly be brought to AfD, and that's fine. At AfD, the community will be able to discuss whether the article is suitable for wikipedia, isolated from all these other peripheral questions. No prejudice against anybody bringing this back to AfD if they feel that's appropriate. – -- RoySmith (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Polandball (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In 2012 User:Russavia wrote the article Polandball. It was deleted at AfD. Never before, that I am aware of, have I seen an article deleted in large because of who wrote it or that it is a contentious article. That in itself is unacceptable and plays into Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG, particularly as the verifiability and neutrality of the text in the article was never in question.

The only valid reasoning for the deletion of the article is what Sandstein called "difficult sourcing situation of this article". The article when it was written did not have an abundance of sources, but the sources themselves were good, as demonstrated by the independent endorsement of the assessment of those sources done by Russavia by a Polish editor. The article as it appeared on this project using those sources can be seen, for example, here.

In December 2012, the article was recreated by another editor with different text and it deleted and then had WP:SALT applied to it. This meant that the only avenue to have the article undeleted was here at WP:Deletion review. Given that the deleting admin stood by his "difficult sourcing" comments in the initial AfD, the article would likely not have been undeleted at DRV.

On 19 May 2014, an editor began Draft:Polandball. He was alerted about the initial AfD, and by the looks of it, he didn't do much more work on the draft. On 4 August 2014, Tarc placed {{Db-g4}} on the draft, even though the draft as it stood was not eligible under that criteria. On 6 August 2014, an editor, who it seems identified as Russavia, used the originally deleted article that he wrote, and expanded on it. At the same time the editor who appears to be Russavia started a request at DRV. At that time, Sandstein deleted the draft, and then applied WP:SALT to the draft. The DRV was shut down due to socking, but it still doesn't solve the problem that we have.

Whilst the only valid reason for deletion at the AfD may have been true at the time, although disputed by reviewing many of the comments at the AfD and the above-mentioned assessment of sources, that reason is no longer valid. A review of the expanded text, as can be seen at tr:Kullanıcı:Russavia/Polandball, clearly shows that Polandball continues to receive coverage, even in 2014.

Here is a review of the sources as seen in the tr.wp draft, and which was present at Draft:Polandball

  1. Gazeta Wyborcza - refer to C:User:Russavia/Sources
  2. Cooltura - refer to C:User:Russavia/Sources
  3. Przegląd - refer to C:User:Russavia/Sources
  4. Knowyourmeme - well known site on memes, used for one fact in the article which isn't under dispute, so discussion on whether KYM is reliable or not is basically moot in this discussion
  5. O'Reilly Verlag - this is a book published on internet memes, and the publisher is well known and regarded on topics of computers and internet.
  6. Vox Media - clearly a reliable source
  7. Hiro.pl - refer to C:User:Russavia/Sources
  8. Spider's Web - blogging platform with content provided by recognised experts in their relevant field. Used as a source on Polish Wikipedia a fair bit. An English-language equivalent is Techcrunch or Gizmodo.
  9. The cartoon isn't a source
  10. Onet.pl - Polands largest web portal, similar to msn.com.
  11. Apple Daily - a Hong Kong newspaper with Taiwanese edition and clearly a reliable source
  12. Adam Mickiewicz Institute - a government-sponsored organization funded by the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage of Poland. Its goal is to promote the Polish language and Polish culture abroad. The Institute operates a bilingual Polish-English portal called "Culture.pl" created in 2001. There is clearly editorial oversight.

Furthermore, in November 2013, a conference was held at the Institute of Literary Research (pl:Instytut Badań Literackich PAN); the institute is under the aegis of the Polish Academy of Science. One of the lectures given at the conference was titled "Polandball. Dlaczego memy śmieją się z polskiej historii?", which Google translate tells me means "Why memes make fun of Polish history?" The person who delivered the lecture has written an in-depth paper on the subject of Polandball and it is to be published in a scholarly journal in Poland. That Polandball was featured at a conference under the aegis of PAN dealing with Polish literature only serves to double-cement the notability of Polandball.

