View source for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 May 17

<noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude>
===[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 May 17|17 May 2016]]===
<!--Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.

Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:drv2|page=<PAGE NAME>|xfd_page=<XFD PAGE NAME>|reason=<REASON>}} ~~~~      -->

====[[:Cambridge_Tolkien_Society]] (closed)====
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
* '''[[:Cambridge_Tolkien_Society]]''' – '''Withdrawn''' after all opinions offered were to endorse the closure. – <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 13:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{DRV links|Cambridge_Tolkien_Society|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cambridge_Tolkien_Society|article=}}
Deletion and move to a subsection of the TS page was on the basis that CTS is an "offshoot" or "local group" of the TS. This is inaccurate, whilst the society is a smial and thus holds a level of formal affiliation and collaboration with the TS it is functionally and legally an independent organisation. The merge was thus made on inaccurate grounds, and I'd request/recommend a reinstatement of the society's separate page, as an independent institution with a 33 year history and a considerable independent record of publications with international reach. [[User:JamesMatthewBaillie|JamesMatthewBaillie]] ([[User talk:JamesMatthewBaillie|talk]]) 15:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
*Can you provide the best 2 or 3 sources which you feel provide non-trivial independent coverage (per the requirements of [[WP:N]]? [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 17:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse.''' We almost never make articles on local branches or affiliates of organizations, regardless of whether they're legally separate. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 20:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

* Most of the society's impact (and thus its notability) is measurable primarily in its publication record and citations. Coverage such as newspaper articles that focus on the society itself are thus relatively rare, as is normally the case for learned societies (and as is evident from looking at the Wiki pages of other smaller scholarly outlets). Probably the closest things to what you're looking for are the following:
* * This article, from a US student paper: http://thewellesleynews.com/2014/04/03/wen-in-england-tolkien-and-tea-at-cambridge/
* * This 2004 article in the Cambridge News: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Fans-claim-city-sites-inspired-Rings-realm/story-22464820-detail/story.html
* * Regular references and reports in the Tolkien Society publication Amon Hen, most recently in issue 257 page 25
* * We are of course listed on the Tolkien Society smials page: http://www.tolkiensociety.org/society/smials/
* * And also our thirty-third anniversary was recently announced via the TS: http://www.tolkiensociety.org/events/minas-tirith-smial-annual-dinner/
* * And Anor is catalogued by the University of Cambridge's copyright library: http://search.lib.cam.ac.uk/?itemid=|cambrdgedb|2985920
* * The society or its work and publications are also referenced in, among other published works, the Scull & Hammond companion to JRR Tolkien, C.S. Lewis (An Annotated Bibliography and Resource) by PH Brazier, Tolkien and Romanticism: Proceedings of the Cambridge Tolkien Workshop 1988, and the Proceedings of the J.R.R. Tolkien Centenary Conference. I should note also that we're expecting one or two more published works that discuss the society more closely and directly to appear in the next few months, so if the above isn't sufficient to consider a reversal of the original decision then perhaps this could be re-opened at a later stage when those are available for consultation. Thanks! [[User:JamesMatthewBaillie|JamesMatthewBaillie]] ([[User talk:JamesMatthewBaillie|talk]]) 20:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

* In response to the "We never make articles on local affiliates" - of course, but the initial point is that the CTS is ''not'' simply a local affiliate of the TS, it has members from well beyond its local area its journal frequently both accepts submissions, and is read, internationally. [[User:JamesMatthewBaillie|JamesMatthewBaillie]] ([[User talk:JamesMatthewBaillie|talk]]) 20:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' deletion as the article is not convincing for its article. [[User:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">'''S'''wister'''T'''wister</font>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 22:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''.  The discussion could not have been closed any other other way.  
:[http://thewellesleynews.com/2014/04/03/wen-in-england-tolkien-and-tea-at-cambridge/ 1]  Sorry, College newpapers are not good enough to demonstrate Wikipedia-notability (aka qualification for a stand-alone article)
:[http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Fans-claim-city-sites-inspired-Rings-realm/story-22464820-detail/story.html 2] As for #1, and also, the article only makes passing mention of the society.
:[http://www.tolkiensociety.org/society/smials/ 3] That's promotion, not independent coverage.
:[http://www.tolkiensociety.org/events/minas-tirith-smial-annual-dinner/ 4] Again, that is not coverage of the subject.
:[http://search.lib.cam.ac.uk/?itemid=%7Ccambrdgedb%7C2985920 5] Primary source, yes it exists, but primary sources do not count much to Wikipedia-notability.
