Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Formal review processes |
---|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
Administrators' noticeboard |
In bot-related matters: |
|
Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
- (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed); or
- for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
1. |
Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |reason= }} ~~~~ Copy this template skeleton for files: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |article= |reason= }} ~~~~ |
2. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~ |
3. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
4. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
5. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express his or her opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
- Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted |
*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~ |
*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~ |
*'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~ |
*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~ |
*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~ |
*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~ |
*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~ |
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}}
template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.
If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
- Speedy closes
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
- Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
Active discussions
14 May 2022
11 May 2022
2020–2022 Pakistani political crises
- 2020–2022 Pakistani political crises (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This AfD should have been closed as "delete", "redirect" or "merge".
The closer, Star Mississippi, erred in merely counting numbers and not weighing the opinions offered in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. Had they done so, they would have recognized that all of the seven "keep" opinions did not address the reason for deletion at all, which made them pure votes, which are discounted in assessing consensus.
The one "keep" opinion that made something even resembling an argument was that by Ainty Painty, but their argument was "The mentioned articles are surely connected to each other." This does not address the reason for deletion, which was that it is prohibited original research to connect these supposed crises to each other without sources that make this connection - and Ainty Painty did not respond to a query to that effect. For that reason, their opinion, too, cannot be given weight in assessing consensus.
With all "keep" opinions discounted, the closer should have recognized that there was consensus to not keep the article, which would have led them to close the AfD as "delete", "redirect" or "merge". My personal practice is to close AfDs that are split between "delete" and "merge" as "redirect", which allows the editorial process to figure out what if anything should be merged. Sandstein 16:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- There have been several political upheavals taking place at roughly the same time:- at the national level, the motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister and his replacement (28th March - 11th April), which involved a constitutional crisis that has its own article; and at the local level, the resignation of the Punjabi Chief Minister and his replacement (28th March - 6th April); and two other motions of no confidence in other Chief Ministers. If these upheavals are connected, I don't see how.If I take the absolute most charitable view of the "keeps" that I possibly can, I can think of them as saying we need a high-level navigational article to help readers make sense of simultaneous events in Pakistani politics. And if I stretch that interpretation as far it'll go, I get to "List of Pakistani political crises in 2022", which roughly fits into WP:CLN --- in other words, being super-kind to the "merge" side, I can see a policy basis for what they're saying.On the other hand, where that leads is to a merger where the final article has a different name and completely different content. That's functionally identical to a "delete", I think. So I can't really understand that any differently from Sandstein's understanding.—S Marshall T/C 20:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- endorse The article is, as it stands, a list article. It doesn't need to have the word "list" in it to be a list article as far as I know. I think the point Sandstein is making is that the article doesn't meet WP:LISTN because it hasn't been "...discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." And the discussion didn't seem to turn up any such sources. But LISTN only says that such sourcing is "One accepted reason...", not that it is required. The idea of merging into 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis makes sense to me. That article is lacking far too many details. So basically keeping it as a list article or merging it (pretty much as-is, not much removed) all seem like reasonable outcomes that were supported in the discussion. Deletion most certainly didn't have consensus--it barely had support. Hobit (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I do feel the closer could have found consensus to rename it back to 2022 Pakistani political crises. But that would have been a bit of a stretch. I also feel the closer should have suggested an RfC or other way forward to resolve the issue. NC in this case isn't really leaving us in a good spot IMO--very few people felt that the article, with the title it has, was the right place for us to be. Not a great thing to default to without a suggestion of how to move forward. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Closing admin comment aware of and fine with this DRV as I know my decisions aren't foolproof. I was willing to relist this, and I nearly did before close, given there was an apparent glitch between 4/30 and 5/2 relists, but I do not see a consensus emerging out of that. Not going to formally endorse it and hold up any consensus here. Re to Hobit's comments, I can see that. It's not something I'd thought about before but will definitely keep it in mind going forward for complex closes. Star Mississippi 23:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. No consensus. See WP:RENOM for advice, a better nomination would have been better, but before renominating ensure that WP:ATDs do not exist. If merge was one the table, and consensus is not there, then AfD has to be closed as “no consensus” because AfD can’t enact a merge. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, could you clarify "AfD can't enact a merge"? As far as I can see it can and often does.—S Marshall T/C 13:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- By “enact a merge” I mean “actually perform and complete a merge”, in the face of complexity and objections at the target article.
- AfD can declare a “consensus to merge”, which then carries the authority of WP:Consensus, not WP:Deletion policy.
- Was there a consensus to merge? No.
- A rough consensus to merge? That would be an aspirational call. Even if the closer immediately performed the merge, they are immediately revertable per WP:EDITCONSENSUS.
- At best, a rough consensus to merge should mean the closer refers the case to WP:PROPMERGE.
- Was there a consensus to “redirect and allow possible merging from the history”? No, I do not read that from the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, could you clarify "AfD can't enact a merge"? As far as I can see it can and often does.—S Marshall T/C 13:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Chris Barrett (interior designer)
- Draft:Chris Barrett (interior designer) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
This Wikipedia page Draft:Chris Barrett (interior designer) was deleted by MelanieN after being marked for speedy deletion by GPL93 based on false claims made by bonadea: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
The Wikipedia page Draft:Chris Barrett (interior designer) was written from a neutral point of view, and accurately included over 20 sources of significant coverage from independent and credible news sources, including national magazines and websites, including, but not limited to:
- https://www.homesandgardens.com/news/happy-home-office-chris-barrett-tips
- https://www.homesandgardens.com/news/chris-barrett-on-designing-elegant-interiors
- https://www.housebeautiful.com/home-remodeling/interior-designers/interviews/a3432/chris-barrett-interview-0711
- https://iconiclife.com/interior-designer-chris-barrett/
- https://www.palmspringslife.com/chris-barrett-home-design/
- https://www.thespruce.com/designer-digs-interior-designer-chris-barrett-5116392
- https://talkaboutlasvegas.com/talking-with-chris-barrett-january-17-2022
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KZBToA56ys
- https://www.evensarc.com/sites/default/files/hb_powerofserenity.pdf
- https://www.franklinreport.com/ReportCard.aspx?v=5570&m=LAX
- https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/john-stamos-beverly-hills-home
- https://www.californiahomedesign.com/house-tours/white-at-home
- https://www.latimes.com/home/la-lh-2013-designer-dollhouse-showcase-mansions-in-miniature-photos-photogallery.html
- https://www.bhg.com/decorating/decorating-style/traditional/actor-sean-hayes-hollywood-home
- https://cluballiance.aaa.com/the-extra-mile/articles/prepare/home/designer-tips-for-updating-your-bathroom
- https://www.elledecor.com/shopping/furniture/g2908/best-chaise-lounges/
- https://www.bestinteriordesigners.eu/best-interior-designers-chris-barrett/
- https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-mar-07-tm-14664-story.html
- https://milieu-mag.com/department_story/hacienda-ease/
- https://www.designcollaborativeusa.com/desert-oasis-designers-1
- The Wikipedia page Draft:Chris Barrett (interior designer) contained far more independent news sources than the Wikipedia pages of these interior designers:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Collins_(interior_designer)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Ca%C3%B1ete
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thierry_Despont
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dora_Gad
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Galitzine
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aseel_Al-Hamad
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Sasha_Josipovicz
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Karaman_Kari%C4%87
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Karsten
