430:
Network and will snipe at any opportunity. You can tell from the crap posted -vandalized- and regularly reverted across the swath of related articles. Since you had salted article based on the original AfD decision, this looked the only avenue to open the discussion, hidden from public view as this is. I put a notice on the TYT article directing (nobody so far) here. I'll convert it into the discussion and see if anybody notices it there, or if their foes overwhelm the process.
1069:
to keep the article. Although the verification did not confirm this, they might have relation to each other outside
Knowledge. Also, in the discussing one of sysops confirmed the presence of advertising, but this has not been fixed. I just want everything to be done according with the rules. I see that there were done edits of the article, but I believe that the consensus should be made by a neutral participant.
405:, I believe the issue you're raising here is that now that the redirect is protected, it requires an admin to unprotect. So, if you had a discussion on the article talk page, and consensus emerged to eliminate the redirect and spin this back out as a stand-alone title, most users wouldn't be able to implement that. That's not really a problem; if you generated a consensus, you could just post a note to
530:
I see you have received one blunt response already. My advice: Instead of stating "a new daily show
Iadarola was starting on the TYT Network" provide the source that says this; instead of stating "Iadarola is the co-host of the flagship show of the The Young Turks", provide the source that says this. It's about being discussed in reliable sources, it is not about facts that can be asserted. --
461:. I expect to see at least an attempt to start a conversation there. You mention BRD. Where is the discussion. This page, Deletion Review, is not for proposing a spinout, although you may here present information not known at the time of the AfD. This information has to link to reliable sources, not Knowledge links. If on the talk page, no one else is there, try
380:. It's fine to undo a redirect on your own. But, after a few cycles of somebody else coming along and putting it back, it's time to step back from that and work with other people to build consensus. That's where we are now. My protecting the redirect was not me expressing an opinion on whether it should be redirected or not. It was just me
395:. I've never actually used that myself, but from what I can see, it's a quick, lightweight, way to resolve disagreements about content, and I think this would qualify. My only concern about mentioning it is that you might post a request there and have it kicked back as not appropriate for that venue, which would be a sad example of
223:, a youtube channel that gets 2 million hits a day. Other lesser talent on the network have their own articles. It is illogical and uninformed for his article to be redirected. At a minimum, the discussion should be reopened. Obviously, based on my improvements to the article, it should be restored.
529:
That's good. When reversing a redirect, it is not obvious where the discussion should be. I'm not sure if it is written anywhere, but I think the discussion should, as a rule, be at the talk page of the redirect target. That is the page where the most subject-interested editors should be watching.
429:
I improved the article addressing the previous concerns and took it to mainspace, with notification of the objecting parties. Some other editor came in to use the previous closure as a premeditated excuse to wipe out this content. There certainly is a contingent who object to the content of the TYT
1068:
in attempts to keep the article. Instead, he closed the nomination again, which confirms my suspicions again. I ask the decision to be done by an independent participant - sysop in order to maintain neutrality. I ask to pay attention to a large number of participants who resemble sockpuppets, voting
387:
We have lots of different places where discussions can happen. The article talk page is one. DRV (where we are now) is another. Having the discussion happen and some consensus emerge is the important thing. Which forum that happens on is less critical. In general, content issues (which this is)
283:
was the nom for the AfD, not me. I closed it. I also protected the redirect. Be that as it may, I have no opinion on whether this should be redirected or not. My protection of the redirect was just to stop the edit warring going on. If, after a discussion, there's a consensus to remove the
305:. Good close, a squarely correct reading of a fairly clear reading of the rough consensus, if you read it through, to redirect with history intact. The content in appropriate in the target article and not spun out. The protecting of the redirect was the right thing to do, leave it protected. —
681:
are a unique part of the show and set it apart from similar programs. I created a separate article because I thought the show's main article would become too big if these details were included there. I don't see any reason why the information on the opening credit sequences can't exist as a
219:, revert and revert (I was uninvolved) and finally the NOM, who has already been active on THIS page today, redirected it away and salted that decision by adding indefinite admin access. Some people are more equal than others. Iadarola is the co-host of the flagship show of the
806:. Plus one in favor of deleting. Had these comments been made on the AfD page, the person who closed the AfD would have seen them, but I doubt it would have made any difference. Tealirish, in particular, would have almost certainly been discounted as an obvious sock. --
250:
Why the heck doesn't
Deletion Review automatically link to the decision being reviewed? Here, it is confusing because the AFD was a while ago and there has been subsequent back-and-forth about restoring or re-starting the article. I think the decision being reviewed is
412:
Alternatively, if the discussion happens here, whoever closes this DRV can implement it. But, again, the important thing is the discussion and the building of consensus. Which page the discussion happens on is less important. --
660:
457:, you are getting ahead of yourself. At Afd, a decision was made. Based on the discussion, the close was correct. The talk page of the redirect target is the most likely place that you’ll find others interested in
648:
252:
181:
163:
451:
asked “Please explain how a discussion on THAT page can reactivate an article that has already been deleted. Because it has already been through the deletion process, that is why I brought it here.”