:In short, there is a lack of independent third party coverage of the subject, as required for a stand alone topic.  However, do feel encouraged to use these sources to add material to [[The_Tolkien_Society#Local_groups]].  There is more than enough room there to including everything I think I have seen  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 08:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

* OK - will leave for now, and if it's alright will request another review towards the end of the year when fuller sources currently in production have been published. [[User:JamesMatthewBaillie|JamesMatthewBaillie]] ([[User talk:JamesMatthewBaillie|talk]]) 09:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

====[[:Al_Giordano]]====
{{Not a ballot|1=of [https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughsandersspam/comments/4jlxdd/al_giordano_announces_hell_challenge_sanders/ this Reddit post]}}
:{{DRV links|Al_Giordano|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Giordano|article=}}
Insufficient discussion, and those involved in the discussion were clearly not familiar with his work.  Also, following some discussion on twitter, deletion of this page appears to be politically motivated.  [[User:Meese|Meese]] ([[User talk:Meese|talk]]) 01:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''', more than sufficient discussion, and the rationales were reasonable. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''', discussion carefully omitted many reasons Al Giordano is notable, and appears to be pushed through quickly for political reasons.  See [[User_talk:Phantomsteve]] for additional arguments. [[Special:Contributions/24.7.113.92|24.7.113.92]] ([[User talk:24.7.113.92|talk]]) 10:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''', Deleted the day after Giordano challenged Sanders for VT Senate seat. Deletion was quite likely political. [[User:Le dragon|Le dragon]] ([[User talk:Le dragon|talk]]) 12:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
:: I didn't think Sanders was up for re-election?  Or are we talking about the 2018 senate election?  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 08:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''.  AfD was reasonably well attended, and resulted in a unanimous (5-0, if I counted right) consensus to delete, based on reasonable arguments.  There's obviously canvassing going on here.  The DRV nomination was the nominator's first edit in five years.  Le Dragon's first edit in six months.  ''following some discussion on twitter, deletion of this page appears to be politically motivated.'' is kind of a clue too.  -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 13:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment from deleting admin''' I deleted the article as the discussion consensus went this way. There was a total of 22 days for discussion, so I feel that there was sufficient time. As for political motivation - I am not an American, and had not even heard of Giordano prior to this discussion showing on the list of "old discussions" requiring closing. I cannot comment on the motivation of the contributors to the discussion. The fact that he is running for a Senate seat was mentioned towards the end of the discussion (I would not have known otherwise), and so that is why I noted ''If he is successful in running for a Senate seat, his notability at that time can be taken into consideration for re-creating the article''. '''''[[User:Phantomsteve|<font color="#307D7E">Phantom</font><font color="#55CAFA">Steve</font>]]'''''/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|<font color="#008000">talk</font>]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Phantomsteve|<font color="#000080">contribs</font>]]\ 13:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
*''edit history temporarily restored for discussion'' '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 20:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' AfD was open for considerably longer than required, got more participation than required for a close, was largely unanimous and the close was based on sound arguments. The only other reason given is an unsupported allegation that the deletion was politically motivated because it took place around the time that the subject announced on Twitter that he's going to run for the US Senate. The deletion of the article wasn't some sinister ploy to support Bernie Sanders, it was done because there are very few sources about the subject out there and they don't give significant coverage. This "Senate run" has got no coverage beyond Twitter, forums etc. Merely being a candidate for political office isn't enough in itself for notability per [[WP:POLITICIAN]]. This is being discussed on a rather amusing [https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughsandersspam/comments/4jlxdd/al_giordano_announces_hell_challenge_sanders/ Reddit thread], which may be responsible for some of the canvassing. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 21:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' deletion. I myself voted Delete as the article was not convincing. [[User:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">'''S'''wister'''T'''wister</font>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 22:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' deletion. Article needs work for sure but a quick internet search turns up a number of articles about (not by) Giordano in The Guardian, Village Voice, Boston Globe, Rolling Stone, etc. (List of links here -- have to scroll down a little for articles about rather than by: http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/01778107.htm). Article needs more sources but blanket deletion means no one gets the opportunity to add sources and make Wikipedia better. [[User:Ricardiana|Ricardiana]] ([[User talk:Ricardiana|talk]]) 22:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''.  Could not have been closed any other way.  In general, new candidates currently involved in election campaigns will not be covered, because nearly all sources fail [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and/or [[WP:NOTPROMOTION]].  Note that an encyclopedia is an historiographical work, it covers history, not current affairs.  When the candidate is elected, there will more likely be significant things to say.  History can be as recent as an hour ago, but is this candidate's candidature history-making?  If not, coverage in Wikipedia is too-soon.  
