This discussion was snow closed while it was in full course. Many opinions were being posted. Lots of arguments were presented for both sides. There a number of SPA contributions, so a thorough review after it has run its full course is warranted, rather than simply head count with clearly took place. I discussed with the closer and asked to undo the close, but they declined and requested to come here.Tvx1 17:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse -- the discussion had high participation and no way it was going to close as "delete". if there are still concerns about notability, suggest re-nominating in a few weeks. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you sure? It was only in its second day of the seven an AFD normally has at least. With events like these, interest drops with every day that passes.Tvx1 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse good closure. In 3-6 months when the news cycle dies down you can try again if you think it isn't notable at that time. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was not me who "tried". I am not the nominator.Tvx1 17:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bad phrasing, I meant the generic you there. Sorry if it came off as flippant. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Consensus was clear, even if I disagreed with it.--WaltCip (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WaltCip. I didn't agree with the consensus either, but it was still consensus. Lepricavark (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse or relist - Although the discussion could have been carried out for the entire week, it would likely have resulted in "No consensus". --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was clear consensus on this discussion to keep, and that probably would not have changed even if a full length discussion had been conducted. The closure was correct. epicgenius (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was a clear consensus to keep the article. There is no reasonable way the discussion could have ended in a delete outcome had it continued. The consensus had grown increasingly strong as the discussion continued, with by my count 30 of the last 31 votes being in favor of keeping, so ending discussion at the point where it was ended seems appropriate. Calathan (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – Discussion appeared split in the early hours but after a day turned to near-unanimous Keep. The exceptional volume of contributions itself speaks of the event's notability. — JFGtalk 21:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I dislike AfD templates remaining on highly trafficked articles, especially when there is zero chance that the discussion would have resulted in a deletion. If concerns still exist it can easily be re-nominated in a few weeks or months. AusLondonder (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse !Vote ratio was overhelmingly moving toward 'keep', with good policy-based arguments. DonFB (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Clear consensus to keep the article. What is needed is a better understanding of our policies and what an encyclopedia vs a news paper is to begin with not a deletion review-- Moxy (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I voted Delete, but I agree with closure. I will co-nom with you in June. L3X1(distant write) 01:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Endorse -- this is mustard after the meal, but I endorse Sandstein's closure of the AfD, and RoySmith closure of the DRV. (Note: I voted to delete, but the number of supported keeps is simply overwhelming, so the decision to close was proper.) Drmies (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The page and its entire history were deleted after less than one day of controversial discussion. If there is a redirect target, the default is to keep the article history unless there is a good reason not to do so. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The discussion was closed prematurely contrary to WP:RAPID and WP:STEAM. The related discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Express Flight 3411 shows that the consensus is shifting in this developing story and so a snap-decision is too hasty. If there is BLP concern about the state of the article while it is being developed, the page could be moved to draft space or courtesy-blanked while the discussion takes place. Deleting the full edit history in the midst of this intense activity seems disruptive. Andrew D. (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse it was clearly headed for a redirect or delete close. Black Kite split the baby here, which was justified because the history had several BLP issues as can be seen on the talk page. Good snow close. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @TonyBallioni:, assuming that "it was clearly headed for a redirect or delete close", why not keep the page history per WP:R#KEEP, bullet one? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per the BLP issues. Removing it from the page history was justified and good in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per the BLP issues, but I'd also point out that R#KEEP refers to deleting a redirect, not deleting an article and replacing it with one. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It was a SNOW close, no chance for another outcome. The good reason for deleting the article history is that it was created to attack the subject. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse-The good reason to delete the article history was that it was primarily an attack page.Iit was near-unanimously headed for a delete close.Black Kite's closure was perfect.Winged Blades Godric 16:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - There were serious BLP issues, through no fault of at least some of the editors concerned. If the article history is to be restored, there will be need of very heavy oversighting. Best to leave deleted. Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Good close; there was only one 'keep' since ~7AM this morning- and that was an SPA with faux reasoning. Discussion was clearly trending heavilly towards del/merge. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse -- I initially voted "redirect", but due to the page (as created by the now indef blocked editor) being virtually an attack page, I changed my vote to "delete". Good & timely close. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- there is no other way the discussion could have ended. ReykYO! 17:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Consensus was clear.--WaltCip (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse clear consensus, good close. Lepricavark (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was clear consensus on this discussion to delete, and that probably would not have changed even if a full length discussion had been conducted. The closure was correct. epicgenius (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Not only delete and I want the entire edit history oversighted. It appears that it is not the same person. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I aware it was the same person - however some papers claimed the passenger on the plane was a different David Dao, who was obviously not happy about being portrayed as having legal issues in the past. I don't think it needs oversighting. Black Kite (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this LA Times article, it is confirmed that the Elizabethtown, KY David Dao is the same David Dao who was on the flight, and that the internet rumors that he man on the flight was a different David Dao are false.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The discussion was IMO incredibly one-sided. There were only a handful of keeps compared to heaps of delete/redirect arguments, and most of the so-called opposing arguments came from one person - the now-indeffed creator of the page who responded to nearly every delete with the exact same points until they were eventually blocked. Looks like this deletion review is headed in the same snowy direction. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The policy-based arguments were very much on the delete side, as was the overwhelming consensus. Perfectly appropriate WP:SNOW close. AusLondonder (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Redirect is the absolutely the right outcome. The page was an attack page at one point with unrelated criminal charges from the past, therefore should not be preserved. Valoemtalkcontrib 22:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Independent of the United Express flight 3411 Incident, Dr. Dao is not notable. His life and accomplishments do not fulfill WP:PROF or WP:ANYBIO. His felony conviction is of local or regional importance but does not rise to the level of national or international notability, he is known for a single event - what happened to him after boarding United Express Flight 3411 this past Sunday. His life prior to his assault has no bearing on his fulfilling the WP:GNG parameters. Shearonink (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids – No consensus to overturn; deletion endorsed by default. I considered listing this at AFD on closer's discretion, but under all the circumstances did not find that approach advisable. A nonpromotional recreation by a neutral editor will likely be far more efficient than a seven-day contentious discussion. – T. Canens (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This is an improper application of CSD G11 by JzG. I'll post my position from my discussion with JzG on their talkpage (slightly edited):
From WP:CSD#G11If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. The WP article is simply the synopsis of the book, followed by its reviews in various publications, including the WSJ, The Guardian, NYT "Economix" blog and the NYT parenting blog. The WP article doesn't say so, but there was an article on the book in the National Post as well. There are 25 citations to the book on Google Scholar; to take a typical one, this article in Psychological Bulletin.
Leaving aside notability, CSD G11 is only in the case of unambiguous promotion, with little chance of dissent. JzG is free to believe that the article is completely promotional, but I don't think so; and I doubt I'm alone in this opinion. If it goes through AfD, I won't object.
Here is a link to the version of the article before it was deleted. Kingsindian♝♚ 11:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have left a notice on Wikiproject Economics. Kingsindian♝♚ 12:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing could possibly be more important than giving SEO spammers their link juice (especially when it also boosts their friends), so fill your boots. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the article in Google's cache. Can we get a temp. undelete? Hobit (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My comment: this could probably be re-written without the spamlinks, which are primary sources anyway. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The EconLib stuff written by Caplan himself, for a start. Actually, the more I look at it, it's not massively notable and should probably be redirected to Caplan's article. You could sum in up in two sentences. Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: I see that the article has 32 references. I count exactly four EconLog posts by Caplan there, about his own book. Even if you remove everything written by Caplan (others are in venues ranging from the WSJ to NYT parenting blog), that still leaves around 24 references. Even if you arbitrarily remove half of the remaining references, that still leaves more than 10 references. How many articles about books have this?