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Tomerlin_Lee
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_London
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_McGrath
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titi_Ogufere
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clara_Porset
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertha_Sander
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Alekseevich_Savateev
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_L._Shelton
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A4ino_Tamm
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vick_Vanlian
- In light of this overwhelming and undeniable evidence, the Wikipedia page Draft:Chris Barrett (interior designer) should be restored immediately. IntDesign (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Are you, or are you associated with, Chris Barrett? Stifle (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- The article was most definitely not written in the neutral point of view and after making their initial 10 edits this editor has acted as an SPA trying to promote Chris Barrett. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Deleting administrator's comment: This draft was rejected for submission in August 2021 and again in March 2022, both times for reading like an advertisement and for not showing evidence of notability. The draft was then tagged G11 “because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic”. I concurred with that assessment and deleted the article on that basis. I just took another look at it. It basically consists of exactly what the author has provided here and on multiple user talk pages: A list of times that somebody said something about her. I agree with GPL93’s analysis. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- endorse clear G11, ref bombed to hide a lack of notability, and clearly with the goal of promoting Barrett/her work. IntDesign, you should be aware of WP:OSE before comparing an article against others. Star Mississippi 23:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I would also urge IntDesign to read WP:THREE, which contains good advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Request temp undelete to see whether G11 applied. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- This does read like a resume. That's not what a Wikipedia article should look like. Hobit (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- This stinks of promotional editing and I'd be amazed if the author doesn't have some kind of connection to the subject. G11 was entirely reasonable. Hut 8.5 11:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse as a vanity page that has no place on this website -- lomrjyo 🇺🇦 15:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think my favourite part is how the nominator said "The Wikipedia page Draft:Chris Barrett (interior designer) was written from a neutral point of view" as they demanded its immediate restoration. Comedy gold.—S Marshall T/C 19:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse:
- Written before reading the restored material: The appellant has made the case for the tagging editor and the deleting administrator. Reference-bombing doesn't disprove promotion, and is typical of promotion. The URL Dump has one purpose, and that is to establish that the author is trying to overwhelm us with useless references.
- Written after reading the restored material: It's a resume, but it's a reference-bombed resume.
- It is possible to say too much on behalf of one's client. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - In April, administrator User:Acroterion posted a conflict of interest notice. IntDesign replied, but did not answer whether they have a conflict of interest. Above, administrator User:Stifle asked about conflict of interest. I don't see an answer. We are wary of Paid Editing, but are intolerant of Undisclosed Paid Editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- If I were the subject I'd be severely embarrassed by everthing that User:IntDesign has done, and would say so here. Is that going to happen, or does Chris Barrett have no shame? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
9 May 2022
Aadi Lakshmi
- Aadi Lakshmi (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Closed on the basis of no sources. Several reviews here, here, here and here. Several sources on production here, here, here, here, here and here. Given that there are many sources and the fact that this film is listed as one of Srikanth's best films here, the article should be restored. DareshMohan (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is nothing stopping you from writing another article about it, and you don't need to come here or get anyone's permission to do that. If you want the original version to serve as a starting point then I'm sure it can be restored to draft space, but it had very little content apart from an infobox and a cast list and it was completely unsourced (apart from IMDB, which doesn't count). Hut 8.5 11:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse - Again, User:DareshMohan says that an AFD was closed on the basis of no sources, and they mean no reliable sources providing significant coverage. Again, they are welcome to create an article or submit a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry I meant reliable sources. What is the process for retrieving the draft? Was Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion the place to get the draft? Confused because Wikipedia:REFUND redirects there. DareshMohan (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- If you just want it moved to draft space then Requests for undeletion will do that. Hut 8.5 07:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse original deletion as correct based on sourcing known at time. Recommend undeletion and userification or draftification for the appellant to fix it up so it demonstrates appropriate policies and guidelines, then moving it back to mainspace. Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment refunded to Draft:Aadi Lakshmi. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse as original closer. Based on the good faith efforts by the users in the last discussion to find sources, I don't believe my assessment of consensus was wrong. However, I'm fully on board with the restoration and draftification undertaken above (thanks Graeme Bartlett!) if new/previously unknown sources can be used to show notability. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. Couldn’t have been closed any other way. New sources listed here are not a slam dunk, and need a close look. Encourage REFUND to draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Recent discussions
6 May 2022
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was written like a non-free gallery of images, which means a subject of non-free images which is the images have been copyrighted and too much blank spaces, which means a little of WP:LISTCRUFT. 182.3.41.210 (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
4 May 2022
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Closed on the basis of no sources. There are plenty. Several reviews here, here and here. Sources about production here, here, here and here. Box office source here. Easiest if the article is restored. Please rename the article Tirupathi (2006 Kannada film) as that is what is in the sources. The film Thirupathi (film) should be renamed to Thirupathi (2006 Tamil film) after this article comes into fruition. DareshMohan (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
3 May 2022
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This was closed as "no consensus", in what seems both A) a SUPERVOTE and B) an inaccurate summary of the discussion, one which does not consider the strength of arguments. The supervote is that, apparently, the consensus (or similar lack thereof) of a previous discussion must be followed otherwise "this would result in a complete mess". Not only, as explained to the closer on their talk page, can consensus change, but a "consensus" at one time and at one place which ignores a very fundamental aspect of policy (WP:NOT) certainly does not hold enough, if any, weight, to support this conclusion (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). This is a supervote because nobody made this specific argument (there were plenty of "keep per my previous arguments", but no "keep because of the previous discussion"). Furthermore, even ignoring this, the close fundamentally fails to weight !votes in line with policy. While a superficial count might reveal what appears like equality, most if not all of the keep !votes only have a very thin grounding (if any) in policy. "keep because of size restrictions" or "keep this is valid information" both assume that this is valid information, without proof, and without engaging with the NOT argument (or the lack of reliable sources as pointed out by me). And again, a consensus at one time and at one place cannot ignore broader policy which explicitly mentions this kind of stuff as not being "valid information". I've attempted to discuss this with the closer, but all I've heard so far has been crickets. Anyways, this should be overturned to delete RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
2 May 2022
David Rohl
- David Rohl (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Majority was KEEP, subject met NOTABILITY guidelines, yet admin chose minority position of REDIRECT TuckerResearch (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse close - WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, the redirect arguments were rooted in policy and the keep arguments were not. There's still no actual, point-by-point explanation of how Rohl meets the notability guidelines. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I know WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, but a majority is a marker of WP:CONSENSUS. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Another really painfully bad discussion. The nomination had nothing to do with our inclusion guidelines. Nearly all the keep and most of the delete arguments had similar issues. @Tuckerresearch: can you provide the best three or four sources that you believe contribute to him meeting WP:GNG, WP:PROF, or some other guideline? If secondary, reliable, independent sources exist that cover him in some detail (say each with a paragraph or more) this will likely be overturned. If not, the redirect will likely stay. At the moment I'm at "overturn to relist with a note asking people to focus on sources that count toward the GNG". Hobit (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Certainly, @Hobit: and others.