: If I understand the facts correctly, some coverage, definitely mention, should be made at [[United States Senate election in Vermont, 2016]] --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 08:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
*<s>'''Overturn'''</s> Just to add to my earlier comment -- I take the deleting admin at his word that he had no stake in this deletion.  However his comment that "if" Giordano runs he can then be re-added misses the point being made by many of those objecting to this deletion.  Specifically, Giordano already easily meets wikipedia's notability criteria as others point out, so the deletion "consensus" deliberately overlooked that evidence when coming to the conclusion to delete.  [[Special:Contributions/24.7.113.92|24.7.113.92]] ([[User talk:24.7.113.92|talk]]) 11:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
:<small>Note: I've struck the Overturn bit of the comment as the same editor left an Overturn !vote above. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 21:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC) </small>
:* The comment made was that if he is ''elected'', not if he ''runs''. My understanding is that running in and of itself does not make someone notable? Gaining a seat at a higher level political level automatically confers notability, from what I understand. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected![[Special:Contributions/198.102.219.142|198.102.219.142]] ([[User talk:198.102.219.142|talk]]) 15:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
::*Yes, that's right, I think you're referring to [[WP:POLITICIAN]]. This says that members of national legislative bodies such as the US Senate are presumed to be notable, but that unelected candidates for political offices are not. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 21:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
*<s>'''Overturn'''</s> I initiated this review.  Al Giordano has been notable for over a decade and continues to be notable. The discussion overlooked clear evidence of this, including articles about him in mainstream media.  Also, while not mainstream, his publication [[Narco News]] is a well-established and long-running source of alternative journalism.  As a result, he meets not just one but all the criteria for "creative professionals", [[Wikipedia:Notability_(people)]] -- 1) widely cited by his peers (including famed journalist Gary Webb), 2) known for originating a significant new concept (Banamex case, School of Authentic Journalism, Narco News), 3) collected body of work (Narco News), 4) has been cited for his work on many stories by other outlets, such as by PBS Frontline for work on Venezuela.  Together this puts him far above the bar in terms of notability, and yet this was ignored during the deletion discussion.  I'd also add that RoySmith's argument (above) seems to be that the mere number of votes is a sign of a proper review process and that an ad hominem directed at me for having not edited anything in a while is relevant to the discussion.  [[User:Meese|Meese]] ([[User talk:Meese|talk]]) 18:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
**Struck duplicate vote; your listing here implies an overturn. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 09:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' – It seems a bit of a ''[[post hoc ergo propter hoc]]'' to say that the discussion must have been politically motivated just because it happened after Al Giordano announced a political move. The discussion was publicly advertised for 21 days, and 5 editors agreed that the evidence does not support the subject's notability with arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There were no opposing arguments presented. For these reasons, there is no way that the closing administrator erred in their judgment of the consensus to delete. As an alternative, I might support [[WP:USERFY|userfying]] or [[WP:ATD-I|incubating]] the page to allow those who believe the subject is notable to develop an improved article that incorporates the supposed sources that show notability. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 03:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
:* The claim was not about his senate run, but about his acerbic political commentary. Marking the page as a stub seems like a good idea.  I won't claim that the page is a good page -- it's not.  But I believe that's a separate issue from Giordano being notable and the evidence being ignored in the decision to delete. [[User:Meese|Meese]] ([[User talk:Meese|talk]]) 06:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - As was stated in the AfD almost all Giordano mentions in the news source back to his own blogs and work as a journalist. While Giordano would hardly be the only social media huckster to misuse Wikipedia to propagate false notability, I have little patience for this racket. I also notice that [[User:Meese|Meese]] who created the Giordano page and other Giordano-related pages (and who initiated this Deletion Review) previously tried to have an article about Giordano nemesis and commentator [[David Sirota]] deleted for lack of notability (see [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Sirota]]). In sum the Giordano article is a big fat [[WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND|Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground]] violation which was appropriately deleted. [[User:Brmull|Brmull]] ([[User talk:Brmull|talk]]) 05:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
:* This comment is misguided.  I created those pages years ago *because* Giordano and his work was notable and yet no pages existed.  To then use the creation of the pages (and my argument against deletion now) as evidence that they should not have been created is circular.  (Also, while this is unrelated to this discussion, I should respond to the claim being made.  At that time, Sirota was not notable.  Since that time, he has become notable, and so I would not request deletion today.  There was a time in the life of anyone who is notable that they were not notable.) [[User:Meese|Meese]] ([[User talk:Meese|talk]]) 06:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