From WP:Notability (books), a book is notable if: The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. Isn't this condition easily satisfied? All I'm arguing is that CSD is not the correct way to deal with such an article. If the article goes through AfD (and people think it ought to be redirected to the Caplan article), I would have no objections. Kingsindian♝♚ 12:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. I think the fact it does have 32 references (many of which are, as Stifle says below, regurgitated press releases) would be suspicious in itself, though. Black Kite (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and fix seems like a reasonable article, and other than what does look to be spamlinks, it's a decent article. Don't think it qualifies for G11. That said, I think we may be at the point that sanctioning editors for doing things like this is past due. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sanctioning someone for fighting spam? Brilliant ideas, there. As for the article itself, it looks more like a reasonable press release than an actual article, and I'm not seem any sign that of any actual impact other than a few book reviews. So arguably fits as a CSD G11. --Calton | Talk 04:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have been more clear. If people are using articles for SEO and that's a known problem by known editors we should do something about it on a larger scale rather than stretching G11 to cover something that (IMO, apparently not shared by those below) it doesn't fit. I am suggesting sanctioning those creating SEO-focused articles. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Borderline, but certainly not an "improper application of CSD G11". --Calton | Talk 04:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, basically a linkfarm to regurgitations of press releases. No objection to anyone recreating an article from scratch. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This confuses me. G11 is for stuff that that can't be easily recovered. Most of the sources sited are reliable including the Guardian and the WSJ. It would be trivial to remove the linkfarm references. I'd do so, but it's generally considered poor form to edit an article that's been temp restored. Hobit (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've created a cut-and-paste draft to show what such an article might trivially look like. It does result in two relevant sentences not having cites, but I think given the nature of the claims, I'm not overly concerned. And I don't think it's G11. Link to draft. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I agree it is borderline, but applying G11 to it isn't an improper application of the criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bad G11, though consistent with current practice of bold admins having wide discretion to force issues by misusing CSD. Bad G11 because some content could be used. The article should be redirected to Bryan_Caplan#Selfish_Reasons_to_Have_More_Kids. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Bad G11. Some wishing for G5 to apply doesn't broaden G11. Until paid editing or other COI editing become objective and speediable, these things can only be sent to AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Good G11. If the book is notable someone else will write about it. Material like this is better removed than kept and edited, because advertising should not be left in the edit history. However, I do not really support single = handed deletions like this. If intead the delting nom had just tagged it and let some other admin delete, I doubt that it would be even questioned here. Avoiding doubt is one of the purposes of having someone else check, not just avoiding error. I feel just as strongly about article like this as the deleting admin, but I don't do it this way. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was the article written by the book author? That I hadn't noted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They don't look like the same person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are not the same person. Vipul knows Caplan and is friendly with him, and vice versa. From a quick skim of the mind-numbing detail on Vipul's paid editing activity, I don't think that there was any payment for the article. Even if there were, it wouldn't be a problem, since it was disclosed. Kingsindian♝♚ 09:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If a PR writer write to help their friend, the result will almost inevitably be PR. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. ...
Overturn The article was somewhat promotional in tone, but insufficient to merit G11. Send to AfD if desired. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*I can't believe I'm reading this. This is insane. Not only can you not CSD this, it should not even go to AfD where it would certainly be kept. The book was written by a George Mason University professor. It got a full review in the Guardian and NPR, so just that alone is enough to meet WP:GNG (and there's a lot more). And it's not even that promotional. It's pretty much matter of fact. (Maybe it's been fixed -- must have been.) Since it easily flies past GNG it would most probably be kept... you're going to take an article that would pass AfD and speedy-delete it? Really? That is not what speedy deletion is meant for. I mean... I get it, I heartily dislike the author, to put it mildly. But there's no CSD criteria for "I don't like this guy or his book, deleted". And it doesn't matter how many "Endorse" votes there are; it's not a vote. You can't CSD this period. Stop even thinking about it. This is not what speedy deletion is for. Herostratus (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Striking my vote and comment above. I did not realize that the article was written by Vipul Naik. Obviously, like all his edits, it should be rolled back on sight. Herostratus (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it should be salted, or just deleted and let someone write a new article from scratch... that's an interesting question. The book itself passes WP:GNG... but there are other questions here, related to the defense of the Wikipedia. If the connection between the article author and subject is true, and the subject is an anarcho-capitalist... this is not a good situation. Anarcho-capitalism is not another kooky political belief, it's more like... you have to deal with an anarcho-capitalist editor as you would with a Sandy Hook truther editor or Jews-did-8/11 editor... You can't be a good anarcho-capitalist and not not feel fully justified in twisting and subverting the Wikipedia's rules for your own pecuniary ends... you can't shame or embarrass these people.
Given that, salt. It's a matter of WP:IAR and defense of the project against overt attack. Salting the article will deprive us of one single article on one notable book, but will discourage further attacks, so its a net benefit to the project. Herostratus (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: That is quite an astonishing turnaround, if I may say so. What "attack" happened here? Someone wrote an article about a book, two years after it came out? What Wiki-crime did they commit? Contra DGG, it is not always the case that "if the book is notable, someone will write an article on it", as is evident here. As far as I can determine, this article was not written for pay. And even if it was, they broke absolutely no rules here; everything they did was openly disclosed. Your comment about "all [Vipul's] edits should be rolled back on sight" has no basis in policy or practice. Finally, what is this action supposed to prevent? Vipul has already suspended operations, and it's unclear if they plan to continue. I urge you to rethink your position. Kingsindian♝♚ 15:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sorry about the 180. I did not realize that the article was written by Vipul Naik, a toxic editor. I'm also basing this on an assertion made above. That's all I can really say about that since we're not supposed to discuss these things. I thought it over, and I changed my mind, based on WP:IAR and defense of the Wikipedia, is all. It's a bad look for me but I can't worry about that and I'm not going to defend my initial mistake.
If "this article was not written for pay" then so much the worse, actually, under the circumstances. If it had been written at random, just somebody picking up an entry on the notable-books-we-havent-covered-yet list, that'd be fine. Was it? No, I don't think so. "broke absolutely no rules here"... man, you don't know who you are dealing with here. You cannot have anarcho-capitalists in your system is all. It's no end of pain and will not end well. They have to be discouraged. Just as we'd delete an good article on a notable subject by a banned user, so we should delete this, for much the same reason, and possibly salt. Herostratus (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Promotion spam, could potentially be re-written completely from scratch by a previously un-involved, non-conflict-of-interest, third-party, editor, NOT using same material of the promotion spam as the starting point for such a new article. I've looked over the drafts and still, even in the very subsection titles themselves, reeks of promotion spam. Sagecandor (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagecandor: Keep in mind that this is a CSD, not an AfD. Let's compare this article to the last book you AfD'ed, Snakes in Suits. The article version when you AfD'ed it had zero, yes, zero links to any reviews or any indication of notability. Yet people found a few reviews of the book in the press (fewer than this book, by the way), and the AfD was closed as a unanimous "Keep". Almost everyone's !vote rationale (correctly in my opinion) was based on the notability of the book, not the article content (see WP:ARTN). Even now, after the AfD, the article reads much more "promotional" than the article for this book. AfD has a much higher bar to clear than CSD, which is meant for unambiguous cases. This is because CSD bypasses consensus, unlike AfD. I would urge you to reconsider your position and support sending the article to AfD instead (if you think it is worth deletion). See also my comment below, which is addressed to the page in general, rather than you in particular. Kingsindian♝♚ 02:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are five reviews of the book: the WSJ, The Guardian, RealClearMarkets, Wired and National Post. None of them are "regurgitated press releases". I have already noted 25 citations to the book on Google scholar, including one in Psychological Bulletin. I find it surreal that this is a CSD we're talking about, not even AfD; and people are saying that it is ok to blithely delete an article on the book without any discussion at all. From WP:CSD: Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.. Also Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Even looking at the discussion here, WP:SNOW would not apply in an AfD. Kingsindian♝♚ 02:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The question is if (1) subject is notable in this case I would say it is, notability for books requires at least 2 independant commentary or reviews about it. In this case I count 7 RS's discussing the book [1], [2][3][4][5] including Washington Times and NPR, so there are more than enough mainstream press that have discussed it. The second requirement is that the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, which in this case I think is at least plausible. I'm not even sure it qualifies as Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. This is not a WP:LINKFARM there is no listing of links or anysuch thing that would qualify it as that. And if it was written by Vipul Naik, that doesn't change anything about what the content of the article is. Obsidi (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
