Open main menu

Administrator instructions

Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result 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.


Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the user who closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  3. 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);
  4. 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);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
  9. For uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.


Before listing a review request, please:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 reviewEdit


Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

}} ~~~~

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
}} ~~~~

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2019 October 18}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.


Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 October 18}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 October 18|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion reviewEdit

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.

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 undeletionEdit

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 non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviewsEdit

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).

Active discussionsEdit

18 October 2019Edit

Rupert DoverEdit

Rupert Dover (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Rupert Dover is the first police commander who asked the police to open fire towards Hong Kong citizens since 1967, thus have historical importance. He is, therefore, a key-person regarding the history of Hong Kong as well as the police-citizen relationship. He especially plays an important role as the Hong Kong police force was accused of so much police brutality in just a few months after his decision to open fire on June 12, 2019, and those accuses are much more than the sum of the past decades. Besides, he has more than 4 millions Google search result.--習振英 (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Nice quoting your search's got there. —Cryptic 05:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)}
    Somewhat less snidely, those four million hits you claim include every page mentioning anyone or anywhere named either Rupert or Dover. A proper search for "Rupert Dover" estimates 11500, which is still a far cry from the "few Ghits" mentioned in the AFD. (I haven't actually more than glanced at any of them, mind you, and counting google hits ≠ research.) —Cryptic 05:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - The appellant appears to be re-arguing the AFD rather than taking issue with the close, and Delete was the only possible finding by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - DRV is for determining whether there was an error in the closing of an AfD. It is not for just re-arguing the AfD. Reyk YO! 06:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Deletion review is a venue where we deal with errors made in the deletion process. It is not a de novo appeal or opportunity to argue points that were, or could have been, made at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse Not the best attended AfD, but consensus is clear, and I don't want to advocate for a relist when it's also fairly clear the fact WP:G10 could be applicable means we're better off keeping this deleted as opposed to giving it a chance. SportingFlyer T·C 11:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse AfD is fine and I don't see any good reason for revisiting it here. Having lots of Google hits doesn't mean anything in itself. If his only significance is in being in charge of the police response to the protests then we definitely shouldn't have an article on him per WP:BLP1E especially as the article was being used as a mechanism to attack him for it. Events relating to the protests should be covered in the article(s) about them. Hut 8.5 17:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

17 October 2019Edit

16 October 2019Edit

Category:Recipients of aid from Lewis TappanEdit

Category:Recipients of aid from Lewis Tappan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Turning this category into a list is a great idea (I had it too) but impractical. To make a list of these names would mean creating a footnote documenting every one. This is possible, but it would entail a lot of work and time which then could not be used on other more valuable Wikipedia improvements. I really believe the list is useful and does no harm, and I think others working on Louis Tappan would agree. deisenbe (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  • As the closing admin, I was in no way consulted before this DRV was filed. MER-C 10:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Link corrected from "Louis" to "Lewis". – Fayenatic London 10:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse having an unsourced list isn't the end of the world and judging from a few random entries the category isn't sourced either when it is included. Hut 8.5 18:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Hut 8.5 - this really isn't something we'd have as a category, but rather as a list, and though it's a bit of work a list with footnotes helps those interested in the topic to quickly find references. SportingFlyer T·C 05:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Done: I have made a simple list at Lewis_Tappan#Philanthropy. – Fayenatic London 15:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Noting the unanimous consensus above and WP:CLN-compliant solution already put into place, this may be a candidate for a speedy close?—S Marshall T/C 16:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