*'''Overturn''' - This was obviously politically motivated. There's no doubt about that. Giordano is a notable writer. <span style="color: #00FFBF">[[User:Thesqrtminus1|Thesqrtminus1]]<sup>([[User talk:Thesqrtminus1|talk]])</sup></span> 13:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
*: You know just asserting stuff doesn't actually make it true or mean everyone agrees with you. Please explain to me how no one turning up in over 20 days of listing to support retention is "politically motivated" --[[Special:Contributions/82.14.37.32|82.14.37.32]] ([[User talk:82.14.37.32|talk]]) 20:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' the AFD had an unanimous consensus to delete and no evidence whatsoever has been presented to sustainable that the deletion was a conspiracy by Bernie Sanders supporters. Also, if this was politically motivated deletion as claimed why would anyone attempting to do so have the AFD running over 3 times longer than necessary making it more likely that people that wanted the kept to discover the AFD in question (7 days vs 22 days)?--[[Special:Contributions/67.68.163.254|67.68.163.254]] ([[User talk:67.68.163.254|talk]]) 22:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
:* I'm  not sure why the length of the AfD is relevant. If a long AfD settled the matter, this page would not be up for discussion still. The question is, Is he article about a person who meets the criteria for notability and thus warrants a page? I've already said yes and pointed towards a page with sources. More on this below. [[User:Ricardiana|Ricardiana]] ([[User talk:Ricardiana|talk]]) 05:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. The discussion was quite obvious and the people who claim that there exists additional sources should also produce them rather than simply accusing everyone of being politically motivated. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 22:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
:* It would be helpful if stated what you thought was obvious, specifically. I have already posted a link that contains a list of sources. Here are more. 
::http://www.theguardian.com/media/2001/jun/25/mondaymediasection11
::
::http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1462/a04.html?397
::I searched Academic OneFile and Acadmic Search Complete as well. Ere are more articles about Giordano listed in those databases but I'm not sure how to link to them unless others here have subscriptions to the same databases o institutional access to those databases. Suffice it to say that ere are also articles about Giordano in The Christian Science Monitor and New York Times, etc. 
::Apologies for formatting problems. I'm on my iPad and editing on here is a bear. [[User:Ricardiana|Ricardiana]] ([[User talk:Ricardiana|talk]]) 05:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
:::I also looked at Google Books and did some quick searches there as well. Several biographies of Abbie Hoffman discuss Giordano, e.g., this biography published by Putnam: https://books.google.com/books?id=ozC7AAAAIAAJ&q=Giordano+dump+the+pump&dq=Giordano+dump+the+pump&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj76Prp9ufMAhUFVj4KHWbUDQMQ6AEIMjAC 
:::and another biography published by Rutgers University Press: https://books.google.com/books?id=ECYjlcF6QIcC&pg=PA283&dq=Giordano+abbie+hoffman&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT4r_Z9-fMAhWDFz4KHdX7BBIQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Giordano%20abbie%20hoffman&f=false 
:::as well as an article in the Atlantic Monthly: https://books.google.com/books?id=-dgmAQAAIAAJ&q=al+Giordano+pete+seeger&dq=al+Giordano+pete+seeger&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmqpih-OfMAhVQID4KHYNGARkQ6AEIIzAB
:::and that's after just a few minutes of searching. --I never said the deletion was politically motivated, but it is certainly ... surprising ... hat no one seems to have done much in the way of basic research to determine notability. [[User:Ricardiana|Ricardiana]] ([[User talk:Ricardiana|talk]]) 05:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' deletion.  This is my third attempt to add my comments to this discussion as two previous attempts ended up being deleted by an unspecified automated filter.  I agree with Ricardiana that Al Giordano is an established journalist, and anyone who looks beyond the first few entries of an internet search will find plenty of references to him, other than on his own blogs.  I find it very curious, 'though, that the day after he went public with an article previously restricted to subscribers only, user Underdog456 nominated his page for deletion.  The article, made publicly available on Apr 24, 2016, contains some fairly negative comments about the Sanders campaign visit to the Bronx. Read the article, check the history of the web page, and then tell me that that's coincidence: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/5120/welcome-bronx-subscriber-only-essay-goes-public. [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x|Space4Time3Continuum2x]] ([[User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x|talk]]) 07:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC) [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x|Space4Time3Continuum2x]] ([[User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x|talk]]) 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

: '''Following up with my arguments for undeletion''' (moved up to my earlier post as per Xavexgoem's request).  Keep the AfD notice, if you must, but give people a chance to fix the formal problems of the article.  I also spent some time going over Wikipedia’s rules, and, in my opinion, this deletion process was not in accordance with those rules from the start.

