text:
Q: ObjectInputStream hanging The client-side of my "Socket to ServerSocket"-implementation looks like this, but it never gets past the ObjectInputStream-initialization. I have tried commenting out the line, and the following print-statement is then executed. The connection is (at least initially) successful, and the ServerSocket reports of a successful connection.
Client
try(
    Socket socket = new Socket("localhost", 4444);
    ObjectOutputStream out = new ObjectOutputStream(socket.getOutputStream());
    ObjectInputStream in = new ObjectInputStream(socket.getInputStream());
) {
    System.out.println("Connection and IO established");

} catch (IOException e) {
    e.printStackTrace();
}

Server
while (true) {
    Socket clientSocket = serverSocket.accept();
    System.out.println("Client has connected!");         // This always prints
    new Thread(new ServerThread(clientSocket)).start();
    System.out.println("ServerThread has started");      // This as well
}

A: The ObjectInputStream blocks waiting for the construction of the peer's ObjectOutputStream. Clearly the peer isn't constructing one, or possibly needs to flush it immediately after construction if you have a BufferedOutputStream in the stack.
Or possibly it is itself hung up constructing an ObjectInputStream because your client isn't constructing an ObjectOutputStream. The solution to that is to always construct and flush the ObjectOutputStream before the ObjectInputStream.


New York Times Best Selling Author Tamer Gellar is known for her unique approach to training dogs while creating a lasting relationship in the process. Her tricks and tools to forming that bond are available in a series of online dog training videos. Tamar makes it easy for you to train your dog with each video focusing on a specific topic. She guides you through step-by-step basic training while also empowering your pup.
The first series targets the initial tools needed to figure out how to train your dog online. A big part of this beginning series entails creating an understanding between you and your dog, how to use treats without relying on them and the importance of your dog's name. The second series of dog training videos breaks down more obedience-based skills, such as teaching your dog how to sit, house breaking and commands. From the start, she is able to convey how crucial it is to form trust with your dog in order to move forward. Dogs feed off of the energy of those around them and look to their owners to set the tone of the relationship. What sets Tamar apart from other private dog trainers is her ability to teach you how to train your dog while also connecting with you and your pup to create a foundation of loyalty and trust.
For only $99, you purchase the entire set of dog training videos and a lifetime of expertise. The entire process is self-paced with unlimited access and no timeline. Tamar will teach you how to train your dog online and is so confident in her ability to connect with her viewers that she offers a full refund within the first 30 days of purchase if you're not satisfied.
Sign up today and train your dog online with Tamar Geller.


text:
title: Creating Extensions For The Sidebar
authors:
- shwetank-dixit
intro: 'This article describes how to use the [`sidebarAction` API](/extensions/sidebar-action-api/) to create extensions which live on the browser's sidebar.'
license: cc-by-3.0
---

## Introduction

This article describes how to use the [`sidebarAction` API](/extensions/sidebar-action-api/) to create extensions which live on the browser's sidebar.

## The Sidebar

Since Opera 30 you can enable the browser sidebar. This is a place on the left side of the browser which has room for additional functionality for the user. The sidebar consists of the _icons list_ on the left hand side of the sidebar and the clicking on an icon from the icons list will open its corresponding _panel_.

The panel is an HTML page specified inside the extension which will house the main content of the extension. Every sidebar action _must_ have a panel page specified.

## The Manifest

It is important to mention the following things in the manifest for sidebar extensions.

	"sidebar_action": {
		// Required
		"default_icon": "icon.png",
		// Optional; shown in tooltip
		"default_title": "My Sample Extension",
		// Required
		"default_panel": "panel.html"
	}

You can also specify a series of sizes and icon paths as keys and values, instead of a single icon value described above. If you want to specify icons for a series of sizes, then instead of mentioning one default icon, you can specify an object listing out the paths to the icons and their corresponding sizes in the `default_icon` field like so:

	"sidebar_action": {
		"default_icon": {
			"19": "images/19.png",
			"38": "images/38.png"
		}
	}

## The `sidebarAction` API

We've made the [`sidebarAction` API](/extensions/sidebar-action-api/) to be similar to the [`browserAction` API](/extensions/browser-actions/) so that extension authors could easily grasp the API and have an easier time porting their existing extisting extensions to a sidebar extension, should they choose to do so.