- Here is a reference to David Rohl and his band Mandalaband in a history of prog rock: Romano, W. (2010). Mountains Come Out of the Sky: The Illustrated History of Prog Rock. Backbeat Books. ISBN 978-1-61713-375-6. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
- Here in Italian book on "opera rock" and the concept album: Follero, D.; Zoppo, D. (2018). Opera Rock: La storia del concept album (in Italian). Hoepli. ISBN 978-88-203-8492-0. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
- That's just two real quick, outside his work on the New Chronology. On the subject of ancient history, biblical history, biblical chronology, and Egyptology, he is referenced in many books. Yes, often to bash his views on the New Chronology, but nevertheless, to discuss him.
- Here is a bit about his theory on the location of the Garden of Eden, which is a theory that does not rest on his alternative New Chronology: Weir, J. (2007). In Search of Eden: The Course of an Obsession. Armchair Traveller Series. Haus. ISBN 978-1-905791-07-1. Retrieved 2022-05-02.
- Outside his work on the New Chronology, which the DELETE voters and REDIRECT voters mistakenly claim is his only claim to notability, his work on pre-dynastic rock art in the Eastern Desert (east of the Nile) in Egypt (Rohl, David M., ed. The Followers of Horus: Eastern Desert Survey Report. Basingstoke, UK: Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences, 2000.) is well-cited by other, mainstream scholars, which contributes to his notability.
- Rohl, David M., ed. The Followers of Horus: Eastern Desert Survey Report. Basingstoke, UK: Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences, 2000.
- See the Google Scholar citations here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=6604976640384538213&as_sdt=5,44&sciodt=0,44&hl=en.
- How is that for a start? TuckerResearch (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! Would you mind if I reformat that (or you do) to make it more readable? It's a bit hard to parse as a wall of text. Hobit (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I reformatted it a tad. Do what you think best. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! Would you mind if I reformat that (or you do) to make it more readable? It's a bit hard to parse as a wall of text. Hobit (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Tuckerresearch that the page should have been kept under its original name, without a redirect, seeing that that was the consensus of contributing editors.Davidbena (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I also agree with TuckerResearch. There is a wealth of RSs on Rohl, easily available via WikiLibrary and elsewhere, for example:
- Hübner, Ulrich (1999). "Review of Pharaonen und Propheten. Das Alte Testament auf dem Prüfstand by David Rohl". Antike Welt. 30 (2): 205–206. Retrieved 3 May 2022.
- Halkin, H (1999). "Can the Bible Be Trusted?". Commentary. 108 (1): 39. Retrieved 3 May 2022.
- Philip, Graham (Oct 1999). "Reviews". History Today. 49 (10): 56. Retrieved 3 May 2022.
- Martin, J (1996). "Dating Solomon's wife". America. 174 (1): 15. Retrieved 3 May 2022.
- Rohl, David (2001). "Opener of the ways: Egypt's oldest maps discovered in the Eastern Desert". Mercator’s World. 6 (6): 40. Retrieved 3 May 2022.
- Certainly, @Hobit: and others.
- Endorse, reasonable closure. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse, I too think this was a reasonable close. The "keeps" were really bad there, incredibly poor quality with lots of hallmarks of COI editing and offwiki canvassing, including direct attacks on the nominator's motives and competence.—S Marshall T/C 13:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Did you not feel the need too notice the "direct attack" of the original person who nominated the article for deletion? See the diff, which done in a derogatory manner with some apparent malice! TuckerResearch (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- P.S. - I'll quote the original nomination: "Amateur psuedo-academic using Wikipedia to get Google to label him an Egyptologist and as a WP:Soapbox to push fringe theories." This violates WP:BLP, I think. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Did you not feel the need too notice the "direct attack" of the original person who nominated the article for deletion? See the diff, which done in a derogatory manner with some apparent malice! TuckerResearch (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Restore -- I am not sure that David Rohl is notable apart from his controversial chronological theory, which, I have to say, I found stimulating when I first read it. This is in a sense a fringe subject on the boundaries of history/archaeology. I suspect that he has indeed published quite a bit, apart from his initial work. I do not think he deserves a full length bio, but equally we need to know who he is, assuming we can produce something that is not an attack article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse as participant. The close was reasonable; this is not the place to relitigate it. XOR'easter (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I believe it is literally the place to relitigate it! :-) TuckerResearch (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Endorse with the comment that the target of the redirect, New Chronology (Rohl), isn't as wacky as New Chronology (Fomenko), and the further comment that Wikipedia has often had a problem with how much coverage to give to fringe theories and fringe theorists. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I could also point out that the original nominator has commented that another "fringe theorist" when it comes to ancient chronology, Peter James, should not be called a "historian." (See: Talk:Peter James (historian)#Writer, not historian.) By the by, the Peter James article was once upon a time nominated for deletion. The result was KEEP. If James was a KEEP, Rohl should have been a KEEP. There are numerous sources for Rohl, he has a career outside the New Chronology that is referenced by reliable sources (see my comments above), and Wikipedia has lots of articles about "fringe" writers outside their theories: Thor Heyerdahl, Erich Von Daniken, Immanuel Velikovsky, ad nauseum. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have seen your comments above and see nothing but the most passing of passing mentions in reliable sources. This is certainly no Heyerdahl, von Däniken or Velikovsky. Please also note that to be notable in terms of citations requires them to be numbered in the thousands, not a couple of dozen. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I could also point out that the original nominator has commented that another "fringe theorist" when it comes to ancient chronology, Peter James, should not be called a "historian." (See: Talk:Peter James (historian)#Writer, not historian.) By the by, the Peter James article was once upon a time nominated for deletion. The result was KEEP. If James was a KEEP, Rohl should have been a KEEP. There are numerous sources for Rohl, he has a career outside the New Chronology that is referenced by reliable sources (see my comments above), and Wikipedia has lots of articles about "fringe" writers outside their theories: Thor Heyerdahl, Erich Von Daniken, Immanuel Velikovsky, ad nauseum. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse I'd originally closed this as "no consensus" before it was brought to my attention on my talk page that I did a WP:BADNAC closure (I hadn't closed any AFD's in a long time, so BADNAC kind of slipped my mind). Sandstein is correct that the keeps were not based on policy, and since redirecting is close enough to a deletion, and only the delete/redirect side was actually based on policy, I'd say Sandstein's closure was correct and that my closure was improper (and that I should've left it to an administrator, since it was such a close call and wasn't an obvious keep/delete/redirect/whichever).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment
I would also like to note, that this DRV is also malformed as the initiator of this DRV did not tag the AFD as being under deletion review.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse and allow re-creation at AfC. The arguments in favor of keeping the page are really not arguments that have any strength in light of WP:PAG, which is the lens through which arguments are evaluated for their strengths. Redirects are cheap and the alternative to deletion made sense. There does appear to be coverage of his work that might lead him to meeting WP:NAUTHOR#3 if he has created at least one significant or well-known book that has been covered by multiple independent reliable sources. But this argument didn't really come up at all during the AfD, so the closure was appropriate given the arguments presented. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Relist. There appears to be sufficient sources requiring analysis to justify “delete” or “pseudodelete by redirect”. I’m not sure where new sources are being listed here, and were unmentioned in the AfD, but I am sure that further source analysis is a good idea. Some effort is needed to discard the poor quality “keeps”, as without that effort there is a bias to delete. For those arguing to “keep”, read the advice at WP:THREE. You need two or three good sources, and if you don’t have them, then many poor sources won’t suffice, and you will be perceived as wasting others’ time.