:# Underdog456 first deleted a source reference, claiming the source was not reliable (more on that below), and then improperly attached the A7 tag for speedy deletion to the article.  According to the rules, the standard here should have been importance or significance, not notability and verifiability/reliability of sources.
:# I take it the procedure is that the admin does not review the A7 tag but leaves that up to the discussion?
:# If I understand the XfD page correctly, the discussion that preceded the consensus to delete involved only four people (Picomtn was there by mistake).  Wikipedia isn't exactly breaking news, so that might explain the low turnout.  I, for one, am not on Twitter and didn't find out about the deletion until the Reddit mention showed up as a result in an unrelated Internet search.
:# Arguments presented in the discussion.
:::* Notability.  At least one of the four people taking part (LaMona) seems to think that "lack of notability" is a criterion for speedy deletion. Again, the standard here should have been importance or significance, not notability.  This is the English-language Wiki; people around the world read it and contribute to it.  What's considered important or significant in one corner of the world, may be completely unknown in another one. LaMona also argues that a journalist is notable only when other people write about him.  In my book, the journalist isn’t supposed to "be" the story, he’s supposed to report it.
:::* Source references.  What is the standard that makes a web paper a reliable source instead of ''"… just [a] fringy web page()…"'' (LaMona’s words)?   Reliability of a source is also rather subjective. Personally, I don’t consider Fox News to be a reliable source, but a lot of people seem to disagree with me.   In the case of a journalist, even if there had never been one single reference to him anywhere, why wouldn’t his own articles still be reliable sources (what's ''"… pass[ing] RS…"'', MS Japan?).  Again, the journalist isn’t the story, he’s just reporting it, even if he’s often very opinionated about it.  As for the source reference, an article '''on''' Al Giordano, that Underdog456 deleted prior to tagging the Wikipedia article for speedy deletion: I hadn’t heard of the Media Awareness Project or drugsense.org before, and the website has that late nineties “your own website in 10 easy steps-kit” charm about it, but it and the people behind it look legit; the author of the article has published articles on Slate and in Rolling Stone, NY Mag, etc., so he would appear to be legit, too.

: Haven't checked the other sources yet, found some more online.  Glad to see that Wikipedia editing works pretty much like our company wiki.[[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x|Space4Time3Continuum2x]] ([[User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x|talk]]) 07:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
::I think you may be confusing the Article for Deletion ([[WP:AFD]]) and the Speedy Deletion ([[WP:SPEEDY]]).  These are separate processes.  The speedy deletion was rejected out-of-hand, since the article ''didn't'' fail criteria A7 (importance or significance).  [[WP:SPEEDY]] is for articles that should ''obviously'' be deleted (Like: My neighbor who stomps around his apartment, who we'll call John Stompyfeet, would fail A7 were I to write an article about him).  AfD is for articles that require discussion, like this one was.  
::Underdog removed a citation as unreliable (it was Rolling Stone), incorrectly nominated the article for SPEEDY, then nominated the article at AFD, saying: "Lacks notablity. Lacks citations for almost everything stated in the article."  I do not believe that any of the editors in the AFD nor the closing admin were aware of this, because it reeks of bad faith editing.  So here we are.  
::The notability of the subject of the article ''is'' important and shouldn't be discounted; it certainly won't be here.  It is absolutely necessary to establish notability through reliable sources.  I do recommend reading over [[WP:RS]].  That has been formed over many years of consensus, and that consensus will not budge (nor should it).  There are plenty of reliable sources covering Al Giordano, which is the main thing.  This point, and the point about the noming process for the article, is sufficient: it addresses the deletion and the notability of the subject. --[[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 07:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''', there was no other way that the closing admin could have closed that.  A lot of those calling for "overturn" here seem to not be aware of our policies on notability, and claims that this was politically motivated need to be substantiated with evidence, or withdrawn.  [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 09:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC).