Though a bit similar in terms of the architecture, sidebar extensions should be viewed as different from extensions which use browser actions. The extensions which live on the sidebar are more long-lived.

## Maintaining state

The panel page works similar to any other web page. So if the user closes the panel, it is the same as any other page whose tab is closed — this means the next time the user opens a panel, it starts from scratch — just like a web page which has been refreshed.

However, given that panels are supposed to be long-lived apps, there needs to be a way to maintain state — which means having a way for data to persist no matter how many times the user opens or closes the panel. This can be accomplished by sending data entered in the popup to the background script.

For example, let's take the case of a simple `<textarea>`. We would like to make sure that whatever data is entered by the user is still there no matter how many times the panel is opened or closed. The code for the panel page can be like so:

Saving state

		The stuff typed in the textarea should still be there
		exactly as you had typed it, even if you close and re-open the panel.

	<textarea id="maintext"></textarea>

And script for the HTML above:

	var maintext = document.querySelector('#maintext');
	var theValue;

	maintext.onchange = function() {
		save();
	}

	function save() {
		theValue = maintext.value;
		chrome.extension.getBackgroundPage().setValue(theValue);
	}

	function show() {
		theValue = chrome.extension.getBackgroundPage().getValue();

		if (!theValue) {
			theValue = '';
		}

		maintext.value = theValue;
	}

	document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', show, false);

Above, we make sure we call the `save()` function whenever there is a change in the text area (this will be called when the panel is closed too) by listening to the `onchange` event.

Whenever the page is loaded, we listen to the `DOMContentLoaded` event, and make sure to retrieve the value from the background script and put it back in the text area.

The background script will look like so:

	var value;

	function getValue() {
		value = localStorage.getItem('maintext');
		return value;
	}

	function setValue(theValue) {
		localStorage.setItem('maintext', theValue);
	}

Keep in mind that the extensions panel page can be considered as "closed" if the panel is not open, but its background will always be running. So you can maintain state by making sure that the background script either stores data to localStorage, or if it stores the data in the background script itself.

You can [download the sample sidebar extension](/extensions/extension-samples/sidebar-maintain-state.nex) and have a look at the code.

## Detecting user focus on the panel

There might be situations where you would want to detect whether the user has focus on your panel or not. You can listen to the `onfocus` and `onblur` events on the `window` elements in the panel page, to see when the user has focus on your panel, and when the user leaves focus from your panel. Support for the events on the `sidebarAction` namespace will also come soon.

	window.onfocus = function() {
		console.log('The user is focussed on the panel page');
	}
	window.onblur = function() {
		console.log('The user has left focus from the panel page');
	}

Now that you know how to make sidebar extensions, here is hoping you quickly submit some great extensions to the [Opera Add-ons catalog](https://addons.opera.com/extensions/?tag=sidebar).