- I see the discussion at Talk:New_Chronology_(Rohl)#Poor_merger_decision,_poor_merge_action. The AfD did not find consensus to merge, and it looks like merging is not a good idea, so do not merge. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse but recreate under #3 - All but two of the AfD Keeps were terrible, and the closer suitably executed a close as best they could in those circumstances. However, the far clearer source list above seems to be pretty clear that a keep is reasonable. Given the circumstances, I'm fine with relisting if we want to prove that - this use of #3 is more of a NOTBUREAU attempt Nosebagbear (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
1 May 2022
David Firth
- David Firth (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
So I heard tell of Mr. Firth's Twitter thread re: Wikipedia deleting his wiki page, and I took a look. I am surprised that the article was deleted.
David Firth has substantial coverage that should meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Ignoring news articles that are focused solely on Salad Fingers, I was still able to find a good handful with Google. I've created articles with less sourcing than this.
First off, you've got a news article on the deletion itself as a newsworthy event, published literally today:
- Foster, George (May 1, 2022). "Salad Fingers Creator David Firth Wiped From Wikipedia After Being Deemed "Not Notable Enough"". TheGamer. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
Next, you've got multiple magazine articles on David Firth's other projects, including collaboration with wiki-notable individuals (music and film, not related to Salad Fingers):
- Minsker, Evan (May 30, 2017). "Flying Lotus Appears in David Firth's Creepy New Short Film: Watch". Pitchfork. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
- "Flying Lotus features in a short film by David Firth". DIY. May 31, 2017. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
- Kim, Michelle Hyun (October 30, 2017). "David Firth ("Salad Fingers") Shares New Locust Toybox Album: Listen". Pitchfork. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
The deletion discussion mentioned that there was an interview with The Scottish Sun, which is not a reliable source. Well, here's an interview with a local NPR affiliate, which should be more reliable:
- Eicholtz, Kayla (August 14, 2013). "Youth Report: A Conversation With British Animator David Firth". WKMS-FM. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
And, last but not least, David Firth being extensively quoted in a BBC News article as an expert on Flash animation, after Adobe Flash was discontinued:
- Fox, Chris (January 1, 2021). "Adobe Flash Player is finally laid to rest". BBC News. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
All this together should be enough to establish his notability for Wikipedia purposes and the suitability of the page existing as a standalone article. Hopefully I've fixed the formatting that I initially screwed up. Please let me know if I missed anything, as this is the first deletion review that I've requested. RexSueciae (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse: I don't believe this is what deletion review is for. Deletion review is for challenging AfD outcomes based on the arguments provided at that particular discussion. If you believe there is sufficient sourcing to establish notability of the subject, you should present it at Draft:David Firth (animator) and re-submit for review.
- Basically all of the sources you provide have already been presented at the draft article, and it has been declined regardless. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Declined stuff at AFC is no bar to, well, anything. Hobit (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Something which occurs to me is that the draft -- which is not great -- doesn't just have the (reliable, independent secondary) sources listed above; it also has a whole bunch of other stuff that may not be usable. Same with the original article. Prune out all the cruft; what you have left is a shorter article with a handful of good sources. RexSueciae (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- RexSueciae, go right ahead, that's what AfC is for. Submit your version and get further input. Throast (talk | contribs) 00:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Declined stuff at AFC is no bar to, well, anything. Hobit (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- endorse-ish and restore It wasn't a great discussion frankly. The closer did what they could. But the sources do look good. But I think Pitchfork (website) and Vice (magazine) are reliable. The NPR interview is probably not worth much (local, an interview) to most people but I find those to be both useful for (mostly primary) sourcing and indicative of notability. And most importantly, TheGamer (which is generally considered reliable for things published after August 2020) has a new article pretty much solely on him. It was a poor discussion, new sources have been brought forward, and frankly this person appears over the bar for a WP:BLP based on WP:THREE if nothing else. Hobit (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NOTNEWS in regard to the TheGamer article, that's been published literally hours ago. Vice and Pitchfork don't amount to significant coverage of David Firth, but of his works. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- So where would Salad Fingers (and quite a few other internet creations) be without Firth? He's some kind of shadowy unknown figure, that no-one has ever heard of? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- RexSueciae, tagging editors, who haven't been involved in the deletion discussion and have already taken a favorable position to your proposal elsewhere, is canvassing. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- How exactly was I tagged (and canvassed)? I was watching already. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've provided a diff above. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't brought to that discussion by User:RexSueciae. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- That does not matter. RexSueciae didn't know you were watching. They saw your comments at Talk:David Firth and tagged you. That's the extent of it. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- In that edit he moved my comment to the bottom of the page. So he "canvassed me"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- For god's sake. Look at the entire diff. I can't do more than link it to you. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- You can explain your rationale, thanks. You're saying I "haven't been involved in the deletion discussion"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- For god's sake. Look at the entire diff. I can't do more than link it to you. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- In that edit he moved my comment to the bottom of the page. So he "canvassed me"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- That does not matter. RexSueciae didn't know you were watching. They saw your comments at Talk:David Firth and tagged you. That's the extent of it. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't brought to that discussion by User:RexSueciae. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've provided a diff above. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Throast pardon me, but on these discussions I thought it was best practice to notify as many involved parties as practical. Hence I posted on the talk page of the article being reviewed. I did not cross-reference users involved in the deletion discussion and users commenting on that page, as I assumed they'd have been already involved. RexSueciae (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- How exactly was I tagged (and canvassed)? I was watching already. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NOTNEWS in regard to the TheGamer article, that's been published literally hours ago. Vice and Pitchfork don't amount to significant coverage of David Firth, but of his works. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse AfD decision. The sources provided by RexSueciae don't provide significant coverage of the person and they don't meet WP:BASIC. (Interviews generally don't contribute to notability because they aren't considered independent.) Schazjmd (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn AfD decision. The new TheGamer source which talks significantly about Firth taken with the Vice, Pitchfork, and various other sources should constitute enough published material to meet WP:Notability. Mistipolis (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Using a very recent news piece as the main pillar of significant coverage, especially one that's been written in response to the subject decrying the deletion of his own Wikipedia article and one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies, doesn't sit right with me. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse but restore. I endorse the "redirect" close as an accurate assessment of the consensus that complies with Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I support restoration per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that I found through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.