::* Please explain how the sources I have listed fail in your view to meet WP:Notability. Also the question of political motivation keeps being brought up when it seems to me that is a red herring and the only question is does the subject meet notability guidelines....Which brings me back to my question: While the article itself very clearly needs work, plenty of sources exist on the subject and I would like to know exactly how these sources are supposed irrelevant to notability criteria. [[User:Ricardiana|Ricardiana]] ([[User talk:Ricardiana|talk]]) 12:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
::::I took a look at the sources, and they seem to focus much more on ''Narco News'' (specifically one of their lawsuits) than Al Giordano as a person, which leads me to think that they might support the notability of the lawsuit, but less to Mr. Giordano himself. [[WP:BIO1E]] and [[WP:BLP1E]] may apply. A few of the sources you listed only seem to be passing mentions, such as the Putnam book and the ''Atlantic Monthly'' article. The [https://books.google.com/books?id=ECYjlcF6QIcC&pg=PA283&dq=Giordano+abbie+hoffman&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT4r_Z9-fMAhWDFz4KHdX7BBIQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Giordano%20abbie%20hoffman&f=false Rutgers biography] seems to be the most detailed treatment, but I'm not sure if that alone is enough to establish notability, especially since it's a book about someone else. Are there any articles published in reliable sources that give an in-depth report ''about Giordano'', not events or people he's related to? [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 20:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
:::::Since the purpose of the discussion here is solely to review the closing administrator's judgment, and not the notability itself, I think the proper way forward here, if you believe that the ''discussion'' erred (not the admin), is to rewrite the article (preferably in [[WP:Drafts|draft space]]), with new, compelling sources, and republish it. (Do not re-publish with identical content, as that is [[WP:G4|speedy-deletable]].) If notability is still an issue, the new article can be re-nominated. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 21:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
::::::I see. Thank you, Mz7, for that clarification. I will try that. [[User:Ricardiana|Ricardiana]] ([[User talk:Ricardiana|talk]]) 21:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
:::::::OK. I have a draft in my sandbox and will try republishing it, as you suggest. Thanks again. [[User:Ricardiana|Ricardiana]] ([[User talk:Ricardiana|talk]]) 22:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|Ricardiana}} Wait until this deletion review is closed for a few days/weeks before publishing it into mainspace, since we are still discussing the old article. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 02:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|Mz7}}Thanks, Mz7. I appreciate your advice. I grew very frustrated with Wikipedia back in 2009/2010 and have done little since then ... your helpfulness makes me feel better about continuing to write and edit here. [[User:Ricardiana|Ricardiana]] ([[User talk:Ricardiana|talk]]) 12:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Further comment from deleting admin''' - I would like to point out that as the admin who is looking for the consensus in the discussion, it is not my job to determine the notability or otherwise myself; if I want to do that, I would need to take part in the discussion myself (which on occasion I have done so). My job is to look at the arguments used, and to determine ''based on those arguments'' what the consensus is.In this case, the arguments were all for deletion, basically all stating that Giordano did not meet the notability criteria. The one 'keep' point was removed when that user realised that they had not actually brought the article up to a standard that they thought would pass muster. As a closing admin, there are several choices available for closing:
*# Relist - this has been relisted a couple of times already, so that was not appropriate
*# No Consensus - this would be wrong, as there was a clear consensus
*# Keep - no one had left an opinion that this should be kept, so that was clearly not appropriate
*# Delete - all those who had left a specific opinion had suggested deletion.