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


We're never hidden behind steal, or a solid wall of bricks.
And we're shamed, peeking out of 'the cupboard,' hiding like the Indian did from a childhood book.
What it means to remain hidden.
In a world finding love, come together — some love separates.
I don't need a man to give me flowers or chocolates.
Short and electric, but fizzles and drizzles, as the rain pours outside.
In a mind filled with despising a guy who I left.
After he's gone on, but still calling — I wish he would stop.
That I could forget all about these "tygers" and their wants.
They're dividing me among each other, taking the best cuts and leaving the scraps.
Only to eat, walk, cuddle, play, and go wee.
She needs her nails clipped and her teeth brushed sometimes.
I'm not above you or below you you dirty-thirty-something.
I'm just looking for meaning among people who are loyal.
I'm caught in my dreams, betwixt the real and the "real" in this Wonderland.
Who are thinking only of eating and surviving.
When you're sickly and dying — or does it matter most?
I'm trying! I'm trying — but it's never enough.
You dragons eat your steaks and leave me with nothing but my dry bones.
Clothes that cover her heart.
Covered in champagne and the bubbles make you choke.
I don't want to reveal myself but in the "real" world I must.
A mirror that's shattered and eternally busted.
Because in the darkest depths, the light shines brightest.
The Details are Important If You Can Complete Your Goals.
These past few weeks I have worked on an assignment for my Space Planning class in the Residential Interior's program I have been taking. The specifics of the assignment are that each student is to interview another student and find out what that student's "dream" kitchen would be and design that kitchen. Then, we have to draw up a floor plan of the dream kitchen, draw up an Elevation of one interesting wall in that kitchen, and lastly, we are to write up an explanation on how the kitchen we have designed meets the criteria laid out to us by both our student partner whose kitchen we are designing, and the instructions given to us by the teacher of the course.
I have enjoyed this assignment but struggle to make my work more professional and seem less, like the work of a student. The other thing I struggle with is including all those details that one is supposed to include when designing a kitchen. Details such as how much space one must leave between a fridge and an island or what distance the triangle of sink to fridge to stove should be in the ideal kitchen (26″ with no more than 9″ on each side of the triangle but not every side). Finding that exact layout that meets our student partner's wish list (the client) and the rules for what things should be included in a plan or elevation is aggravating but completely necessary.
This being said, I perhaps must take back one of earlier posts that suggested we look at the 'big picture' of life, rather than the small details. Well, I do not take it back, but what I do confess is that sometimes details are very important. If you are off an inch or half an inch when you are measuring out cupboards in your kitchen, and then you go to try and fit your stove into the space left between those cupboards, you will find the aspect of measurement is extremely vital when designing a kitchen. You must measure out all your appliances width x height x depth, and you must measure out the furniture for your eating area whether that be a banquette, a bar at the island, or a table and chairs. You must leave enough counter space around your stove so someone does not get burned or something does not catch on fire. You have to keep in mind standard measurements such as 36″ for lower cupboards and 30″ for upper cupboards. There are so many little aspects that are important. And sometimes, such is life.
All of these little aspects are each vital in their own way, and important to forming a bigger picture, your dream kitchen. And if you do not get those little details right, that is a something you may find annoying and time consuming, and that can put things out-of-place. So I remain convinced that we should focus on the big picture, but not at the cost of detail, for detail sets designers and individuals apart. Paying attention to the details highlights a lot of people in their respective careers; but to a point. If you pay attention to the details so much that you cannot form that grand idea, cannot complete your goal, those details become meaningless. But if you can pay attention to the important aspects just enough that everything comes together perfectly, then my friend, you are set. So I take my original blog on "Seeing the Big Picture" and clarify it; be detailed, but do not not achieve your goals in your quest for perfection.


The telephone line is slowly becoming outdated. Every day, more and more businesses are discovering the beauty of having/using a VoIP system in their office. From visual voicemail and virtual receptionists to advanced phone technology such as our new Grandstream system, TeleVoIPs is outgunning and outclassing traditional PBX phones. But one of the true reasons to switch to TeleVoIPs is the ability to have multiple phone numbers for your business. The phone is the lifeblood of a business and your direct connection to your clients.
Your potential clients can see that your business spans not only your area but also theirs' as well. TeleVoIPs impresses the size and stability of your business while also giving you credit for your target area. Even if the calls are being routed to your hub or your cell phone, your business can take advantage of adding a few additional numbers in non-local areas where you often do business.
Not a lot of people like to call or receive calls from non-local numbers. Having numbers in the areas you're calling provides credibility to your ability to serve them. When your customers can contact you with confidence, you gain the ability to target a demographic you would almost certainly lose otherwise.
Nobody likes to hear a busy signal when calling a business. With multiple numbers, you can easily reroute incoming calls if the lines are tied and utilize your TeleVoIPs system to handle a large capacity of incoming calls without having to compromise your integrity with your client.
Multiple phone numbers are a great way to increase revenue. You may want to consider adding additional numbers in areas to maintain a presence in that market without having to maintain a physical presence putting a constraint on your business. Contact us today to get setup with a great TeleVoIPs system. Our IT team is ready to assist you with all of your business phone needs.