- Ball, Ryan (June 2007). "Rising Stars of Animation and VFX Class of 2007. David Firth: Animator, www.Fat-Pie.com". Animation Magazine. Vol. 21, no. 6. p. 32. ISSN 1041-617X. EBSCOhost 505211778.
This is a 254-word article. The article notes: "If you think you've seen it all when it comes to web animation, you haven't been to a little site called Fat-Pie.com. British animator David Firth offers up a brilliant and original hodgepodge of hilarity, stupidity and unshakable creepiness. ... When he was 13, Firth got a camcorder and started making stop-motion shorts using LEGOs and other toys. He still does some model animation from time to time but mostly creates 2D animation using Microsoft Paint and Flash. He describes his style as "a lazy, less brightly colored version of South Park with smaller eyes" and counts among his influences Chris Morris, Jan Svankmajer, Stanley Kubrick and Franz Kafka. He was recently asked to create four new animated pieces for the British TV series Screenwipe."
- Ramsey, Will (2009-04-13). "The little green man". Hull Daily Mail. p. 18. ProQuest 333617394.
This is a 527-word article. The article notes: "Created by David Firth, who studied animation at the Hull campus of the University Of Lincoln, each episode follows this lanky character as he stumbles through a baffling world. ... And now David is set to enjoy a retrospective of his work at Glimmer: Hull's Seventh International Short Film Festival. ... David, who grew up in Doncaster, began animating at 13 after he was given a camcorder for Christmas. His first films became a hit with friends and a TV and Film course at the University Of Lincoln followed. It was while he was in Hull that David began to establish his animation techniques - and began to develop the work which has won him a series of contracts with the BBC. There have been animations for Screen Burn - the rantings of TV critic Charlie Brooker - and David is currently completing a cartoon for the new series from comedians Mitchell and Webb. But it's still Salad Fingers for which he's best known - and which all came about after some banter with his friend, and co-writer Christian Pickup."
- Ball, Ryan (June 2007). "Rising Stars of Animation and VFX Class of 2007. David Firth: Animator, www.Fat-Pie.com". Animation Magazine. Vol. 21, no. 6. p. 32. ISSN 1041-617X. EBSCOhost 505211778.
- While Hull Daily Mail is a tabloid, the Animation Magazine article finally seems to be a solid instance of significant coverage. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Hull Daily Mail is not a tabloid in the sense you mean. It is a regional newspaper. You appear to be confusing it with the Daily Mail (a middle market newspaper, which is national to the UK, widely seen as untrustworthy because of its political leaning) - or the American conception of a tabloid; a gossip magazine. Neither of these definitions applies. 51.6.79.19 (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Could you explain a bit why? There seems to be quite a lot of coverage of him and work outside of Salad Fingers in various well regarded publications including the BBC (above) or The Guardian, and he is a quite well known figure generally. Certainly the coverage of the deletion of this article alone is quite emblematic of that. LegateLaurie (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- mis-clicked and accidentally linked the Wikipedia page for The Guardian rather than the article, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/jan/26/flying-lotus-kuso-sundance-walkout LegateLaurie (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- While Hull Daily Mail is a tabloid, the Animation Magazine article finally seems to be a solid instance of significant coverage. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn AfD decision with use of the 2007 Animation Magazine at least. And no problem with the other suggested new sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse but restore. I agree that Sandstein did the best he could with a low quality discussion. It was dominated by the nominator, Throast, who seems to have a number of serious misunderstandings about our notability policies, including WP:NARTIST with the claim that the author of a notable body of work cannot 'inherit' (in reverse?) notability from their work. Clearly if, as appears to be the case here, an author's body of work (not just one work) is notable, then we can have an article about it. But following Throast's logic, that article is only allowed to exist at David Firth's body of work instead of David Firth (animator)? Because somehow material about a work a person created is not "biographical"? And we can't use non-independent but otherwise reliable sources (e.g. interviews) to flesh it out with more direct biographical details? That serves no benefit to either us or our readers. This line of argument was in fact refuted by Martinevans123 and PantheonRadiance in the AfD but for whatever reason they didn't manage to sway the consensus. Based on the AfD discussion, I think Firth is notable – moreso now since coverage about this deletion have appeared in reliable sources (Throast's implication above that WP:NOTNEWS prevents us from using these is another misunderstanding of policy). I think the best thing to do now is develop Draft:David Firth (animator) and move it back to mainspace after this DRV has run its course. – Joe (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I gave up, as I thought I was being treated with contempt and disdain. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Joe Roe, I feel you're mischaracterizing my argument in the deletion discussion a bit. Never did I claim that interviews could not be used at all, of course they can. If non-independent, they cannot however help establish the subject's notability, which I believe we all agree with? WP:NARTIST outlines indicators of notability. I still feel that we need to discern between artists and their works, if only their works are subject to significant coverage. That being said, I've changed my mind now that new information has come to light thanks to Cunard's research. Martinevans123, these sort of discussions do become quite contentious at times, and I regret that you feel this way. You have to admit that you didn't exactly help diffuse the tension either, though. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse (tentatively) but would not necessarily object to a restore. The article was deleted under the correct conclusion that it was not verifiable enough to satisfy WP:BLP. The twitter thread is a little embarrassing, but honestly reading the last revision of the article is even more embarrassing to me: the first sentence alone was a string of nouns most not substantiated by the body of the article,
animator, director, writer, musician, actor, voice actor [...]
- which all may have been true, but not verified. Or more to the point, justified that much front-loading. I also understand there was a major point of contention over the inclusion birth date. It should not have been included; it did not have a good source, and honestly not that important for understanding the subject. This wasn't formally in the AfD, but I suppose that may have ultimately motivated the delete. With all that being said, I think the subject is notable enough for a concise Start-class article. I think here and in the AfD there is an inappropriate barrier being raised against concluding the notability of the subject that I'd like to address immediately, rather than circumstantially leave it to future AfC review (which isn't going to happen in a vacuum). I looked at the above sources and back-and-fourth between User:Throast and User:Martinevans123.
- "Flying Lotus Appears in David Firth's Creepy New Short Film: Watch". Pitchfork. Retrieved May 1, 2022. — This is a reliable source about the subject and relationship to one of his works. Minsker, Evan (May 30, 2017).
- "David Firth ("Salad Fingers") Shares New Locust Toybox Album: Listen". Pitchfork. Retrieved May 1, 2022. — This is a reliable source about the subject and relationship to one of his works. Kim, Michelle Hyun (October 30, 2017).