15 October 2019Edit

13 October 2019Edit


Portal:Victoria (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am seeking for the MfD to be reopened to be listed for a further time. MfD was closed with no reasons given by the closer, there were only three nominations for deletion, one of which violated WP:IDONTLIKEIT and at the time of closure there were ongoing discussions about the reliability of data used by one of the poster. I am concerned about the fairness of some Portal MfDs, which seem to be driven in part by a belief that Wikipedia should have no portals at all. If that was the case, that would be fine, but there is no such policy. Bookscale (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm not really sure what to do here. General consensus has been portals are okay and worth keeping, consensus at MfD has been strong delete, but the guidelines for keeping or deleting portals have been incredibly vague and end up along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I would have no problem with draftifying the portal, but I'm not sure that's possible. SportingFlyer T·C 04:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse as one of the participants in the MFD, and as the editor who provided the data that is being referred to. No one took any issue with any of the data that I had provided on any Australian state portals. The issue had to do with comments concerning US state portals, and in particular with statements that there had been no maintenance that did not reflect very recent Article Rescue Squadron work on portals. There was not and does not appear to be any question about any information that was used in the deletion debate. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist this MfD was not well attended WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I think it would benefit from a relist. Lightburst (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment- did you discuss this with the closer before bringing it here? Reyk YO! 19:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Sufficient participation for yet another routine deletion of a useless portal. Encourage anyone who cares for the history to request undeletion into a subpage of a WikiProject, but as a Portal there was a clear case of failure and abandonment, making it a meance for readers. NB. Victoria is ambiguous. I have to guess whether this is about the Australian State, or the 19 century Empress, or even something else. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The portal is about the state. The state is named for the Empress and was part of her empire. The MFD made it clear that it was about the Australian state, because the MFD included the portal view metrics that some of the editors dislike, comparing portals on Australian states. I agree that ambiguous portal names, such as New York or Washington or Georgia, are potentially troublesome, and that Wikipedia does a very good job of disambiguating articles, but portals are not articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse- routine deletion of an abandoned portal. Consensus at the AfD was clear. Reyk YO! 07:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • relist. When the IDONTLIKEPORTALS and similar comments are discounted there was no consensus for or against deletion of this portal. Assertions that we should or should not have portals of any given type or state or quality really should not be given any weight in these discussions because it is clear there is no community consensus underpinning them. Only arguments that address why the individual portal under discussion should or should not be deleted AND which are based on policy are relevant and there was almost none of them in this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist per Thryduulf. Discussions should be based on the actual evidence at hand, and community consensus on the principles of portals, not personal opinions on the matter. As such, !votes that don't address the matter at hand should be discuonted, and there was as yet no consensus.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

12 October 2019Edit

11 October 2019Edit

Rockwell Scharer IIIEdit

Rockwell Scharer III (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Dear Wikipedia administrators, i hereby, request you undelete the article. The article was wrongly deleted by an editor (GSS), i am unable to link any xfd, because the article was deleted directly without deletion discussion process and made it a draft page. I tried to understand what was wrong. He mentioned violation of TOU in the deletion log and tagged the article with undisclosed paid editing. But it's wrong again. I wasn't paid for the editing, i used to be a part of Mr. Scharer's DropKey Studio project and created the article after he won an Edison awards for the project. Scharer previously worked at NBCUniversal Media and Live Nation Entertainment and as a software engineer he designed the cost-tracking systems for the Space Shuttle at Rockwell International and for motion pictures at Paramount Pictures. I had disclosed the COI relation in the talk page already. I believe it's okay now. I contacted Mr. Sharer about the issue and he has provided an affadavit regarding the matter. I can't attach it here, so i have uploaded it here I hope this solves the issue. Please undelete and restore the article to mainspace. I seek your assistance here. (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Orlando's Summer of LoveEdit

Orlando's Summer of Love (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted with reasoning that was evidently entirely meritless as shown in discussions and below.

Orlando, Florida's Summer of love was a notable cultural movement in Orlando that was similar to the Second Summer of Love in the U.K. A one sentence stub was created. A merge was proposed in which a legitimate concern was raised that the subject title was only used by one author. More relevant reliable sources for this era were added so notability could be determined and the stub was supported by 15 reliable sources with long quotes within the citation rather than long WP:QUOTEs within the text. It was clear to me that using the topic title for this subject would require a new source or a different author so I did not strongly oppose the merge. Apparently, that discussion went "on too long without being resolved" so an AfD nomination was opened. The AfD discussion took place during the merge discussion. The legitimate concern that was raised in the Merge Discussion and the comments put forth there to support it were ignored in the AfD discussion.

Illegitimate arguments and reasoning (ones that should be deemed meritless by WP:AADD policy) were put forth at AfD to nominate and to delete the page per the outcome of the proposal.

I have asked the deleting administrator at AfD for assistance. However there has not been clarifying reply to date and I'm not sure whether the editor does not seem to havehas a willingness to further engage as shown on his talk page.

After I left a message on the nominating editors talk page containing strong policy guidance to request clarification, there were responses from him (in addition to other editors) and threeVERY extended discussions followed in which I made the requisite policy founded arguments.