text:
Home » Education Advice	» Australian students hit the record at International Math Olympiad
Australian students hit the record at International Math Olympiad
Team Australia won two Gold and four Silver medals at the 2015 International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) in Thailand, creating the best record for Australia in 35 years.
Australia was ranked sixth among 104 other countries, a huge improvement from 11th last year. We have surpassed highly-rated Taiwan, Russia, Japan, Ukraine and Singapore teams this year.
Our multi-medalist team member Alex Gunning from Glen Waverley Secondary College won a Gold medal and was ranked the fourth in the world. He appears on the IMO Hall of Fame after tying for first place with a perfect score last year and now has a total of three Gold medals and a Bronze.
In his third IMO, 16-year-old Seyoon Ragavan was placed 19th this year, adding a Gold medal to his two Bronzes from previous years.
All four other team members were awarded Silver: Yang Song at his second Olympiad while Jeremy Yip, Kevin Xian and llia Kucherov are on their very first attempt.
Australian team members are first identified by the annual Australian Mathematics Competition (AMC). This year's AMC will be held on July 30. Successful students will go into the Australian Mathematics Trust's Olympiad training program.
Executive Director of the Australian Mathematics Trust (AMT), Michael Clapper, said the achievements of these Australian students were inspirational to the math education in Australia.
"They are indicative of the enormous talent and capabilities of our young people. They have repeated and exceeded last year's extraordinary results," he said.
IMO is the oldest, largest and most prestigious of the International Science Olympiad. It is the pinnacle of competition among students of pre-university level around the world.
The not-for-profit Australian Mathematics Trust, under the Trusteeship of the University of Canberra, runs the training and selection for Australia's IMO teams.
AMT aims at enriching mathematics teaching and learning for students of all standards so they can build their confidence and embrace the enjoyment of mathematics.
Words: Sunny Liu