- "Youth Report: A Conversation With British Animator David Firth". WKMS-FM. Retrieved May 1, 2022. — This is significant coverage of the subject. Would not even say this is a primary source, it is an interview by a radio station with a producer and editorial oversight, not a self-published vlog. Eicholtz, Kayla (August 14, 2013).
- "Adobe Flash Player is finally laid to rest". BBC News. Retrieved May 1, 2022. — This is significant coverage of the subject. It might not be the main topic, but it directly deals with Fox, Chris (January 1, 2021).
- Sources mentioned in the AfD:
- https://www.thestand.co.uk/performances/1028-10107-salad-fingers-plus-qa-with-creator-david-firth-20211018-newcastle/ — Not a reliable source, this is an events page
- https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/tv-and-film-david-firth-is-taking-salad-fingers-on-a-tour-across-the-uk-20200226 — Not a reliable source, does not mention the subject
- https://www.unilad.co.uk/viral/david-firth-is-taking-salad-fingers-and-his-rusty-spoons-on-a-tour-of-the-uk — This is a reliable source about the subject and relationship to one of his works.
- https://narcmagazine.com/interview-david-firth/ — This is a reliable source about the subject and relationship to one of his works.
- https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/salad-fingers-new-episode-glass-brother-youtube-animation-david-firth-a8757791.html — This is a reliable source about the subject and relationship to one of his works.
- https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/4581467/who-is-david-firth-guy-behind-mc-devvo-and-salad-fingers-inventor/ — Not a reliable source, The Scottish Sun is a tabloid.
- So the case I'm making is that it was correct to delete the article for BLP reasons, but not notability reasons, and better off being recreated and reconsidered under the AfC process. JAYFAX (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- * Endorse close and go through the existing draft for an eventual restore - I agree with what others have said about the discussion not being great, but the close was correct based on everything presented there. I think JAYFAX lays out a solid list of sources that could be used and should be incorporated into the draft. Given how contested this appears to be (and the history of Draft:David_Firth_(animator)) I think it's best that the restoration happen thru AFC. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- AfC is not, and should never ever be, a required process. It's so backlogged and so riddled with problems it's basically where you send people when you don't want to deal with their issues. Not where useful things are likely to happen. Hobit (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't say it is or that it should be, I said that I think it's best that, in this specific case, the restoration happens through AfC. That's certainly the least important part of my vote. Either way, multiple other voters in this thread have also voiced this thought, and even more have said they want to see a longer drafting process rather than an immediate restoration. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 17:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with "immediate restoration", provided that is accompanied, in the minutes and hours immediately afterwards, by addition of the new material and sources that the voters here agree are necessary. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't say it is or that it should be, I said that I think it's best that, in this specific case, the restoration happens through AfC. That's certainly the least important part of my vote. Either way, multiple other voters in this thread have also voiced this thought, and even more have said they want to see a longer drafting process rather than an immediate restoration. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 17:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have created a draft article in my userspace User:JAYFAX/David Firth. It is intentionally short, uses sources discussed here, and avoids running to BLP issues. I reckon it is certainly not what someone highly familiar with Firth's work would consider "complete" but that's not the intention here, just need to create a stub that justifies its own existence. The other draft over at Draft:David Firth (animator) is kind of run over at the moment (I'm troubled by that big table that uses IMDb links) and considering between moving my wikitext over to there, or just create the article straight from what I've drafted. Pinging relevant parties for thoughts: @Martinevans123, Throast, ThadeusOfNazereth, and Hobit: JAYFAX (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC) (update) adding @RexSueciae: who expressed interest in cleaning up the draft, and @Fenestre: whose edits would be overwritten by this. JAYFAX (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- No objections to you swapping it into the current Draft. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think starting with a clean slate would do the article good, and I like what you've written so far. It would also make editors' job a lot easier judging a person's notability if the article is short and to the point. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Martinevans123 and ReneeWrites: Thanks for your input, I've gone ahead and swapped it over the the AfC draft and submitted. JAYFAX (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a little late to the conversation, but that draft looks good to me. I'd even go ahead and put it in article space, let editors take it on. Trial by fire. Of course, that might be a little bold. And I might put a stub template on it, although that's not strictly necessary. Anyways, well done. RexSueciae (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Martinevans123 and ReneeWrites: Thanks for your input, I've gone ahead and swapped it over the the AfC draft and submitted. JAYFAX (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Table seems to have been perturbing for some. The repeated claim was that Firth is not a notable person. One of the criteria is a body of work and that table did demonstrate that there was a body of work that comes from one person. That is not a claim that the person is magnificent or important but it evidences that they are, in fact, notable. Lack of notability was the original reason for deletion.
- The table being 'reference bombed' is an unrealistic criticism since, as a draft it should be clear that the entire table would be significantly pruned or even vanish if the article were to proceed to the mainspace of Wikipedia. The repetitions of IMDB: where else do British creatives make their cultural contributions known? Yes it is a potentially contentious source, but some of the references are to BBC and Channel 4 entries. That gives a range of provenance to the works. Correlating IMDB references from Firth, BBC, and Channel 4 suggests that notability is there to be found.
- Both BBC and Channel 4 commission work out of public money. That means a single animation on BBC and Channel 4 has gone through ridiculous amounts of committee 'value for money' vetting. Which, in turn means that Commissions are not just handed out to Creatives on request. An understanding of that, in terms of notability is useful. Hence the Table was simply a useful tool. It might have utility in a future article or it might not. That needs an understanding of British Culture that seems lacking in the process.
- Overwriting my edits is not the end of the world. Not actually looking at them first is far sillier. I have confidence that you will do whatever you see fit, in any case. Which is just what happens in open edited documents.
- The original article was a mess in terms of strict compliance with the arcana of Wikipedia. That really could have been improved instead of making a deletion that amounts to original research about the notability of a British Creative. It seems odd that a Northern British Creative gets mentioned in publications as far apart as San Franscisco, Canada, and Sweden, and has a reasonable body of video interviews which do speak to notability - but are of no consequence to the Wikipedia process and Wikipedia notability - yet has no article about them on Wikipedia; while, American Animators get three mentions in American commercial press warranting an equally poorly written article. That is an issue for another time and place.
- It seems a lot of problems have centred on the lack of understanding of Popular Culture and how someone can be notable in the UK and not the US. That has resulted in a poor process that has not actually improved anything. I am happy to have my edits overwritten, hopefully in a constructive and productive way that actually builds a much better edit of the article. Which I trust is the outcome being sought.
- I personally suppose David Firth is actually notable. He contributes to Northern Culture in way that might well seem vapid or insubstantial outside of the North. Apart from that I am not a great fan. I do not find lots of things on Wikipedia notable and their inclusion is simply because they are the hobby horse of an Editor who has put in sufficient work to establish that. Which may seem unkind. It is the basis for a lot of good editing. Someone championed the deletion of an Animator and someone could champion the inclusion of that Animator. Neither champion is me. The table was not some reference bombing idiocy but it has helped to provide indications of both a body of work and of notability.