355:
Please explain how a discussion on THAT page can reactivate an article that has already been deleted. Because it has already been through the deletion process, that is why I brought it here.
275:
The above is kind of confusing. The events described all happened, but the mapping of who did what is random. The quoted closing statement, for example, was actually part of an argument by
669:
757:. Clearly no other way to close the AFD and since no new sources are presented here to indicate that the AFD !voters were wrong in their assessment, this should be speedily closed. ----
1057:
1035:
78:
It's not entirely clear what's being asked here, but there is at any rate no consensus to overturn the deletion. What else to do with this topic can continue to be discussed elsewhere.
188:
During the AfD another Keep voter said
Iadarola was about to release a new series. After that series was released, in July, I improved the article with the addition of that series on
825:. It's not reasonable to expect closers to consider talk page comments, unless someone points out there was prior discussion there. Either way, there's a clear consensus to delete. –
323:
Beyond the initial decision, did you address the subsequent additions to the article, two additional programs he hosted, one for a different network, as further claims to notability?
677:
No consensus. I don't believe there was consensus to delete this article. In addition, I don't think it falls under the heading of "too trivial". The opening credit symbols in
215:
when I restored the article. The nom had no objection, none of the others chose to comment. Today, three months later, the article went through a redirect (this editor
700:- I think consensus was completely clear. Substantial nomination, with complete unanimity from everyone who commented. There's no other way this could have been closed.
409:
saying, "we've got consensus, can somebody please implement this", and you'd be all set. Or ping me, if you prefer (fair warning: you'll need to demonstrate consensus).
888:. There clearly isn't even consensus to have the content included in the article, let alone stand on its own. Better suited for the show's Wikia page or what-have-you.
186:
Suggest that interested editors incubate it there, and wait until coverage of his career gains a little more heft before hoping to move it to a freestanding article.
48:
34:
1023:
43:
1044:
774:
Huh. I guess the comments on the article's talk page that endorsed keeping it BEFORE it was proposed for deletion don't count then. Good to know.
151:
763:
1060:, the nominee was blocked by the duck test, which in my opinion was not enough. The re-closing of the nomination does not fall under
39:
795:
618:
897:
614:
571:
172:
1064:
as I want independent participants to reach the consensus, because I have questions about the interest of the participant -
721:. The deletion decision was unanimous with no opposition; the discussion could not possibly have been closed any other way.
490:
I have opened the discussion on the redirect page. When I did the BRD, I notified the talk pages of the opposers directly.
993:
200:
21:
196:
1088:
973:
926:
598:
550:
101:
17:
1053:
989:
947:
1078:
962:
915:
901:
880:
855:
850:
836:
813:
785:
767:
749:
730:
713:
691:
587:
539:
519:
499:
478:
439:
420:
364:
350:
332:
314:
295:
264:
240:
90:
868:
208:
1074:
204:
911:
893:
871:, but if it is not appropriate for inclusion in that article, it is less appropriate for a spinout. —
781:
739:
687:
509:
338:
285:
280:
803:
184:
closed, on a 3/3 !vote, one of those !votes being from the closing Admin, the closing statement was
876:
535:
495:
474:
435:
377:
360:
346:
328:
310:
236:
228:
192:
AND a new daily show
Iadarola was starting on the TYT Network, which had already been picked up by
337:
No, that’s out of scope for this review. If you are making an argument for a spinout, make it at
959:
845:
810:
746:
516:
417:
292:
121:
864:
831:
758:
260:
1070:
1061:
906:
Well, clearly I'm on the wrong side of this discussion. I guess delete is the answer then.
799:
726:
381:
276:
212:
907:
889:
777:
683:
220:
798:(which I've tempundeleted), I see three comments in favor of keeping, one by you, one by
369:
There's a couple of different questions intertwined here. I'll try to address them all.
872:
707:
578:
531:
491:
470:
466:
454:
448:
431:
402:
396:
373:
356:
342:
324:
306:
232:
224:
81:
425:
I realize the requirement is to build a consensus, the question appears to be place.
956:
863:. Could not have been closed any other way. It looks like an obviously inappropriate
807:
743:
513:
458:
426:
414:
406:
289:
117:
70:
1065:
826:
462:
256:
722:
392:
284:
redirect, I'm fine with that. The normal place for such a discussion would be
701:
193:
1052:
There was no consensus in making conclusion about the article of
189:
253:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/John
Iadarola (2nd nomination)
217:
apparently pre-determining this move and result two weeks ago
1030:
1016:
1008:
1000:
655:
641:
633:
625:
216:
158:
144:
136:
128:
867:. Encourage discussion of the content to continue at
288:, but since we seem to be here, that's fine too. --
738:. Well attended and unanimous AfD. Nom fails
388:generally get hashed out on article talk pages.
372:First, the project has a weird tension between
796:Talk:Ozark (TV series) Opening Credit Symbols
8:
972:The following is an archived debate of the
597:The following is an archived debate of the
100:The following is an archived debate of the
940:
844:could not have been closed any other way.
564:
63:
615:Ozark (TV series) Opening Credit Symbols
572:Ozark (TV series) Opening Credit Symbols
185:
742:. This should be speedy closed. --
374:empowering people to act on their own
279:, one of the AfD participants. And,
7:
508:Including the link for convenience:
378:requiring people to agree as a group
1091:of the page listed in the heading.
929:of the page listed in the heading.
553:of the page listed in the heading.
510:Talk:The Young Turks#John_Iadarola
28:
231:) 05:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
382:enforcing the consensus building
1087:The above is an archive of the
925:The above is an archive of the
549:The above is an archive of the
1079:03:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
963:04:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
916:05:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
902:19:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
881:08:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
856:02:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
837:18:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
814:18:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
786:17:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
768:17:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
750:15:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
731:14:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
714:08:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
692:05:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
588:07:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
540:08:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
520:15:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
500:08:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
479:22:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
440:19:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
421:19:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
365:14:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
351:09:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
333:09:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
315:09:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
296:14:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
265:13:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
241:05:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
1:
575:– "Delete" closure endorsed.
207:and the two negative !votes
91:12:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
1114:
76:No consensus to overturn.
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
1094:Please do not modify it.
1054:Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev
990:Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev
979:Please do not modify it.
953:We don't entertain socks
948:Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev
932:Please do not modify it.
719:Endorse and speedy close
604:Please do not modify it.
556:Please do not modify it.
341:. I see nothing there. —
107:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
469:the AfD participants. —
391:Another possibility is
869:Talk:Ozark (TV series)
255:, from a while ago. --
339:Talk:The Young Turks
286:Talk:The Young Turks
281:User:Johnpacklambert
976:of the page above.
755:Endorse (own close)
601:of the page above.
199:. I also notified
104:of the page above.
682:separate article.
1101:
1100:
939:
938:
835:
586:
563:
562:
89:
59:13 September 2018
49:2018 September 14
35:2018 September 12
1105:
1096:
1058:first nomination
1047:
1042:
1033:
1019:
1011:
1003:
981:
941:
934:
853:
829:
698:Endorse deletion
672:
667:
658:
644:
636:
628:
606:
585:
583:
576:
565:
558:
277:User:E.M.Gregory
175:
170:
161:
147:
139:
131:
109:
88:
86:
79:
64:
53:
33:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1092:
1089:deletion review
1043:
1041:
1038:
1029:
1028:
1022:
1015:
1014:
1007:
1006:
999:
998:
977:
974:deletion review
930:
927:deletion review
849:
766:
712:
668:
666:
663:
654:
653:
647:
640:
639:
632:
631:
624:
623:
602:
599:deletion review
579:
577:
554:
551:deletion review
221:The Young Turks
171:
169:
166:
157:
156:
150:
143:
142:
135:
134:
127:
126:
105:
102:deletion review
82:
80:
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1111:
1109:
1099:
1098:
1083:
1082:
1050:
1049:
1039:
1026:
1020:
1012:
1004:
996:
984:
983:
968:
967:
966:
965:
937:
936:
921:
920:
919:
918:
904:
883:
858:
839:
819:
818:
817:
816:
789:
788:
775:
771:
770:
762:
752:
733:
716:
706:
675:
674:
664:
651:
645:
637:
629:
621:
609:
608:
593:
592:
591:
590:
561:
560:
545:
544:
543:
542:
526:
525:
524:
523:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
452:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
410:
400:
389:
385:
370:
318:
317:
299:
298:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
178:
177:
167:
154:
148:
140:
132:
124:
112:
111:
96:
95:
94:
93:
61:
56:
47:
44:2018 September
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1110:
1097:
1095:
1090:
1085:
1084:
1081:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1046:
1037:
1032:
1025:
1018:
1010:
1002:
995:
991:
988:
987:
986:
985:
982:
980:
975:
970:
969:
964:
961:
958:
954:
950:
949:
945:
944:
943:
942:
935:
933:
928:
923:
922:
917:
913:
909:
905:
903:
899:
895:
891:
887:
884:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
862:
859:
857:
854:
852:
847:
846:SportingFlyer
843:
840:
838:
833:
828:
824:
821:
820:
815:
812:
809:
805:
802:, and one by
801:
797:
793:
792:
791:
790:
787:
783:
779:
776:
773:
772:
769:
765:
764:contributions
760:
756:
753:
751:
748:
745:
741:
740:WP:DRVPURPOSE
737:
734:
732:
728:
724:
720:
717:
715:
711:
710:
705:
704:
699:
696:
695:
694:
693:
689:
685:
680:
671:
662:
657:
650:
643:
635:
627:
620:
616:
613:
612:
611:
610:
607:
605:
600:
595:
594:
589:
584:
582:
574:
573:
569:
568:
567:
566:
559:
557:
552:
547:
546:
541:
537:
533:
528:
527:
522:
521:
518:
515:
511:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
497:
493:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
459:John Iadarola
456:
453:
450:
447:
441:
437:
433:
428:
424:
423:
422:
419:
416:
411:
408:
404:
401:
398:
394:
390:
386:
383:
379:
375:
371:
368:
367:
366:
362:
358:
354:
353:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
335:
334:
330:
326:
322:
321:
320:
319:
316:
312:
308:
304:
301:
300:
297:
294:
291:
287:
282:
278:
274:
273:
266:
262:
258:
254:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
195:
191:
187:
183:
174:
165:
160:
153:
146:
138:
130:
123:
119:
118:John Iadarola
116:
115:
114:
113:
110:
108:
103:
98:
97:
92:
87:
85:
77:
73:
72:
71:John Iadarola
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1093:
1086:
1066:User:Wumbolo
1051:
978:
971:
952:
946:
931:
924:
885:
860:
848:
841:
822:
759:Patar knight
754:
735:
718:
708:
702:
697:
678:
676:
603:
596:
580:
570:
555:
548:
507:
489:
302:
179:
106:
99:
83:
75:
69:
58:
1071:Marsellus W
1062:WP:SKCRIT#2
800:TheMovieGuy
794:Looking at
182:the 2nd AfD
908:Billmckern
890:cymru.lass
865:WP:SPINOUT
778:Billmckern
684:Billmckern
581:Sandstein
467:WP:Pinging
205:the Closer
84:Sandstein
1056:. At the
873:SmokeyJoe
804:Tealirish
532:SmokeyJoe
492:Trackinfo
471:SmokeyJoe
455:Trackinfo
449:Trackinfo
432:Trackinfo
403:Trackinfo
357:Trackinfo
343:SmokeyJoe
325:Trackinfo
307:SmokeyJoe
233:Trackinfo
225:Trackinfo
957:RoySmith
898:contribs
808:RoySmith
744:RoySmith
514:RoySmith
415:RoySmith
290:RoySmith
20: |
1045:restore
1009:history
886:Endorse
861:Endorse
842:Endorse
823:Endorse
736:Endorse
670:restore
634:history
397:WP:BURO
303:Endorse
257:Doncram
201:the NOM
194:YouTube
173:restore
137:history
960:(talk)
811:(talk)
747:(talk)
723:Stifle
517:(talk)
427:WP:BRD
418:(talk)
407:WP:RFP
293:(talk)
1031:watch
1024:links
679:Ozark
656:watch
649:links
465:, or
463:WP:3O
180:When
159:watch
152:links
52:: -->
16:<
1075:talk
1017:logs
1001:edit
994:talk
912:talk
894:talk
877:talk
851:talk
832:talk
782:talk
727:talk
703:Reyk
688:talk
642:logs
626:edit
619:talk
536:talk
496:talk
475:talk
436:talk
393:WP:3
376:and
361:talk
347:talk
329:talk
311:talk
261:talk
237:talk
229:talk
190:go90
145:logs
129:edit
122:talk
32:<
1036:XfD
1034:) (
955:--
827:Joe
761:- /
709:YO!
661:XfD
659:) (
512:--
197:OTT
164:XfD
162:) (
22:Log
1077:)
951:–
914:)
900:)
896:•
879:)
784:)
729:)
690:)
538:)
498:)
477:)
438:)
363:)
349:)
331:)
313:)
263:)
239:)
211:,
203:,
74:–
42::
1073:(
1048:)
1040:|
1027:|
1021:|
1013:|
1005:|
997:|
992:(
910:(
892:(
875:(
834:)
830:(
780:(
725:(
686:(
673:)
665:|
652:|
646:|
638:|
630:|
622:|
617:(
534:(
494:(
473:(
434:(
399:.
384:.
359:(
345:(
327:(
309:(
259:(
235:(
227:(
213:2
209:1
176:)
168:|
155:|
149:|
141:|
133:|
125:|
120:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.