Other instances of Polandball in the media, include:

  1. This radio segment by Vesti FM references Polandball (as ru:Польшар). In fact, not only does it reference Polandball, but it directly references the article for Polandball on Russian Wikipedia.
  2. Polandball was seen at the Euromaiden protests, and photos of this piece was carried by Reuters and other sources.
  3. File:Juwenalia krakowskie 2013 (Artur Biernat).jpg clearly shows participants in pl:Juwenalia krakowskie carrying Polandballs.
  4. (Adding some presented further down to this list Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)) Article about Polandball's usage in the Crimea crisis.[reply]
  5. Article from France's equivalent of NPR (in French)
  6. Article from a news source with 19 million monthly readers, according to User:JTdale.
  7. German book about the meme.

There is little doubt that Polandball is notable and that the reasons for the initial deletion are no longer valid.

I have also reviewed the text provided by Russavia, and I can see no problems with it. In fact, it is, as all of Russavia's writing is, well-written and fully referenced -- similar to Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland? which he wrote using sock accounts. As Russavia, as an IP, mentioned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 6 he has released his contributions to Draft:Polandball (the expansion) under CC-Zero and it's my intent, after verifying myself the information, to include this in the Polandball article.

Polandball is #4 at Wikipedia:Articles in many other languages but not on English Wikipedia and it is now time to stop the MMORPG and put this clearly notable article where it belongs -- on English Wikipedia in mainspace. (t) Josve05a (c) 03:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete, to have appropriate attribution as per prior work on the article, and allow further quality improvement efforts by others on the article. The detailed and well-written statement by the nominator, Josve05a, is compelling. But it is also quite significant that Polandball is #4 at Wikipedia:Articles in many other languages but not on English Wikipedia. — Cirt (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Undelete, per Josve05a and as per Cirt --Kolega2357 (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, Edoderoo (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, per Josve05a –ebraminiotalk 08:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete I always felt this was deleted because of Russavia, not because of the article. If WP couldn't get him for Pricasso, at least it could whack some of his other articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the admin who closed the AfD, I'd like to emphasize that the article was deleted because I established that consensus was in favor of deletion, not because of who wrote it. However, the fact that the article was the pet project of a now-banned editor, who it appears tried to use the topic to propagate negative nationalist stereotypes, and sought to recreate the article via socks, contributed to its salting, as well as the fact that it was also a hotbed of WP:ARBEE-related nationalist conflict. I don't object to other editors recreating the article in a version that addresses the sourcing problems identified in the deleted version, as it seems is likely possible, but the topic area remains subject to discretionary sanctions, and any sort of problematic conduct, including proxy editing for banned editors, may lead to blocks or topic bans relatively quickly.  Sandstein  10:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: "proxy editing for banned editors, may lead to blocks". Since you bring up this, even though it is well know that admins etc is allowed to impose sanctions in these areas for obvious reasons, I have to ask. Is this somesort of a threat, to me, or any other user who might !vote (I know it isn't a vote) in favour of an undeletion. It kinda seems to be written to "scare" people, rather than inform. (Just my 2p's). (t) Josve05a (c) 11:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:PROXYING, "Wikipedians ... are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." Editors who re-post any content written by a banned editor will need to demonstrate that their actions comply with this policy.  Sandstein  11:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • (per above) "As Russavia, as an IP, mentioned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 6 he has released his contributions to Draft:Polandball (the expansion) under CC-Zero and it's my intent, after verifying myself the information, to include this in the Polandball article." After I read the article on tr.wp, I verified the information and was satisfied it was all verifiable. In addition, it is a very well written article. On this basis, I have created sv:Polandball. And furthermore "able to show that the changes are either verifiable" (checkY) "or productive" (checkY helps the encyclopedia) "independent reasons" (checkY I hate this WP:MMORPG-shit.). Happy? (t) Josve05a (c) 11:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Certainly – you recreating the article on this basis isn't a problem in my view, if consensus here is in favor of it (even though I'm not sure that reusing content written and released under these circumstances is entirely kosher in terms of licensing and attribution). But given the previous sock- and meatpuppetry in this topic area, any subsequent edits by others may also need closer examination, hence my comment above.  Sandstein  13:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the article was deleted because the sourcing was weak, and the original closing nominator was correct to do so. Looking at the sources in the Turkish draft (and why is Russavia drafting articles in English on trwp anyway?), of those that are in English, they only mention Polandball in passing. I do not feel that they represent significant coverage, and I don't see that Polandball is getting any better coverage now than it was back then. I will note that I can't read the Polish or German articles, so that coverage may be more significant. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Undelete, personal vendettas should never come in the way of building the encyclopedia..I have seen many times a few admins including sandstein who have deleted articles only because it was created by a banned user, content trumps bans, let that be known..Polandball is very notable, i frequent forum boards, it gets discussed quite a lot..--Stemoc 12:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Encyclopaedic content should come before petty vendettas, Jimbo style crude politics, and threatening behaviour from trusted users towards each other. Embarrassing. --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Encyclopaedic, per above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a comment to the closing administrator, it is surprising to see so many editors who have relatively few edits on this Wikipedia appear here in so short a time to express the same opinion. The closer may want to consider the possibility of canvassing.  Sandstein  13:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to potentially discriminating against !votes here from contributors with "relatively few edits on this Wikipedia", presumably a comment against those known best for their Commons contributions, it is worth noting that Russavia has made more edits on this project than Sandstein, as have I. I believe this is an irrelevant tangent to the issue of whether this is encyclopaedic content or not, so I hope that it has no influence on the outcome of this DR. --Fæ (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closing administrator may wish to consider the poisoning the well effect that Sandstein's threats outside of this discussion have, along with their apparent inability to walk away from Russavia's case and leave this to someone with no apparent axe to grind on the matter. Certainly nobody, including myself, would want to have an annoyed Sandstein on their backs looking for possible reasons to use their powers against you. Comments such as "any subsequent edits by others may also need closer examination" make for a hostile environment. Fæ (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closing adminstrator may also wish to consider the poisioning the well effect that Fæ's comments towards Sandstein and assignment of motives to them, etc. may have. I don't think the comments being made here by Sandstein are necessarily helpful, but your comment matches those and more. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: As User:Josve05a said at the beginning, the sources were, for the most part, reliable. A few months ago, I started a userspace draft based upon the Simple English Wikipedia version and posted about it in the WikiProject Internet culture talk page, which led to a lengthy discussion on my talk page about Polandball that discussed, among other things, the sourcing of this page. Beliefs can change about what is and isn't worthy of an article, so the results that AfD two and a half years ago could very possibly be different from how they are now. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: per Josve05a and Cirt. INeverCry 20:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and let a new generation of editors work on any problems the article had back in 2012. If it exists on other Wikipedia's it is illogical to have its existence on the English-language Wikipedia forbidden. To have it 4th [1] on the list of recommended articles that are said "should be started immediately", yet to be unable to start it, is unsustainable. The AfD seemed to have been unusually heated, and unusually personal. To have the perception that personal vendettas could have been involved is not unreasonable. Delete votes were made by editors involved in the Eastern European Mailing List scandal - did Sandstein include them amongst the "editors who have block log entries for problematic conduct with respect to Eastern Europe" whose votes he said he discounted? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Regardless of whether there was a rational basis for deletion earlier, enough usable references have now been presented. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: To let this vendetta have such a direct impact on article content is a bad idea, and based on the judgment of our colleagues on foreign-language Wikipedias (some of which even granting DYKs to their equivalent Polandball articles), the topic is clearly an encyclopedic one. When everybody except for the English Wikipedia is accepting of this article, you know there's something strange going on. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt draftspace  With the attribution problems, including the history here, history from a banned user, and history from other Wikipedia's, it is less clear how to proceed on the details.  There is no need to unsalt mainspace before there is an article at draftspace.  There is WP:NPASR when a mainspace article exists.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - Arguements that the sources were insufficient were dodgy the first time, and would be pretty laughable now. Similarly, applying a strict headcount when delete was relying on bogus "it's an attackpage" and "sources aren't English" was very dodgy in the first close. Ultimately, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND applies both ways. WilyD 10:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and keep deleted. This is a racist pet project of Russavia's, the sourcing amounts to trivial mentions and knowyourmeme.com-style unreliable sources. Go find some way to host it on Commons, its right up their alley. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not abuse words with your own personal definitions. Explain how the page is racist, while keeping in mind that, one, the article is not about Poland, and two, Poles are an ethnic group and not a race. This is precisely what I mean by personal vendettas ruining the community. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is the case (and I'm not sure where the evidence pointing to Russavia being a racist actually is), then may I remind everyone that per WP:PILLAR, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that includes racists, pedophiles, murderers, communists, anti-communists, blacks, whites, Jews, non-Jews, pro-abortionists, and anti-abortionists. If there is anything to argue about a person, it should be their conduct on Wikipedia, and not what kind of person they are. If Russavia has broken rules on Wikipedia, argue that; crying that Russavia is a "racist" is a nonsensical ad hominem. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The target of my comment is not unclear; the word "racism" also covers ethnic slurs and stereotypes, and all this worthless article has ever been about is the advancement of an obscure, racist in-joke. I have no knowledge of whether the article originator is racist, and do not at this point really care. I do not interact with IP editors in the context of controversial topics areas, so the likely identity-obscuring person behind it is instructed to not ping me again on this matter. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But if this is just promoting the advancement of racism, then what about Ku Klux Klan, Blackface, or freaking Ethnic joke? Polandball's in the same vein as these (albeit less extreme than the first), and after all, we're an encyclopedia. If there's good sources (as there are for this one), the content doesn't matter beyond whether or not it's encyclopedic, which is generally proven by the aforementioned sources. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction isn't difficult: racist topics are ok, but not racist articles aren't. The deleted revisions at both Polandball and Draft:Polandball were incorrigibly the latter. Keep deleted. Unsalting draftspace might be worth trying, but I sure don't want to be the poor guy who has to police it for forever. —Cryptic 18:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So issues with one version of an article are fixed forever? WP is now to be censored to avoid the "difficult" topics? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that, and didn't mean that at all - we can conceivably have a worthwhile, NPOV article on Polandball, but restoring the deleted revisions will make it much harder. There's attempts to clean up the article in the deleted history, but they never come close. The last nontrivial edit before the most recent speedy (admin-only link) is illustrative. And that's even before another Russavia sock comes along and pastes the very worst versions back in yet again. —Cryptic 20:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So restore a good version (or the best of what we've got if there aren't any good ones), clean it up & add refs presented here, then leave it as a regular article. If any issues arise with IP's screwing with it or anything, we could slap a protection on it or list it under the ones for Pending Changes. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 20:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech, or know-your-meme, or trolling. No evidence of mistaken delete. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Not notable, this is basically a private joke. —Neotarf (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Polandball is one of the internets most popular memes, though sadly mainstream english language coverage is hard to find. Based on what has been listed and the fact I did find further coverage in a german language book (though I don't fully understand it; see here), undelete. I've just come here from another AfD attempt on work by this user simply for the fact that this user wrote it, and it is pretty ridiculous. JTdale Talk 02:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong undelete, as based on the sources shown here and at the Simple English page, there is sufficient sourcing for Polandball to meet notability criteria. In any case, both Polandball and Draft:Polandball should be un-salted as creation protecting a page after only two instances of (what only appears to be a suspicion of) socking is ridiculous. BTW, I often read these "Polandball" comics online and it's nothing more than a geopolitical satire that pokes harmless fun at stereotypes and history; to claim it to be "racist" or a "hotbed of nationalistic conflict" is overexaggeration at best and heavy ignorance of the topic at worst. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 06:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and speedy close. As much of the commentary here demonstrates, this does not primarily involve DRV-related issues, but a complex of article-related, behavior-related, and trolling-related issues that demand structured, centralized,and prominent discussion. The accusations leveled at, and aspersions cast on, Tarc and Sandstein here are disgraceful and suggest bad faith, further supporting the point that the dispute is not really about this article, but another example of a long trail of seamy misbehavior surfacing again. The simple english article touted in several comments is an atrocious collection of NPOV violations and poor sourcing, and borders on proxying for its en-wiki banned creator; that the simple English wikipedia is becoming a refuge for en-wiki's banned incorrigibles suggests that WMF needs to be more active in project metagovernance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But for Sandstein to threaten to block other editors who want to see it recreated is OK? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Sandstein to point out, correctly, that existing sanctions covering issues related to the article authorize blocking of editors who misbehave is not only OK, but borders on necessary. Simplifing and personalizing such issues is not OK. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it "borders on necessary", it is of course not actually necessary, thus unnecessary. The helpful mafioso pointing out what a nice pizzeria you have there and how it would be a shame for anything to happen to it, is of course merely handing out logically consistent fire safety advice.