: As such, ''delete'' was the only option available - my role as admin is not to make the judgement myself, but to implement the conesnsus of the editors who had contributed to the discussion. Therefore, although this may have been unpopular with the man's supporters, this is how it happened. '''''[[User:Phantomsteve|<font color="#307D7E">Phantom</font><font color="#55CAFA">Steve</font>]]'''''/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|<font color="#008000">talk</font>]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Phantomsteve|<font color="#000080">contribs</font>]]\ 10:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
::The way you describe this choice is strange -- "unpopular with the man's supporters" -- and reveals something about how you view this situation.  I am not a "supporter" -- I'm someone who uses wikipedia and values it highly as a neutral source of information. Giordano is a journalist whose work I read, just like I read work of other established journalists. Perhaps we can move on from what happened and instead move on to what should be done now, which seems clear to me: the article should be restored and improved. [[Special:Contributions/24.7.113.92|24.7.113.92]] ([[User talk:24.7.113.92|talk]]) 05:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
::*Perhaps I was unfair to say that Giordano's supporters are the ones who are unhappy with the deletion - if so, I apologise to others like yourself who I have tarred with that brush! I do know that the online abuse directed towards me is from his supporters... '''''[[User:Phantomsteve|<font color="#307D7E">Phantom</font><font color="#55CAFA">Steve</font>]]'''''/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|<font color="#008000">talk</font>]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Phantomsteve|<font color="#000080">contribs</font>]]\ 10:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
:* Hi PhantomSteve:  ''The one 'keep' point was removed when that user realised that they had not actually brought the article up to a standard that they thought would pass muster.'' '''Not so'''. User Picomtn initially thought that the subject of this article was the same person as the former COO of the Wounded Warrior Project;  when he realized his error, he withdrew his comment. [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x|Space4Time3Continuum2x]] ([[User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x|talk]]) 07:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x|Space4Time3Continuum2x]] ([[User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x|talk]]) 07:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
::*A fair point, I should have clarified that situation in my original comment above - thank you for clarifying it for anyone coming to this discussion, it is appreciated. '''''[[User:Phantomsteve|<font color="#307D7E">Phantom</font><font color="#55CAFA">Steve</font>]]'''''/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|<font color="#008000">talk</font>]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Phantomsteve|<font color="#000080">contribs</font>]]\ 10:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' - Mr. Giordano is an established journalist with an extensive CV of published work, who is cited and referenced in academia and literature. Regardless of whether his political aspirations are notable, he — as a journalist — clearly meets the standards for notability. [[User:ICHH 16|ICHH 16]] ([[User talk:ICHH 16|talk]]) 00:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''' - I have no current stance on the man's notability. However, it is quite probable that the upcoming election might give him some notability, and we may want to revisit this issue. This discussion ''should not'' prejudice future discussion if he comes further along the [[WP:BIO]] line. [[User:Magog the Ogre|Magog the Ogre]] ([[User talk:Magog the Ogre|t]]<small> • </small>[[Special:Contributions/Magog the Ogre|c]]) 02:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - The claim that this person is running for office which would make him notable was certainly considered in the closure. Unless someone  can come up with any evidence that he is notable right now, I see no reason to even reconsider it. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד&nbsp;מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od&nbsp;Mishehu]] 14:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
::I've listed plenty of sources re current notability. Why won't you acknowledge them? [[User:Ricardiana|Ricardiana]] ([[User talk:Ricardiana|talk]]) 03:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' Per Ricardiana's sources, with no judgment intended for closing admin. Can this please be userfied if the deletion remains endorsed? [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 16:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
** Also, please consider [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Al_Giordano&diff=716985560&oldid=716593358 this diff] where the Rolling Stone citation was removed as unreliable, by the person who nom'd the article at AfD. [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 17:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
*** Is http://www.mapinc.org/ a reliable source?  I am not certain, but I think not.  In any case, it is very bad form to remove even unreliable sources before nominating for deletion, it looks like you are trying hide evidence from reviewers.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 00:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
*****Yes, that is extremely serious. [[User:Ricardiana|Ricardiana]] ([[User talk:Ricardiana|talk]]) 03:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
**** Mapinc definitely isn't reliable, I agree.  I think it was used because it had the full Rolling Stone article.  It should have been cited without the URL, not deleted entirely. eg: {{cite news|publisher=[[Rolling Stone]] |author=Mim Udovitch |title=Hot Muckraker: Al Giordano|date=August 30, 2001}}. [[Special:Contributions/199.241.232.10|199.241.232.10]] ([[User talk:199.241.232.10|talk]]) 01:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
**** (Whoops, above was me!) [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 01:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
**** Another source: {{cite news|publisher=[[The Guardian]]|author=Sean Dodson|title=Hacks hit in drugs war|url=http://www.theguardian.com/media/2001/jun/25/mondaymediasection11}} (with quote: "If it hadn't been for Giordano, much of the world would never have heard of Por Esto's allegations"). [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 01:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
::::: That The Guardian sources looks impressive.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 02:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
::::::Yes, that's a good source; I put together an entirely new draft page in my [[User:Ricardiana/sandbox|sandbox]] with that source and others, some of which I've already linked to here on this page. These sources clearly establish *current* notability. [[User:Ricardiana|Ricardiana]] ([[User talk:Ricardiana|talk]]) 03:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
:::::::The guy is proposed to be notable on the basis of being a journalist and an activist. A minor association with Abbie Hoffman and the occasional mention in the media over the course of decades does not a notable activist-journalist make. Heck I'm mentioned in at least one book and my life is described in several media articles and I'm not an activist-journalist, just a middle manager with no pretensions of notability. Then again I'm not asking for donations on the basis that I'm notable. Maybe if that were my gig, I'd be vigorously contesting my article's deletion too. [[User:Brmull|Brmull]] ([[User talk:Brmull|talk]]) 04:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
::::::::You are correct that an association with Abbie Hoffman and occasional mentions in media are probably not sufficient.