- Firth was featured in the 2017 Glasgow Film Festival, in the brochure, being described as "One of the UK's most significant independent animators".
- https://issuu.com/glasgowfilmtheatre/docs/gff_brochure_2017_digital_final/58
- This was a consequence of finding out that Cream had a first showing at the Glasgow Film Festival 2017 (Sponsored by National Lottery and British Film Institute). Which does actually suggest notability from an independent source. the BFI and National Lottery are, again, Public Money and not wont to throw around idle praise.
- Yes, the table might well be an abomination but a useful one. An objective of deleting it systematical was the intent. Starting with a clean slate is not really a problem but please try to avoid slinging out the baby with the bathwater. Fenestre (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'd agree that IMDb can be very useful "bathwater" in suggesting leads to search for. You make some very valid points above about how notability can be assessed in terms of public funding. I'm sure you will collaborate in improving the new article for Firth. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have created a draft article in my userspace User:JAYFAX/David Firth. It is intentionally short, uses sources discussed here, and avoids running to BLP issues. I reckon it is certainly not what someone highly familiar with Firth's work would consider "complete" but that's not the intention here, just need to create a stub that justifies its own existence. The other draft over at Draft:David Firth (animator) is kind of run over at the moment (I'm troubled by that big table that uses IMDb links) and considering between moving my wikitext over to there, or just create the article straight from what I've drafted. Pinging relevant parties for thoughts: @Martinevans123, Throast, ThadeusOfNazereth, and Hobit: JAYFAX (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC) (update) adding @RexSueciae: who expressed interest in cleaning up the draft, and @Fenestre: whose edits would be overwritten by this. JAYFAX (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- AfC is not, and should never ever be, a required process. It's so backlogged and so riddled with problems it's basically where you send people when you don't want to deal with their issues. Not where useful things are likely to happen. Hobit (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn-ish. Keep the disambiguation page, but David Firth is notable enough as a person outside of his work on Salad Fingers to warrant a page at David Firth (animator), even if Salad Fingers is by far and away his most famous work. I'm annoyed at what's happening on the draft page, though, it's been reference bombed badly and the page is in a far worse state now than it was prior to deletion. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- So it looks like any restoration of the deleted article is not going to happen? However poor you think the new draft is, those who have already contributed to it will not want their efforts to be wasted. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- The article itself is perfectly salvageable, and I honestly didn't think the article on the main page prior to being moved/deleted was that bad either. I think notability could be argued without making significant changes to it. It's mainly the table on the draft page that needs to go (it basically contains the contents of Firth's IMDb profile with no regard for relevance/notability), but I don't feel comfortable removing it myself. I've already removed it once, and I gave an incorrect reason for doing so (the deletion was justified, but the argument wasn't). I also don't want to come across like I'm bullying this one guy who's obviously well-intentioned but is putting a lot of effort into something that's to the overall detriment of the page. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, while IMDb is acceptable for use as an External link, it is not considered WP:RS for use in the article main body. The table might be still be a good idea if any better source(s) could be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- The fundamental argument for the original deletion was that Firth effectively produced Salad Fingers and no other of significance. In that case the Table would have had one line and notability would devolve to finding three acceptable citations for Salad Fingers' existence. Which would leave the situation as it is. You might not consider IMDB to be a reliable source, it has been used elsewhere as though it is. Place that remark aside. The IMDB listings - plural - pointed to Firth, BBC, Channel 4, and others which clearly points towards other more Wikipedia Reliable Source citations that should be findable. The purpose of the Table is purely to highlight the body of work which is the entire claim to notability for any writer, filmmaker or animator.
- As a consequence of that Table, by examining IMDB listings and working outwards, some useful links were discovered such as Firth being interviewed by Alan Yentob of the BBC and for the work Umbilical World and Firth being invited to the Glasgow Film Festival. Where the Organisers described Firth as One of the UK's most significant independent animators in the Festival Brochure and a new film was premiered. (http://issuu.com/glasgowfilmtheatre/docs/gff_brochure_2017_digital_final/58). That suggests that the British Film Institute and the National Lottery think Firth might be notable. It might well be a really tedious way of proceeding. Deleting the table rapidly after it was inserted actively prevents discovery of notability and any rational progress to a consensus on notability. Which was the only thing deemed to be at issue. In that respect being productive rather than aesthetic directly addressed the issue of relevance and notability: the original underpinning rationale for deletion.
- Did the Table look awful: absolutely. Could the Table be improved: hugely. Would the article be better off without it: visually yes; there may be an argument that a list of film works suits tabular presentation but that does not impinge on the reason the article was where it was. It was in that place because it was deleted and someone said it should not be.
- To return to the IMDB remark. I have created tables in sandboxes for other Creatives and come out with the conclusion that I do not think they are notable in any way: their output is apparently work for hire that lacks personal creative agency and their Wikipedia presence is little more than personal brand marketing. I am not going to name them or to ask for their deletion because, largely, some other has determined what their notability is even if it is utterly unclear to me. Wikipedia rules allow for that. Wikipedia rules also allow for an over literal interpretation of Wikipedia rules when it intersects with material that is unclear, unpleasant, or simply from somewhere else. That kind of interpretation leads to long term nonsense when it comes to cultural subjects.
- In short: it is a table, it can be tolerated for a few day as it gets whittled down. It is not the end of the world if it stays or goes. It is not bullying to delete it but it is a tad counterproductive. Fenestre (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- IMDb links can be useful as a way of confirming who took what part in a production, but an IMDb link does not by itself indicate notability. It mostly just proves something exists. IMDb and Wikipedia are two different databases that enforce different rules and standards, and serve different functions. Just because something's on IMDb doesn't mean it automatically belongs here, too.
- The notable works Firth had created or contributed to had already been mentioned in the article. So all the table did was add a mix of duplicate notable data and filler, and taking a lot of space up in the process. It just made it harder to see the forest for the trees.
- The word "reference bombing" has been mentioned a number of times, and I think it's a good idea to read the article on that (as well as the main article on overciting) before moving forward so we don't make the same mistakes with the new article. The intro reads this:
- "A common form of citation overkill is loading up an article with sources without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. This may boost the number of footnotes and create a superficial appearance of notability, which can obscure a lack of substantive, reliable, and relevant information. This phenomenon is especially common in articles about people or organizations (including companies), given that they generally have to satisfy conditional notability standards based on achievement and sourceability, rather than a mere verification of existence."
- The third item on the list in particular is relevant here:
- "Citations to work that the article's subject produced – A series of citations that Gish gallop their way through a rapid-fire list of content that doesn't really help to establish notability at all. For example, an article about a journalist might try to document every individual piece of work they ever produced for their employer, often citing that work's existence to itself; an article about a city councillor might try to document and source their position for or against every individual bylaw or ordinance that came up for council debate at all, regardless of whether or not the person actually played a prominent role in getting that motion passed or defeated; an article about an entertainer or pundit might try to list and source every individual appearance they might have made in media, all the way down to local morning talk shows and interviews on individual radio stations; an article about a musician might try to reference the existence of their music to online music stores or streaming platforms, such as iTunes, YouTube or Spotify, instead of to any evidence of media coverage."