Of course policy on misbehaviour still applies, but it is not necessary to point this out at every instance. For Sandstein to choose to do so in this particular instance is not about ensuring the moral rectitude of all concerned, it is simply a veiled threat that he has the power to block editors and is ready to do so to defend his opinions in a content battle. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And why is this relevant material? I, for one, don't know who this "Russavia" is, having never interacted with him, or why he was blocked, etc., and neither do I care because that's irrelevant - as Polandball is a notable topic and that alone means it deserves an article on Wikipedia. What's being done here is that certain editors have effectively stood up a strawman that attempts to reposition this debate from one about the notability of Polandball to one about the (mis)behaviour of Russavia and other editors. And people are falling for it. Polandball is a notable topic and therefore needs an article - that's what matters. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 21:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who does not yet know who Russavia is should really know who Russavia is. In gaining the knowledge you will learn such a lot about Wikipedia. I wrote a paper on the "Eastern European Mailing List" scandal for an IT course I was attending at the time the story broke, so I know quite a lot about it (but, alas, I have lost the actual paper). You could start by searching WikiLeaks (search for "Wikipediametric"), note the names involved and note their methodology. Here is where the news broke on Wikipedia: [6] (make sure you click on show). Here is the arbitration case: [7]. If you really want to go into it deep, check the talk pages of those involved at the time the case developed. There is also off-wiki stuff if you want to look. The missing email sent to Sandstein by one of the conspirators is (for me) the big unknown. I believe that the only comment on the scandal from Jimmy Wales was along the lines of "this has nothing to do with me". Sandstein said something similar. Check the block log for Russavia, note the names involved. Check the methods and route and progression used to attain the indefinite blocking, note how similar they were to his previous "indefinite blocking" that happened just before the EEML story broke. Always have regard of the names involved. Sense their delight here [8]. And be afraid. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks, but I'd rather not get involved into all that mess. In all fairness ample derailing tactics are being employed here by both sides which has resulted in the discussion becoming centered more on Russavia and other contributors personally rather than Polandball's notability. I've already !voted here so I see no need to comment further; all that's left is for a (hopefully) impartial admin to come to this debate, realize the obvious consensus, and restore the article. Because it's notable. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 02:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. At this stage, we should focus on the notability of the topic based on third-party coverage, going into the old dramas only serves to distract and puts the discussion on a wrong bend. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree with the above. This discussion is about notability and the past state, supposed racism, creator or any such silliness has no bearing on the discussion and anyone who keeps saying endorsing deletion because of previous content needs to reassess how Wikipedia works. Article content can be changed, fixed, referenced, deleted and so on. It's overarching notability that matters. If simple wikipedia can get a reasonable article written on the subject, then I don't see why english wikipedia can't. JTdale Talk 08:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I totally agree. I wish the discussion would remain just about notability. But it already was becoming centered more on Russavia. Satellizer asked why this was happening, so I answered. And I think the EEML affair should be compulsory reading for every new editor because it is a case study showing the reality of everyday Wikipedia does not always live up to the ideals of how it should work. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, private joke and trolling. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's borderline. The sources listed aren't all that strong (certainly no where near as strong as the nom makes it seem). We've deleted better sourced things due to a lack of sourcing. But there is enough that I'd !vote to keep at an AfD. I can't say deletion was mistaken, but I'm leaning toward allow recreation without prejudice to a new AfD as there is enough to meet WP:N and enough to manage a reasonable article. Hobit (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but allow recreation (in Draft namespace, please), and expect a new AfD as soon as it moves to mainspace. This is not the place to reargue the merits of the original arguments, but rather the correctness of the close. It seems to me that closing admin Sandstein's rationale was reasonable. The arguments in this deletion review make me think it might be possible to develop an article that meets notabiity requirements, but it's not a sure thing. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete regardless of battleground stature; the subject appears to easily pass notability. Tezero (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_November_1&oldid=1146312027"