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Wikipedia:Deletion review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion)
This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.
Administrator instructions
Skip to: Active discussions · Recent discussions · Archive · (purge cache)
WP:DRV
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.
2.1 Steps to list a new deletion review
2.2 Commenting in a deletion review
2.3 Temporary undeletion
2.4 Closing reviews
2.5 Speedy closes
3 Active discussions
3.1 21 January 2021
3.2.1 Nova Firoze
3.3.1 Gagan Gupta
3.3.2 Indrajaalam
3.4.1 Miss Grand
3.4.2 Template:CUeject (closed)
3.4.3 Mark Simmons (comedian)
3.5.1 Dianne Morales
3.5.2 NIDA (political party) (closed)
4 Recent discussions
4.2.1 Ripple Music
4.2.2 EFounders
4.2.3 Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha
4.3.1 Ashli Babbitt (closed)
4.4 8 January 2021
4.6 22 December 2020
4.6.1 Category:Fictional armoured fighting vehicles (closed)
4.6.2 Bling Bling (group)
4.6.3 Reason (software) (closed)
5 Archive
WP:DRVPURPOSE
Deletion review may be used:
if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
(This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
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.
WP:DELREVD
Before listing a review request, please:
Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.
Copy this template skeleton for most pages:
{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
Copy this template skeleton for files:
|article=
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:
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
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=2021 January 21}}</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=2021 January 21}}</noinclude>
If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2021 January 21|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express his or her opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
Endorse the original closing decision; or
Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted
*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
*'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.
If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Speedy closes
It's rare, but not unknown, for a deletion review to be speedily closed.
Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
Nova Firoze
Nova Firoze (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The result for this was delete. Participants do not consider that this actress has had the level of coverage to meet the relevant notability guidelines. But I think it was a wrong decision, because the actress is one of the popular actresses in Bangladesh. Received significant awards for acting and model.Finally the article is removed, my request is to reconsider the removal of the article.Alamgir64 (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Closing admin comment - The consensus of all participants other than the article creator was very clear in the discussion. The closing decision was unambiguous, that this actress has not received enough coverage to demonstrate notability. In the closing statement, I already offered to restore it to draftspace if there's a serious argument that more sources exist - which, to be honest, is generous given it's already been draftified once and moved back by the same editor. Instead, this DRV has now been opened to revisit a decision that I don't think really could have been made any other way. ~ mazca talk 16:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The community's very clear decision was to delete that article, as Mazca correctly identified.—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Gagan Gupta
Gagan Gupta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
The article was deleted under WP:G11, but in my opinion, it was not blatantly promotional. The speedy deletion was also contested by two other users. I asked the admin who deleted it to restore it, and to submit it to AfD if they still believe it should be deleted, but they appear to not be interested. Un assiolo (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
endorse deletion it was a promotional resume masquerading as an article. CUPIDICAE💕 19:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment User:Rastapeuplulos was the creator of the article and may be interested in the discussion. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. At the beginning, the article was a translation of the french article, and as the french version was not good, the article needed a lot of work. The article was changed quickly after your comments. New sources were added, promotional part were deleted. I think it should be restored.Rastapeuplulos (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 06:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Overturn speedy. Perhaps there's some peacockery that could be pruned, but there's nothing wrong with a bio of a businessman who runs one of his country's largest employers that merely reports his significant business activities. Kardashians are the exception, not the model for biographies here. In addition, Praxidicae/CUPIDICAE improperly restored the validly removed speedy tag to the article, an abuse of process that should be summarily undone rather than ratified. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Overturn Speedy and send to AfD if really desired. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Overturn, bad G11. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Overturn Speedy According to my answer to User:Un assiolo. I think that the article should be restored. Rastapeuplulos (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Overturn speedy, The subject seems legitimate to me. There are quite a lot of sources.Wik8dude (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
That is a deeply promotional article in many places, and if restored here, should be thoroughly rewritten and possibly AfD'ed.—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
There is an abundance of sources. It will be hard to work out which are independent. I don't expect it to be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Overturn G11 - The article has serious neutrality issues, but that is not in itself a reason for speedy deletion either as G11 or for any other speedy reason. Whether the article should be deleted in an AFD is not the issue in this DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Bad speedy, the article's been around for almost 6 years and there is inevitably a neutral version to revert to in the history. Overturn and optionally send to AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Indrajaalam
Indrajaalam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The article can be recreated using these sources:
Indian Panorama
The New Indian Express
The Indian Express. But it is better to be draftified. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
If you only want it restored to the draft space, with the intention of creating a new version that would address the concerns that lead to the initial deletion, a DRV isn't necessary. Just ask at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion or one of these chumps. WilyD 12:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I would have done that, but since it was deleted as part of an AfD, I came here as I did for Krishna Kuchela. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The general rule at REFUND is to refer requests for draftification of AfDed articles to the deleting admin, assuming they're still active and still an admin. You don't have to go to DRV to get something draftified unless either the deleting admin objects or the person who reviews the REFUND request objects. I don't see any problem with restoring this one though. Hut 8.5 20:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose needs improvement to clarify that DRV should not be the first port of call for a wish to re-create after a deletion. Before coming to DRV, ask the deleting admin about draftification or userfication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Either Relist or Allow Re-Creation. Since the article was very recently deleted after minimal participation, relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Miss Grand