- There are a lot of small articles and stubs on Wikipedia, because an article doesn't need to be long to prove notability. And a handful of good sources do that better than over a hundred questionable ones. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- The article itself is perfectly salvageable, and I honestly didn't think the article on the main page prior to being moved/deleted was that bad either. I think notability could be argued without making significant changes to it. It's mainly the table on the draft page that needs to go (it basically contains the contents of Firth's IMDb profile with no regard for relevance/notability), but I don't feel comfortable removing it myself. I've already removed it once, and I gave an incorrect reason for doing so (the deletion was justified, but the argument wasn't). I also don't want to come across like I'm bullying this one guy who's obviously well-intentioned but is putting a lot of effort into something that's to the overall detriment of the page. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- So it looks like any restoration of the deleted article is not going to happen? However poor you think the new draft is, those who have already contributed to it will not want their efforts to be wasted. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comments at this time:
- I see statements to Endorse but Restore. If that means to restore the deleted article to the history, it is already there. After the fourth AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Firth (4th nomination) . the result was Redirect to Salad Fingers, and User:Sandstein correctly cut the article down to a redirect. User:JohnThorne then converted the redirect into a disambiguation page, also in my opinion correctly. So the deleted article is still there the history of the disambiguation page, David Firth.
- I reviewed Draft:David Firth. In the course of the review I moved/renamed it to Draft:David Firth (animator). I compared the draft against the previous article (since it was still in the history), and saw little difference. I declined it because I saw less than a 50% chance that it would, if accepted, survive a fifth AFD, which would resemble the fourth AFD. One of the basic instructions for AFC reviewers is to accept if there is more than a 50% chance, estimated subjectively, that the draft will survive AFD.
- When I declined the draft, I asked that any resubmitter not simply add more references, because at 44 references it had already been reference-bombed. So, since there is a myth, held both by some new good-faith editors and some bad-faith editors, that more references are usually the key to acceptance or retention, another 62 references have been added to bring the total to 106.
- When I declined the draft, I asked that any resubmission either specify how the new draft differs from the deleted article, or request Deletion Review. Improving the draft would still be a good idea. Adding more references will be an exercise in formatting the references (either manually or with a tool).
- User:Martinevans123, User:Hobit, User:Joe Roe, User:Cunard If I understand the requests to Restore, the deleted article is already in the history of the disambiguation page. Try https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Firth&oldid=1078654987
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the original article is still there. But it looks like you'd prefer to see the new draft improved instead. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know how much free time I'll have, but once this discussion is closed, I might have a try at cleaning up the article. Remove questionable sources, add reliable ones, and call it a day. It doesn't matter much to me whether we revise a version of the original, pare down the draft on file, or start entirely from scratch, as long as the result is serviceable. It does feel an entirely manageable task. Anyways, I'm curious to see what sort of consensus develops in this discussion. RexSueciae (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- The differences between the current draft and the deleted article are, in my opinion, not substantial, except for the well-meaning but misguided reference-bombing. I think that it makes little difference whether the improvement is to the deleted article or the draft. I think that improvement is both possible and desirable. (I do not intend to review the draft again). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know how much free time I'll have, but once this discussion is closed, I might have a try at cleaning up the article. Remove questionable sources, add reliable ones, and call it a day. It doesn't matter much to me whether we revise a version of the original, pare down the draft on file, or start entirely from scratch, as long as the result is serviceable. It does feel an entirely manageable task. Anyways, I'm curious to see what sort of consensus develops in this discussion. RexSueciae (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Relist. WP:DEL-REASON#8, the policy-based rationale for deletion of non-notable articles, states that
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
(internal links omitted) can be deleted. This wording is very clearly reflected in WP:N, whose first criterion requires that an articlemeets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)
. Simply put, WP:NBIO is one such guideline, and while lots of people focused on how to apply WP:GNG (which was unclear), there was also an argument by 2601:204:D981:8130:B595:613D:C7D8:5E46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that was explicitly made that the individual satisfied WP:NARTIST#3. Since NARTIST is part of WP:NBIO, and the article subject is certainly about a person, the relevant notability guideline is the notability guideline for people. In other words, the arguments for deletion that might have had some support in the WP:Deletion policy were largely refuted by the Sacramento IP.
Among the remaining editor, they advocated for a reverse merge (Salad Fingers into David Firth). I'm not entirely convinced of the policy-based rationale that the editor is given, but I think that further discussion on this AfD would be fruitful in allowing the community to ascertain a consensus. This is a scenario where there was relatively little participation, arguments from !voters weren't really all that great from a policy perspectie, and additional editors might help in coming to a consensus. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
— Mhawk10 (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse Agree with above that the disscusion wasn't great but the closer appeared to come to the right decision on the matter. Keep would have been wrong considering nobody liked the article itself but rather what the article was talking about. Swordman97 talk to me 21:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Any view on a new article, now that new WP:RS sources have some to light? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ii should probably be looked at through AFC considering the sorry state of the article before this all happened. It needed a peer review anyway. Swordman97 talk to me 22:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- A well-supported peer review might have short-circuited this whole cycle. But, somewhat ironically, the reaction of Firth himself to the deletion, has in turn generated a lot of useful interest and suggestions. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ii should probably be looked at through AFC considering the sorry state of the article before this all happened. It needed a peer review anyway. Swordman97 talk to me 22:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Any view on a new article, now that new WP:RS sources have some to light? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Hey, it's PantheonRadiance replying here once again. I'm not officially voting on this discussion but I felt that I needed to leave my two cents about David Firth and the AfD discussion.
TL;DR - Firth should've been kept + AfD/notability response, hope draft gets accepted.
|
---|
|
PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn. Consensus was not clear. The discussion was not complete, and had too few participants, and I do not read it as heading to a consensus to delete, and I think the compromise of “redirect” and leave it to others later to figure out how to merge was not ok, because merging is not working. “No consensus” would have been a better way forward. There was no urgency to act. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to Relist, not because there was any error by the closer, but as a matter of Ignore All Rules, because subsequent discussion indicates that there probably should be an article on David Firth (animator). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to Relist Consensus was all over the place; we've seen a lot more consensual discussions than this be relisted more than once. This wasn't relisted at all. Nfitz (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: at this point, a reviewer ought to take a look at the much-improved Draft:David Firth (animator), and then this discussion can hopefully be closed as moot. 166.67.255.243 (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
14 April 2022
Plus (film) (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Closed on the basis of no sources. There are multiple reliable reviews here, here, here. The film is as one of those rare sci-fi films in Sandalwood (Kannada cinema). Notable sources here, here and here. Article should be restored. DareshMohan (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Archive
Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2022 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2021 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2020 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2019 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2018 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2017 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2016 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2015 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2014 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2013 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2012 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2011 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2010 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2009 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2008 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2007 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2006 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |