VideoPad – No consensus to overturn. The matter comes down to the differences when closing a debate on whether to delete or to redirect. We assume when an article is deleted that the physical action of deletion occurs. When we vote to redirect, no deletion happens and the article is redirected. The question in this debate is whether deletion is necessarily required. Does a redirect achieve the same result to our readers while leaving advantages to our users? The arguments for each side are either that it would set precedent where redirects are systematically not deleted or that redirects do not necessarily require systematic deletion. Neither argument is well supported nor opposed explicitly in policy and so this comes down to a matter of consensus. Unfortunately, no consensus has prevailed and the status quo remains. However, I will contact the deleting admin and try to negotiata a drama-reducing solution to this problem.--v/r - TP 21:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Nom and closing sysop have agreed to relist this at AFD.--v/r - TP 21:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I am not disputing the assessment that VideoPad is not notable. I find the other editors' arguments weak but can understand how a closing admin can come to the conclusion that the consensus is VideoPad is not notable. However, I disagree with the deletion of the redirect's history. As shown in this revision (the revision that was deleted), the article contains several reliable sources and content that could be useful to a future non-admin editor that found more sources.
My second preference (after "keep") is to redirect to NCH Software (with the history preserved under the redirect). A redirect would be better than a red link because this is a plausible search term. Preserving the history under the redirect would be better than deleting the history. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre:
The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.
A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.
Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.
In sum, the benefits of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.
There is no consensus for automatic deletion of page history when an outcome is "redirect" (though there's also no consensus against that deletion when appropriate), and several contributors felt that a number of well-argued !votes in favor of "merge" and "redirect" should lead to a closure of "no consensus" rather than "keep", since the latter close suggests that the content was accepted as-is.
I believe the deletion here is inappropriate because the deleted content is useful and does not violate a core policy like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The encyclopedia does not benefit from its deletion. The closing admin declined to restore the article's history.
Please restore the article's history under the redirect.
Endorse deletion. This belongs to WP:REFUND. However, what violates Wikipedia's fundamental policies (in this case, WP:NOTADVERT) or fails to demonstrate its notability, has no business coming back stealthily, in the form of revisions histories of a redirect. Restoring an article's history is a discretionary action, performed when there are extenuating circumstances like attribution requirements of the contents licensing terms of Wikipedia. In this case however, those "several reliable sources and content that could be useful" are already present in the AfD discussion. I stress that WP:DELREV and WP:REFUND are not avenues of defeating the purpose of an AfD, circumventing consensus or requesting souvenirs for the nostalgic who fondly reminisce the days when the article was live.
Note that the above contribution is by the AfD nom. Unscintillating (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, not the redirect. As I argued to the closer, I think the correct call should have been a simple delete. There was only one !vote to redirect, and that appeared to be a final plea for WP:MERCY after it had become clear the the consensus was otherwise unanimous to delete. I also don't believe the redirect is consistent with the Highbeam source in the Boston Globe that I turned up suggesting there probably is a notable Videopad topic, just not this one. Msnicki (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MERCY is an entry into WP:ATA. It states, "Such arguments make no use of policy or guidelines whatsoever. They are merely a campaign on the part of the commentator to alter others' points-of-view. They are of no help in reaching a consensus, and anyone responding to such pleas is not helping either." Are you still sure that this "appeared to be a final plea for WP:MERCY"? Unscintillating (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no article for, say, Videopad (1993), how is the current redirect not "consistent" with a topic that does not exist on Wikipedia? Unscintillating (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't offering new arguments in favor of a redirect, he was offering the same arguments as had already been rejected, merely hoping for a different outcome. We do not decide notability of a topic based on whether sources have been cited but whether they exist. By extension, it seems reasonable (and generally supported by WP:DAB) that primary, non-disambiguated articles should refer to the most notable interpretation. I'm not volunteering to write it (it's the beginning of a quarter and I have classes to teach!) but it appears to me that there is a notable Videopad topic, just not this one. But as I also said during the AfD, this may simply be a case of WP:TOOSOON. If this product becomes notable as new sources appear, I see no reason why this article can't be recreated. Msnicki (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore edit history The key here is whether the closer deleted for wp:notability or for content. Neither the close nor the admin's talk page discussion states the reason for deletion. The vast majority of the discussion was in regard to wp:notability, although one of the five commentators states, "Looks like advertising to me." As stated, this !vote is a personal opinion that does not cite a policy. Based on the