::::::::However, these are articles in The Guardian and Rolling Stone that substantiate his role as a journalist covering the War on Drugs, which has been notable.  I think we can agree that at the least he's on the boundary of notability, hence this discussion. --[[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 04:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 
::Hi, Space4Time.  Could you please include this comment under your original comment, instead of on its own bullet? [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 06:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
::: Done. [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x|Space4Time3Continuum2x]] ([[User talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x|talk]]) 07:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

'''Overturn.''' A good case has been made in the comments above that Al Giordano is notable. Not surprising since he was considered notable before he began opposing Sen. Bernie Sanders online and decided to primary Sanders. The editor who suggested the deletion has never satisfactorily explained why the page, which he considers so obscure, suddenly came to his attention and needed to be deleted. The timing, in the midst of a presidential campaign, makes Wikipedia look bad. Just when the public will most like to know more about Mr. Giordano, an editor has decided to yank Giordano's page. Comments made by some editors are fatuous and unworthy of Wikipedia, including "While Giordano would hardly be the only social media huckster to misuse Wikipedia to propagate false notability, I have little patience for this racket." No sources are cited either for the contention that Giordano is a "social media huckster" or that he "misuses Wikipedia. "  All the more reason for the Giordano page to exist. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:MedCircus|MedCircus]] ([[User talk:MedCircus|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/MedCircus|contribs]]) 17:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
[[User:MedCircus|MedCircus]] ([[User talk:MedCircus|talk]]) 17:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[[User:MedCircus|MedCircus]] ([[User talk:MedCircus|talk]]) 17:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC) <small>— [[User:MedCircus|MedCircus]] ([[User talk:MedCircus|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/MedCircus|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small> 
:You don't get it. Apart from the imaginations of Giordano himself and his small band of Twitter followers THERE IS NO CAMPAIGN TO PRIMARY SANDERS. It's not mentioned by a single reliable source. When I was a kid I used to ride around on make-believe horses with my friends, but we were kids. Social media is making people lose all perspective of how insignificant they are in the scheme of things. [[User:Brmull|Brmull]] ([[User talk:•Brmull|talk]]) 20:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
::This yelling comment has nothing to do with whether or not Giordano is notable and does not address the fact that numerous sources that handily meet WP:RS exist about him. So it's not clear why you're yelling here except that you have a desire to try to diminish others. Let's try to stick to the point: despite the shenanigans of the person who deleted references from the page and then nominated the article for deletion, and despite the evidence-free and sometimes spiteful protestations that the page should be deleted, the facts are that subject is notable, plenty of reliable sources exist, the page does need work, I am willing to do and have already done some of that work, the page should be restored and improved. [[User:Ricardiana|Ricardiana]] ([[User talk:Ricardiana|talk]]) 22:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
:::Giordano is not notable. These are the "notable facts" about Giordano as the article described them: 
::::•Giordano was an activist, primarily against nuclear power, from the age of 16 until his mid-20's. ''(so were a lot of people)''
::::•Giordano merited a passing mention in two Abbie Hoffman biographies as having worked with him on at least one anti-nuclear campaign. ''(meh)''
::::•Giordano wrote an article on his Narco News website revealing that AP's Bolivia correspondent had a conflict of interest, which led to the latter's resignation. ''(every journalist writes something in the course of their careers that leads to change; if not they could reasonably be called a "failed journalist".)''
::::•Giordano posted English translations of ''Por Esto!'' articles on his website, which led him to be added to a defamation suit by [[Roberto Hernández Ramírez]], which was thrown out for failing to meet the legal standard of malicious intent. ''(meh)''
:::The Rolling Stone blurb is problematic despite Mim Udovitch being a reputable journalist because RS's fact-checking has been determined to be inadequate. In line with other Wikipedia discussions about RS as source I would agree with using the blurb for sole-source quotes attributable to Giordano but not to anyone else.[[User:Brmull|Brmull]] ([[User talk:Brmull|talk]]) 03:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)