  1. Policy discussion at RFU.
  2. Further discussion with the nominating editor on my talk page (before it too went south).
  3. Discussion with RdU/DRV involved Editor

I do not wish to WP:REHASH here each previous policy-based argument made in those discussions--Unless it is required. I think we should all be competent enough to review the sources and policy-based discussion(s) points put forth already.

Extended rationale

The relevant policies raised in discussion include (but are not limited to):

The nominating editor, is relying almost entirely upon his great and unmatched wisdom.

This appears to be an attempt to turn the discussions into some type of content dispute or worse, disrupt it entirely (and this includes several actions that I may soon be required to bring to WP:ANI--not here). In response to my challenging his interpretations of WP policy, he issued several warnings to me that have waded directly into actions that meet the criteria of WP:DE, WP:TE and WP:TOOLMISUSE to defend the baseless nomination action. (since he edit-blocked me too)

This editor has repeatedly refused to answer the critical questions I have asked directly. Despite that bit of WP:TE they have all but admitted that the concerns raised in Afd were all WP:AADD, never even remotely policy-based, the apparently legitimate concern raised was just ignored, and the obvious and easy solution of presenting new evidence with an addition of a new source that uses the term thwarted.

I am not certain that new evidence is actually required here for the subject as the nominator dubiously states this was never his concern despite the opening a deletion nomination itself for an admittedly notable thing and the alleged 100% correctness of his refbomb argument. Obviously, this era in Orlando was notable as documented in various reliable non-local sources.

The nominator argues that despite his mentioning of the previous merge discussion no less that twice in his AfD nomination, he states that has no responsibility to acknowledge any of the concerns within it at all and even threatened me for asking about him it.

He also mentions the following policies WP:REFBOMB WP:COPYVIO and WP:TNT. However, in discussions with him and a review of WP policies, these do not seem to have merit either.

The last determination for Deletion Review is the question of whether an article about the notable Orlando era should be titled "Orlando's Summer of Love" as reported- now in four sources separated by 24 years.

The new 2011 and 2017 source:

  1. Moyer, Matthew (November 21, 2017). "Wizard of AAHZ: Orlando lord of the dance Kimball Collins is serious about throwing a party". The Orlando Weekly. Retrieved October 3, 2017. The last thing on DJ and Orlando dance music linchpin Kimball Collins' mind back during the fabled Orlando Summer of Love in the early 1990s was that he would someday be responsible for preserving the legacy of Florida Breaks
  2. Guinto, Humberto (April 27, 2011). "I Was A Florida Raver Chapter 1 The Edge". Retrieved 2019-10-16. It was matched only by what hippies did at acid-parties in places like Haight-Ashbury, parties also referred to as “all night raves.” ...from Miami to Orlando... The Florida rave scene was chronicled by Rolling Stone contributing editor Simon Reynolds in his seminal, rave anthology Generation Ecstasy as “infamous for taking excessive hedonism to the point of near-death experiences and sometimes taking it all the way.”

Reliable Sources used prior to deletion:

  1. Kelemen, Matt (September 2, 1998). "Wizards of Aahz: The Florida winter had ju..." The Orlando Weekly. Retrieved November 30, 2015. Collins could not be aware of it at the time, but those Saturday nights -- eventually known as "Aahz"-- would kick-start an underground culture and spawn countless DJ careers. Orlando would never be the same...By 1991-1992, Orlando experienced its own "summer of love" through the culture that sprang up around the weekend acid-house nights at the Beacham Theatre...only New York, San Francisco and L.A. had similar scenes, and they were characterized by warehouse parties. Orlando had a headquarters in the heart of its downtown district...By the time Rolling Stone discovered the scene, late-night culture had become a shadow of its former self.
  2. Guinto, Liesl (August 1, 1993). "All The Rave". The Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved August 16, 2016. [Orlando "Raves" in 1993 (also ATL)] A re-invented Haight-Ashbury of the 90s.
Extended rationale
  1. Guida, Humberto (November 21, 2014). "Candy Ravers and Psychonauts: The Florida Rave Scene". Insomniac. Retrieved August 17, 2016.
  2. Milo, Christopher (January 23, 2017). "Ep. 030 - DJ Three. Burning Man Regular DJ Three Has Some Thoughts on the Rise of Playa Tech". Rave Curious Podcast: DJ Three (Interview). Interviewed by Joshua Glazer. New York: Thump. Retrieved January 26, 2017.
  3. Abbott, Jim (June 27, 2013). "Make a return to AAHZ once more". The Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved August 5, 2016.
  4. "Chris Fortier: Much More Than "Progressive"". JIVE Magazine. 2005-07-26. Archived from the original on August 14, 2007. Retrieved 2016-08-16.
  5. Ferguson, Jason; Le-Huu, Bao (July 3, 2013). "The Places: The venues and club nights that propelled Orlando's EDM culture in the '90s". The Orlando Weekly. Retrieved July 28, 2016.
  6. "Aahz...An era of Electronic Music". Orlando.AllOut. January 24, 2015. Retrieved June 4, 2015. If you're from Hawaii "Ohana" means family, if you lived in Orlando in the 90′s "AAHZ" meant and still means family. AAHZ was a late night event that was held at The Beacham nightclub back in the late 80′s/early 90′s. It was so much more than just a night at a club though. It was more of a family reunion every time you walked through the doors. This was in the era where PLUR (Peace, Love, Unity, Respect) was still the main player at these sort of events. This was back in the day before distractions like cell phones and digital cameras were in everyone's hands and it was just you, the crowd, and the DJ. The time when music connected people in a way that very few will ever understand. People came from all over the state to attend the famed AAHZ events. This was a place where you could go and totally let loose without fear of judgment by others. People came to AAHZ for the music and the vibe. The way the DJ's were able to use their turntables to emotionally connect so many different people through their music could not be duplicated anywhere. They quite literally had the mood of the entire room in their hands behind the decks. People thrived off of this new underground culture that was being introduced to Orlando through these AAHZ events. AAHZ was in a league of its own in the Orlando club scene, hosting international talents like Sasha and John Digweed, but, little did anyone know what AAHZ would do for its resident DJ's Kimball Collins and Dave Cannalate. Both have become international superstars and a slew of other AAHZ regular customers like Andy Hughes and DJ Icey were not too far behind them. There is no doubt that AAHZ and its DJ's helped put Orlando on the map and in the forefront of the entire Electronic Dance Music movement across the United States. There really is no way to adequately convey the true meaning or raw emotion of what AAHZ was, or why so many people considered it to be "home." ... Unfortunately, AAHZ came to an end in 1992, and with that came the end of an era for the Orlando club scene and Orlando Electronic Dance Music as a whole. The days of AAHZ may never be able to be totally recreated as it once was, however, AAHZ holds their reunion in Downtown Orlando every year, where they make sure that old school vibe is still in full effect. People who were involved in it during its peak fly in from all around the country just to attend and reclaim their little piece of perfect that used to reside in the heart of Downtown Orlando.[dead link]
  7. Ferguson, Jason; Le-Huu, Bao (July 2, 2013). "Dance dance revolution". The Orlando Weekly. Retrieved July 28, 2016.
  8. Gettelman, Parry (February 9, 1997). "The Orlando Sound Although Hard To Define, It's Hot Among Lovers Of Underground Dance Music". The Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved November 5, 2015.
  9. Le-Huu, Bao (November 28, 2015). "AAHZ respects the breaks that made Orlando global, overdue propers for DJ Stylus (The Beacham)". The Orlando Weekly. Retrieved July 28, 2016.
  10. Le-Huu, Bao (December 2, 2015). "This Little Underground: AAHZ honors Orlando's breaks legacy". The Orlando Weekly. Retrieved August 19, 2016.
  11. Romero, Dennis (June 13, 2016). "Before L.A., Orlando Was a Club Culture Capital". L.A. Weekly. Retrieved June 17, 2016.
  12. Weir, John (1997). "Hot kids with Macs Sound and their own records labels are turning the pre-fab Disney backwater of Orlando, FL into the Seattle of Electronica". Rolling Stone. No. 0767. Orlando: Rolling Stone via AM Soul Records. Archived from the original on August 23, 2016. Retrieved July 29, 2016.
  13. "Best Homage to Orlando's EDM Heritage AAHZ's "These Are the Breaks" event". The Orlando Weekly. August 24, 2016. Retrieved August 24, 2015.

Johnvr4 (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

It pains me to have to restate any of these discussion highlights but it is now very apparent that I need do.
Extended comment
  1. The deletion discussion arguments such as "no substantive content" rest entirely upon WP:AADD.
  2. All of the WP:AADD-based deletion concerns raised are meritless and irrelevant by WP policy. They should be ignored.
  3. The WP:N/WP:GNG concern originally put forth was that the term used as the title of this subject was used by one author.
  4. New evidence exists. There are two sources WP:SUSTAINED sources for that term.
  5. There is 20+ years of local media coverage, an expansive L.A. Weekly source article and a multi-page Rolling Stone article on the subject in issue No. 0767.
  6. Suggestions that that any of the fifteen (now sixteen) sources are not reliable or are not significant coverage to demonstrate WP:N of this era is the criteria for TE.
  7. The two editors who endorsed deletion at AfD reasoned that the term was something someone made up one day. Obviously, there was a reliable source (now, more than one) that used term so this line of reasoning was absurd from the start and the just made it up assertions untrue. The alleged support for this reasoning was that, after a thorough search for other sources was unsuccessful, they determined that there were none and would never be any. I found the new source with a simple Google search so it's apparent that statements about the thoroughness of the search "conducted umpteen different ways" are very highly dubious because the new source with that term was published prior to that editors alleged search. The unsuccessful search was literally the only support for this concern. There was never any legitimate concern of whether this subject would even remotely fail the significant coverage test of WP:GNG.
  8. Any endorsement that finds that this subject was just made up was a ever a legitimate concern or that the WP:MADEUP reasoning was a correct assessment would preclude starting a new article with this title or about that subject era.
  9. Any new or improved article will have to include restatement and WP:CITETRIM of the exact same deleted, but highly reputable, reliable and verifiable information on the subject and will cite the exact same sources
  10. Claims that "there is no way to notability-test" are in direct contradiction with WP:N, WP:NRV, and WP:GNG.
  11. Assertions that our notability standards are determined by content is in direct violation of WP:CONTN, WP:NEXIST, WP:NRV, WP:FAILN, and WP:SUSTAINED (plus others).
  12. Assertions that a more substantial article is a WP article requirement violates WP:AADD#Article size and WP:STUB among others.
  13. Assertions of great and unmatched wisdom or 100% correctness carry no weight.
  14. WP:LONGQUOTE and WP:PLRT is not a WP:COPYVIO. Longer quotations may be hidden in the reference as a WP:FOOTNOTE to facilitate verification by other editors without sacrificing readability.
  15. WP:TNT applies to "a page that is hopelessly irreparable." It would never apply to a one-sentence stub or notable subject that should remain after a WP:FAILN test. WP:TNT is the easiest concern to overturn at DRV.
  16. WP:REFBOMB only applies to a deceptively "loading up of an article with as many sources as possible without regard to whether they actually support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. It's has a different purpose from a WP:CITEKILL which is not to deceive.
  17. Citation overkill is not going to impact the readability of a one-sentence article. "but it can call the notability of the subject into question...experienced editors need to scrutinize the article and each citation needs to be verified carefully to ensure that it was really used to contribute to the article." Regarding "I'm not willing to slog through dozens of sources to evaluate them...I am, however, willing to look at a few sources in detail if somebody else (i.e. you) does the footwork to figure out which ones are the best." from the WP:THREE essay (or WP:TLDR) is not logical reasoning given that one purpose for a WP:LONGQUOTES for a citation is "in order to facilitate verification by other editors". If somebody agrees to look at three, and you give them more than three, they're likely not to look at any of them and it automatically fails WP:N. Given the WP:LONGQUOTEs, this article only fails WP:N out of laziness. That is this part of the WP:THREE essay's reasoning as applied to this particular deleted page is just silly. However for the number of appropriate sources, there is similar guidance from WP:CITEKILL which states two or three sources may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations.
  18. WP:CITEMERGE and WP:CITETRIM is required and/or an expansion greater than one sentence per citation. Deletion is not the solution for the problem described by WP:THREE.
  19. Any AfD discussion that "was conducted on the grounds that as written, the article was a piece of junk..." or "the problem was that the article, as written, was a worthless piece of garbage..." is illegitimate (again WP:AADD). These are the the motivations opening the AfD in the nominating editor's own words. The motivation for AfD was not WP:N. AADD arguments are not a legitimate reason to nominate an article for deletion.
  20. I know it when I see it-based arguments are not rooted in WP policy are WP:AADD. DRV is WP:NOTAVOTE.
Johnvr4 (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I've added a new quote from one of the previously used citations above: [Orlando "Raves" in 1993 (also ATL)] A re-invented Haight-Ashbury of the 90s. Johnvr4 (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I've added yet another new source above: "It was matched only by what hippies did at acid-parties in places like Haight-Ashbury, parties also referred to as “all night raves.”

For those that are actually counting, that is now four sources over 24 year that have made the Summer of Love comparison. There is not a snowballs chance this topic would ever legitimately fail WP:GNG. No amount of votes endorsing the AfD can overcome that fact. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Endorse- the AfD clearly reached consensus to delete. There was no mistake made in the close. I'd even be tempted to salt, because we absolutely cannot have a repeat of this. Reyk YO! 19:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse, but allow draft. The AfD was clear, so endorse that for sure. But, that was a year and a half ago, and apparently there's at least one new source, so there should be no objection to somebody trying to write a new article on the topic. One of the major objections at the AfD was the absurdity of the referencing, and as noted by Reyk, we can't do that again. So, I'm fine with keeping the deleted version deleted and allowing somebody to try again from scratch in draft space. And, yeah, the nomination is rather over-the-top. Let's hope that's not a harbinger of what a new draft might look like. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Properly deleted. To contest, see WP:THREE. 3, not more than 3. See also WP:TL;DR. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse firstly the OP needs to learn to write more concisely. I haven't read the entire WP:WALLOFTEXT above and I don't think anybody else will either. We're especially not interested in your dispute with another editor over this. DRV isn't a dispute resolution forum. The term is clearly used in sources, but that isn't enough for an article. For that we need substential coverage, enough that we can write at least a few paragraphs about the subject without violating normal standards. It's fine if an article is shorter than this but there needs to be at least the potential for expansion. It doesn't help that a lot of these sources do not talk about a "Summer of Love" at all, but instead use other names for it. That means we run into issues with WP:OR if we try to stick all these sources under the label. I would suggest that the OP either contribute to Orlando, Florida#Culture (which already has the one sentence of prose in the deleted version), start an article about the music scene in Orlando, Florida (which would likely be an encyclopedic topic) or at least write a substantial draft about the subject matter. Hut 8.5 11:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse I see nothing wrong with the AfD discussion, nor do I see any new reasons to recreate the article. As per RoySmith and Reyk, having seen the old version of the article, and having picked through this AfD nomination, I'm very concerned about allowing a new draft of the topic, not because I want to discourage the author but because there's a very good chance it will be a waste of everyone's time. SportingFlyer T·C 04:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - The inclusion of the image of the subject page in the AFD was helpful, because this DRV is resembling the original article as nothing but a reference bomb. The AFD shows that the closer was reasonable, and the stub with a dump of citations further proves the point, and the appellant is further making the case against themselves here. I would have !voted Delete if I had taken part, and I will still !vote Delete if it is relisted (but I have confidence that it won't be relisted). If the appellant provides yet another reference bomb, I suggest a snow close out of mercy. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would urge the nominator to very considerably condense their argument and references in order to aid readability. More is not always better. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • This filibuster is not going to help you accomplish your goal. —Cryptic 16:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Condensed DRV statement per request)...
Overturn the original decision and Restore for expansion, improvement, and WP:CITETRIM. WP Policies already have consensus. No amount of voting at DRV will overturn a WP policy per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. WP:AADD is an essay however, WP:DP is a policy that requires valid policy-based argument in discussion and incorporates WP:ATD policy. To start, WP:DP states: "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy." None of the above votes put forth at DRV are policy-based arguments. Literally not one. The reasoning that notability fails GNG as put forth at AfD was not valid per policy despite the endorsers here. Regarding the size of the stub to sources ratio and WP:LONGQUOTES, the state of the citations does not determine notability per WP:NEXIST.
The subject of the entry is the early 1990s scene in Orlando and every single one of the previously used sources covers that topic-- which is criteria of a Citation bomb--"overkill with legitimate source. Based solely on I know it when I see it arguments which assert that these sources were a Notability bomb and never checking them out for WP:N violates WP:NEXIST. Disputing an apparently WP:RS is the criteria for WP:TE
The alleged WP:DEL-REASON given at AfD has been thoroughly disproved. Given the sources (both old and new), none of the arguments put forth at AfD regarding the title of the entry had merit. I've asked involved editors ad nauseam to clarify the exact specific policy reasoning for the Afd and deletion so I can address concerns in something new or here. Not one, could provide a simple answer-- without offing reasoning that suggests that a topic must show proof in content to reach the WP notability threshold. They can't do it simply because notability comes from available sources per WP:CONTN which no editor seems to get. Regardless, any possible WP:DEL-REASON is covered by WP:ATD. Again, we are referring to policy here-- not content. Re: "'no meaningful content'" assertions. "No Meaningful content" is AADD and Per WP:ATD-M "Too Small" complaints support Merge arguments-- not deletion arguments. All of this effort is the result of being forced to try to fix a content dispute at DRV. A policy concern was disguised as a content issue by AfD nom. DP, AfD, RdU, DRV forums are only for apparent policy and process errors and concerns--not for poorly disguised content disputes.
When it is poorly enforced, a mistaken policy assertion (see CONTN) that this entry must prove the notability of the subject in its text as the AfD nom admitted is in fact a content dispute. From WP:DEL-CONTENT, "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases ... Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor..." Per WP:ATD-E, Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. "Per WP:DPAFD These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution. If there is no policy basis in a deletion argument, then it carries no weight here.
The (New and old) Evidence is to support use of the term is: The new 2011 and 2017 sources:
  1. Moyer, Matthew (November 21, 2017). "Wizard of AAHZ: Orlando lord of the dance Kimball Collins is serious about throwing a party". The Orlando Weekly. The last thing on DJ and Orlando dance music linchpin Kimball Collins' mind back during the fabled Orlando Summer of Love in the early 1990s was that he would someday be responsible for preserving the legacy of Florida Breaks
  2. Guinto, Humberto (April 27, 2011). "I Was A Florida Raver Chapter 1 The Edge". It was matched only by what hippies did at acid-parties in places like Haight-Ashbury, parties also referred to as “all night raves.” ...from Miami to Orlando... The Florida rave scene was chronicled by Rolling Stone contributing editor Simon Reynolds in his seminal, rave anthology Generation Ecstasy as “infamous for taking excessive hedonism to the point of near-death experiences and sometimes taking it all the way.”
Reliable Sources from 1993 and 1998 that were cited prior to deletion:
  1. Kelemen, Matt (September 2, 1998). "Wizards of Aahz: The Florida winter had ju..." The Orlando Weekly. Collins could not be aware of it at the time, but those Saturday nights -- eventually known as "Aahz"-- would kick-start an underground culture and spawn countless DJ careers. Orlando would never be the same...By 1991-1992, Orlando experienced its own "summer of love" through the culture that sprang up around the weekend acid-house nights at the Beacham Theatre...only New York, San Francisco and L.A. had similar scenes, and they were characterized by warehouse parties. Orlando had a headquarters in the heart of its downtown district...By the time Rolling Stone discovered the scene, late-night culture had become a shadow of its former self.
  2. Guinto, Liesl (August 1, 1993). "All The Rave". The Orlando Sentinel. A re-invented Haight-Ashbury of the 90s.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnvr4 (talkcontribs) 14:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Forgot to sign Johnvr4 (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the essay on a snowballs chances, please consider the WP:SNOWFLAKE. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Note the above was posted by the OP, User:Johnvr4, and isn't another person supporting overturning the result. Since the OP is assumed to be supporting overturning the result they aren't supposed to post "overturn" comments because that looks like a comment from someone else. Hut 8.5 17:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I have unbolded the !vote and noted that it's the OP in a {{Hover title}}.-C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
My policy based arguments were never a vote. On the other hand, endorsements without policy guidance are votes. Votes carry no weight in these discussions! Johnvr4 (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
And what I'm making clear is that it's one person with two recommendations (not-a-vote or !vote), not two !votes. In AfD discussions, the normal practice is to strike the duplicate recommendation. Rather than strike your second one, I hover texted it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I had moved my recommendation so it would not be counted twice. The long DRV reason still applies--its just the long version. I'm sorry if I mangled it and that I forgot to sign my abbreviated reasoning. Thank you (both) for the fixes. Johnvr4 (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Johnvr4 is appealing the original AfD. I see no problems with the close of that AfD, and I find that the arguments presented there are appropriate to the article as it existed at the time of the AfD.
    That being said, there is nothing in the AfD that prohibits creation of a new draft on the subject if the situation changes. To that end, Johnvr4 is welcome to develop a fully fleshed-out draft that gives a good demonstration—through prose about the subject, not a bombardment of sources—of how the subject is notable. The prior article may be a starting point on that path, but it is not an end point. I have no objections to the revisions being restored to Draft: space, but the deleted article should certainly not be put back into main space.—C.Fred(talk) 19:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent discussionsEdit