preponderance of evidence, this deletion was for wp:notability, which means there is no policy basis to keep the edit history deleted under the redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore history A decision to delete an article on notability grounds is a decision that a topic should not be included as a stand-alone article. It is not a decision that a topic should not be covered at all. It may be entirely appropriate for the topic to be covered elsewhere and it is absurd to place obstacles in the way of achieving this. If the content of the deleted article is abusive then history deletion will be justified. If an editor were to become disruptive in using material in the history then deletion or other remedial actions might become necessary. Thincat (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore history unless the history is inappropriately promotional. The closing admin said 'I am not swayed by your arguments in favor of keeping the edit history'. I'm aware this is going to look like undue micromanagement of the closing admin's task, but the question should be asked the other way around: is there a good reason to delete the history? Unless the article was inappropriately promotional -- I can't tell -- there is no good reason. Let's put it another way: what was the substance of the consensus? Was there a consensus to delete the article's history? Or was the consensus that the subject of the article does not merit a Wikipedia page? Surely it was the latter. That's why a redirect was the correct outcome, but the deletion of the page's history was not. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Erm... it is inappropriately promotional. The article to which it is redirect is also promotional. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the article before it was deleted, and it was not inappropriately promotional. The article it redirects to is not promotional. It contains a lengthy "Criticism" section, which occupies much of the article's prose. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral My close was based on my reading of the consensus ("delete"). Given that redirects are cheap (and, if a better target comes up, can easily be changed), I saw no harm in leaving a redirect. I'm not impressed by arguments to leave the history: those apply to all articles that we delete for reasons other than promotion or BLP concerns. Having said that, I have no strong feelings about this either way. Funny, this is the first time that a close of mine managed to draw flak from both sides of the debate :-) --Randykitty (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.pcmag.com/author-bio/michael-muchmore says, "Michael Muchmore is PC Magazine's lead analyst for software and Web applications. A native New Yorker, he has at various times headed up PC Magazine’s coverage of Web development, enterprise software, and display technologies."
The article says, "Product not yet reviewed by PCMag Editors", though I'm still inclined to consider this a reliable source since PC Magazine published it. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Reading the AfD, this seems like a clear consensus to delete. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline request to restore the history, on grounds of procedure. The "delete" closure appears uncontested. As such, there is no particular reason to restore the history, which would change the outcome from "delete" to "redirect" contrary to the consensus correctly established as a result of the discussion. If we decide to delete an article, then this applies to its history as well. As has been said above, the argument to restore the history would apply to almost every article deleted on notability grounds, and would contravene settled community consensus to reject any form of "soft" deletion where deleted content routinely remains user-accessible. Sandstein 07:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I contest the "delete and redirect" result. The result should have been "redirect (with the history preserved under the redirect)".
As noted above by Unscintillating, Thincat, and Mkativerata, the substance of the AfD's consensus was that the subject does not merit a Wikipedia page. That conclusion does not foreclose the possibility of retaining the redirect's history.
Thincat put it well: "It may be entirely appropriate for the topic to be covered elsewhere and it is absurd to place obstacles in the way of achieving this."
Because VideoPad's non-policy-violating history can be used in a selective merge or in a draft if new sources are found, keeping it deleted would be a net negative to the encyclopedia.
I disagree with your interpretation. The AfD was not closed as "redirect". It was closed as "delete". After deletion, a redirect was, put in place at your suggestion, as they are cheap and can easily be re-targeted if a better target becomes available later. All the other policies about fixing problems and such apply before an article goes to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability is not a content policy/guideline, and hasn't been since early 2008. So when an article is deleted for wp:notability, there is no content in the article that needs fixing. Even now you have not explained (unless I missed it) your close as to whether it was for wp:notability or for a content policy. It is the current consensus that you deleted in this case for wp:notability. Do you want to amend your closing? Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion policyis a policy and specificly states at WP:DEL#REASON #8: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)". So I fail to see the relevance of your remark about "WP:Notability is not a content policy/guideline" (which is partially incorrect, it is a guideline). --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.
WP:Notability is not a content policy, it is a guideline as to whether a topic has received enough attention from the world at large to merit a standalone article rather than a lesser role within a larger topic, and requires no sourcing in an article. Nor is WP:N a deletion policy, although a special case exists within WP:Deletion policy for when there is no suitable larger topic.
Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):
”
In the case of wp:notability, the "offending section" is the data structure in which the topic is posted as a standalone article. Policy here is that "improvement...is preferable to deletion". WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion similarly states,
I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand where you are going. My close was based on the whole article not meeting any notability guideline and no convincing arguments that improvement would be possible. To me, that means "delete". --Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A baseline issue is what do our policies and guidelines say, which may or may not be that with which editors agree. The first sentence of WP:N states, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." So if your close was based on the article rather than the topic, IMO that provides the basis for an out-of-process deletion. The improvability of the topic is not a point of contention, since you improved the topic to correct the problem of non-notability. So WP:Notability is not a current point of contention. WP:Deletion policy states, "improvement...is preferable to deletion", and the topic has been improved. Is there another policy that supports keeping the edit history deleted? How does keeping the edit history deleted improve the encyclopedia? Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (from "Delete, then redirect" to "Redirect with history intact").
Cunard's !vote was not opposed or referred to, but just ignored. Including by the closer.
The closer and Msnicki cited WP:TOOSOON. However, WP:TOOSOON is not a argument for deletion where there is a merge and redirect target. The clear implication of TOOSOON is that the topic may possibly be suitable for coverage, it is not (yet) suitable for a standalone article. Giving a topic a standalone article is a higher test than allowing coverage. Msnicki made no argument that the content was unsuitable for any article and that history deletion was required.
The_Banner's issue is a fixable issue, especially when content is merged.
Rhododendrites makes a detailed argument for why the topic doesn't meet the GNG. However, the GNG specifically limits standalone articles, and does not speak to content contained within an article, and therefore his !vote does not imply a requirement to delete the history.
Nobody argues to delete and redirect. Cunard argued against deleting the history when redirecting.
Why not just expand the coverage at the target without relying on the deleted content? Because that is content forking and dangerous with regards to Wikipedia copyright compliance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I closed as "delete" because the article did not meet WP:GNG, as argued in the AfD (and I note that even the person intitiating this appeal explicitly states above that he is not contesting the lack of notability). TOOSOON was not given as an argument for deletion, nor did I use it in the close. Citing TOOSOON in situations like this usually is mostly done to emphasize a current lack of significant coverage, not excluding that perhaps such coverage may become available in the future. --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not meeting the GNG is not per se a reason for deletion if there is a redirect target. Thinking it is a common misconception about WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete, because that's what the consensus in the afd plainly was. (The editorially-created redirect is acceptable.) Filibustering the same points over and over when they've already failed to convince anyone creates no onus to repeat the rebuttals already given. —Cryptic 05:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, and should not be calculated solely by the balance of votes.
I've begun to write things about this on several occasions but them changed my mind. I find the matter rather difficult because it turns on how much weight to give to an argument that was made and not refuted, but simply ignored. I suspect we'll see more and more such cases as participation at AfD continues to wane. On the one hand, it shouldn't be necessary for those advocating deletion to isolate and destroy every single argument in favour of keeping it; but on the other hand, it shouldn't be possible to defeat a well-reasoned argument by sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending you didn't hear it.
The business about meeting the GNG is a red herring. Whether or not something meets the GNG has no bearing on whether there should be a redirect. It also has no bearing on whether to delete the history under the redirect. On balance I think that there's a rough consensus that the redirect should continue to exist; and therefore, this being a wiki, there's a presumption that the history should be visible. If there's a particular revision that's problematic for some reason, it can be revdelled, but to remove the entire history is uncalled-for.—S MarshallT/C 11:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Michael and Marisa – The deletion is endorsed and the requester has been blocked as a sockpuppet. There is disagreement about whether the new-found sources justify a recreation of the article. Most participants seem to think that there is a basis for an established editor who is clearly not associated with any banned editors or groups to recreate the article, but any recreation may be then resubmitted for a deletion discussion by any other editor. – Sandstein 21:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wrongly deleted. Closer of deletion discussion said that he could not find sufficient notable articles about the subject. There is a very long list of notable activity and articles about the subject. Currently requesting to have notable activity and articles about the subject reviewed and to overturn the decision to delete this page. There was not enough discussion on the proposal for deletion page to make a consensus. Discussion was mainly attributed to the closer. Here are the notable activities and articles:
Each source on this list includes a link to a wikipedia article to confirm that the source is viable, credible and reputable.
MICHAEL AND MARISA HAVE BEEN CONCERT OPENERS FOR:
Rixton (Top 40 Artist, opening for Ariana Grande 2015)
Mattel Toys has a line of dolls called: “I Can Be….”. The dolls have different occupations such as doctor, pilot, veterinarian etc. Marisa was asked by Mattel to represent the line as the “I Can Be….a Drummer.” Here is the link to the video that Mattel made and put on their web site. There was a video for each occupation on the site.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrvaIpKUsSc
Patch Game company made over 70,000 games with three different Michael and Marisa song titles. Patch enclosed in the games a CD with the Michael and Marisa song matching the title of the game or a download card with their song.
This strikes me as an anti-paid-editing action, I am sorry to say. Although the morass of sources above is difficult to parse THIS from the Boston Globe and THIS from Parents magazine should be more than sufficient to get these tween popsters over the GNG hump, particularly given our loose community standards for notability of musical groups. THIS from Popstar.online should count towards GNG. There is a whole lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT at AfD sometimes; this should be a clear GNG keep. (PS The comments of the two IPs above me aren't helping — just back off.) Carrite (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
There are other sources at http://michaelandmarisa.com/press (archiveurl). I therefore support restoring the article because the topic has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
The following link has triggered a protection filter: google.com/url?sa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D18%26ved%3D0CEwQFjAHOAo%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Ftabs.ultimate-guitar.com%252Fm%252Fmichael_and_marisa%252Fbeautiful_comeback_crd.htm%26ei%3DL_keVNSANtSnyASThYH4DQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNG6Z7Ntqm7gskbiDdnjr_tKbLs9VQ
Obviously endorse my own close (no other choice, really), but equally obviously no objection to the article existing if it is genuinely notable and there are sources out there that were not brought up at the AfD. Would probably be best to move it to Draft space if so? (btw, I have added the delrev template). Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest userfication. I honestly think this is a GNG pass, wrongly decided. There's obviously (fan) energy for a page, it's more or less a matter of sifting sources and getting this this launched again. Wrongly decided in the debate, no objection to the close per se. Carrite (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Black Kite and Carrite: I support a direct restoration to mainspace. The sources I provided in citation templates above can be copied by anyone to the references section of the article. That would make {{db-repost}} no longer applicable. I cannot do that since the article is deleted, but would the DRV closer consider doing that? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Consensus in the AFD was clear and no way one can question the closure.The issue about sources where it meet or did not meet WP:GNG or failed WP:SIGCOV was discussed in the AFD which was open for 15 days and do not see any significant new information.Further here Closer's judgement here is not in question neither has it been discussed with the Closing admin Black Kite first.Hence this Deletion review needs to be closed.Deletion Review should not be used :
1:because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
2:when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
5:to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion.
A respectful response to the comment directly above:
Although the discussion was open for 15 days, there were too few participants to carry out a full discussion.
Points made previously were not intended to be repeated here, but instead were one by one substantiated with a link to a wikipedia page containing a necessary definition.
Contact was made twice with someone with Frog or Froggy in their name who was thought to be the closer.
No WikiExpert was ever hired and no WikiExpert has ever participated in editing this page.
All efforts have been made to respect and follow the rules of wikipedia.
All efforts have been made toward substantiating the viability of the subject.
Further discussion would be appreciated including a specific description of what is lacking so that any shortfall may be addressed if there is one.
Endorse closure as accurately reflecting consensus in the discussion, but at the same time Permit Recreation based on the sources found by User:Carrite. Lankiveil(speak to me) 10:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The plan is to update the page immediately. It would save a tremendous amount of time if you would put the page back up so that edits can be made from it rather than have to start from scratch again. Please empathize with those of us who are not as Wikipedia savvy. Perhaps you can give a time frame by which updates and improvements need to be made? Thanks for your consideration. Tuesday536 (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Tuesday536[reply]
These discussions are usually open for seven days, at which point a call will be made by a neutral administrator to either undelete or keep it deleted. I could restore the page for you, but that would open us up for further chicanery and pointless bureaucracy. I think just waiting for this process to finish naturally rather than attempting shortcuts will result in the least hassle for everyone involved, yourself included. Lankiveil(speak to me) 12:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, of course....happy to wait for the process to finish naturally and definitely not looking for shortcuts. I didn't realize that the discussion is open for seven days. Thank you very much. Tuesday536 (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Tuesday536[reply]
There was no other way to actually read the discussion at that AFD than as "delete." However, had the initial nominator followed the steps outlined in WP:BEFORE, the nomination never would have been made, given that they would've found the sources listed in this deletion review. Given that, I endorse the closure as reflecting consensus at the discussion, but recommend that this article be speedily restored, and perhaps that an admonishment regarding WP:BEFORE be given to the initial nominator. LHMask me a question 12:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sustain but permit recreation using no previous material. Tho Carrite obviously disagrees, I am very willing to evaluate any borderline situation an article written by a paid editor as meriting deletion. In this case, if the article was written by Wikiexperts, they're a banned editor as of Oct 17, 2013, and that is sufficient reason for deletion. I do not think we need in all cases to remove good work by editors banned for some other reason than their article editing, but if G5 applies anywhere, it should apply here. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Need to reiterate one more time that No Paid Editor Was Ever Used To Write Anything on the Michael and Marisa page. When the article was nominated for deletion we googled what to do and the Wikiexperts came up. We emailed one time asking how to handle the situation and they emailed back saying to post credible articles. We posted their response on the deletion page for all to see. That was the only correspondence with them and at the time we did not know they were banned. They did not edit the page or have anything to do with the page. We certainly would not knowingly communicate with anyone banned from the site. Fortunately they had nothing to do with the content on the site. Thank you. Tuesday536 (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Tuesday536[reply]
Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others. G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or to categories that may be useful or suitable for merging.
To qualify, the edit must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block does not qualify.
To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's block or ban. For example, pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are in some other topic.
The article cannot be speedily deleted per {{db-banned}} because the policy says, "A page created before the ban or block does not qualify." Michael and Marisa existed in 2009, WikiExperts didn't exist until 2010, and the ban was not enacted until October 2013.
I agree with Lithistman that the article should be speedily restored because of the newly found sources that were not discussed at the AfD.
From: James Cummins <jc@wikiexperts.us>
To:
Sent: Wed, Sep 10, 2014 9:47 am
Subject: Response to your inquiry about visibility in Wikipedia
Dear
Thank you for considering WikiExperts! In order to determine if you qualify for a Wikipedia profile, can you please send us 7-10 examples of substantial press coverage you have received over your career (not including press releases), which have not already appeared on the page? These kinds of references are required for any new entry to stay up on the site.
Best regards,
James Cummins
COO, WikiExperts.us
JC@WikiExperts.us
(917) 725-2030
Skype: jc.wikiexpert
Dear James,
Many thanks for your response. Here are the articles you requested about Michael and Marisa. After all the on line links there is a link to newspaper press. Please let me know what other information you need so that the page is not deleted. The duo has an album they wrote about to be released (Jonas Brothers co-wrote a song), just toured the U.S. with platinum top 40 artist "Rixton" as their concert opener, and will be touring as opener for Demi Lovato later this month. I appreciate whatever you can communicate at Wikipedia so that the Michael and Marisa page stays active as it has been since 2009. It definitely needs updating and I will make sure that happens. Many thanks!
The email was sent after the AfD started, indicating that WikiExperts had no involvement in the article between the article's creation and 10 September 2014. The article was deleted 23 September 2014. If there are any WikiExperts edits to the article between 10 September 2014 and 23 September 2014, those edits can be reverted pursuant to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5. Creations by banned or blocked users. Based on Tuesday536 (talk·contribs)'s above post, it appears that contact was made with WikiExperts in an effort to save the article, but no edits from WikiExperts or other paid editors were made. Therefore, none of the content violates {{db-banned}}.
Endorse deletion, do not recreate. Call this WP:IAR if you must, but it is clear to me that Tuesday536 not only has a major WP:COI, but is almost certainly a puppet as well, or at the very least not being forthcoming about his or her history. Tuesday's only contributions are to this DRV. Good faith and avoiding COI are fundamental concepts on which Wikipedia depends. I'm not seeing either here. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether the subject of this article is notable enough to maintain an article. The answer is yes. The other concerns regarding T536 are best dealt with using blocks/bans, not by restricting article content. WP:IAR was not, in my opinion, ever intended to be used as a way to keep notable topics from having an article on Wikipedia. LHMask me a question 20:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR is used to improve the encyclopedia, and protecting the project from disruption is within the scope of WP:IAR. Unscintillating (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as disruption, and also salt the topic for six months WP:IAR Requestor is indefinitely blocked, so there is no further need to consider this appeal. The norm for speedy closes is no prejudice against a speedy renomination; however, I support letting this issue sit idle for a while so that the disruption from this request can subside and not affect future decisions. There is no WP:DEADLINE. Unscintillating (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