Miss Grand (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Article was improperly tagged and deleted as G4, even though it was entirely newly created and can't have borne any resemblance to an article, about a different subject, which had been deleted in 2017 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grand International (3rd nomination). I've brought this up with the deleting admin DGG, who moved an unrelated draft over the deleted article and reverted it back to draft, without restoring the article in question. It's been over ten days since the deletion, and seeing as it currently seems inconvenient for him to divert attention to the issue, I've informed him that I'm bringing this to DRV instead. Paul_012 (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Temp undeleted for DRV - the new article is in the history of Miss Grand, the deleted version at Draft:Miss Grand WilyD 12:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Wait, no, the old version is at Miss_Grand_International - okay, I'll temp restore that too, so people can judge G4-ness. EITHER WAY, DELETE THAT WHEN THIS IS DONE WilyD 12:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Changed to Overturn, undelete all and ask Paul 012 to see if he can fix the mess. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Endorse considering greater G4 leeway when the AfD was closed with a consensus of "delete. And WP:SALT". It is not the same page, and the author may justifiably feel aggrieved, but "repeatedly recreated" applies. Note also the existence of Draft:Miss Grand. I do not read the re-creations as overcoming the AfD decision.
However, there must be a way to try again after more than a year to challenge the old AfD decision. I suggest: (1) the patrolling admin may refer any G4-eligible page to AfD instead. Note that he did not. (2) Use WP:AfC, and consider advice at WP:THREE to enable timely efficient review. For further work on this, go to Draft:Miss Grand. Any discovered forks should be fixed by redirection, not deletion.
Another important consideration is that the topic and sources are a foreign language. Personally I would want, and I recommend, linking to an already existing native language Wikipedia article. If an en deleted topic is not notable in its native language, there is a heavy presumption against it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This "greater G4 leeway" isn't mentioned anywhere at WP:CSD, nor does it appear to be in line with the guidance there that speedy deletions be done only "in the most obvious cases". In this case, the application appears to be in contravention to the spirit of G4, which is to prevent the community from having to go through the exact same discussion over the (more or less) exact same page. As I read it, the criterion is supposed to preclude re-creation of the content, not act as a ban on the subject. If it is standard practice to regard creation protection as making related pages eligible for CSD, this should be added as its own different criterion. (I notice that something along these lines has recently been proposed at WT:CSD, with some editors voicing concerns over the idea.) --Paul_012 (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the specific suggestions, I don't currently plan to further work on the subject, and personally, I do not see the value of taking this through AfC, placing the burden on a single reviewer to weigh the status of an article against the spirit of the arguments from previous discussions. A new AfD would be preferable. Thai Wikipedia articles exist for Miss Grand Thailand (th:มิสแกรนด์ไทยแลนด์) and Miss Grand International (th:มิสแกรนด์อินเตอร์เนชันแนล), though not as a central overview (which I created with the expectation that the two subtopics would be redirected there, though Miss Grand Thailand has since separately been created, and I wouldn't object to an eventual merge somehow, if it is to be retained). Note also that I had notified Black Kite, one of the salting admins (but not the AfD closer, who is no longer active), of the page's creation, and requested re-creating the salted title as a redirect, which they did not object to. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Paul_012. "greater G4 leeway" isn't mentioned anywhere? That's because I only just made it up. There are many AfDs, many recreations, an explicit consensus to SALT, and the latest recreation looked like a Whac-A-Mole attempt at avoiding the SALT by using a different title. It is also a confusing mess to have multiple versions. Anyway, from you answer, it seems to me that you are sensible, and I think we should overturn the G4 deletion and let you fix everything up as you see fit. Redirect the lower quality copies to the best version in mainspace, and explicitly link to the Thai version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
When Paul asked me about this, I suggested Draft:Miss Grand as a suitable way to start dealing with this material. As he wasn't satisfied, and as I have not yet figured out anything better, he brought this here. I don't think the history of the decisions matter--the goal is to find a way towards an article if an article is possible. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The sourcing currently at Draft:Miss Grand is all non-independent, and useless for moving forward with.
The sourcing at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Grand&oldid=997876075 is superior, although in Thai. I suggest working from that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Overturn the G4 speedy. We are discussing the article currently temporarily undeleted which was speedied as Miss Grand. This is completely different from Draft:Miss Grand which looks to me somewhat similar to the undeleted version of what was last deleted by AFD. So what is in draft is a bit like the old deleted article and not the new one. Or maybe I'm confused? G4 seems utterly inappropriate: the content is completely different and the references are (completely?) different. Even the topic is somewhat different: a national event where the old article was about a strongly associated international event. SmokeyJoe's arguments might be highly persuasive at WP:Village pump (policy), less so at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion, but are not at all convincing that this speedy deletion was within policy or even close to it. Thincat (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This is why I come back to these discussions. My first reading was confused on a few things, including what exactly was G4-ed. That said, I do think G4 has more leeway when there was a consensus to SALT. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Just to note that sometimes when an article fails to be deleted at AFD in spite of many attempts, it is salted when at last a deletion is successful.[1] Thincat (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that what SmokeyJoe observes is true, but question whether it should be. In theory, every G4 should be considered independently, and the SALTing of a target should not play into such a decision. In practice, it's hard to distinguish why someone is working around a SALTed title to put a new article in place. Experienced Wikipedians will tend to ask for an un-SALTing, while both inexperienced Wikipedians and sockpuppets/SPAs will not. Experienced admins do tend to jump to G4 a bit too hastily, and I suspect for relatively benign ABF reasons--that is, assuming sockpuppetry rather than inexperience. Regardless, in this case Overturn speedy and send to whatever other process, if any, is desired. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: If overturned, please also restore the talk page and the redirect from Miss Grand International (the version created 31 December 2020[2]). --Paul_012 (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Template:CUeject (closed)
Mark Simmons (comedian)
Mark Simmons (comedian) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Comedian is definitely notable now, having been on numerous TV panel shows since the deletion. TomJ1991 04:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
You'd really need to find and present some third party sources from quality publishers to demonstrate he now meets our usual inclusion criterion to make much headway, eh? WilyD 12:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Endorse but allow draftifying if desired. The XfD was properly closed and no sources are presented here, so restoring straight to mainspace is not going to happen but if someone wants to work on improving it in draftspace then I don't see a reason not to allow that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Endorse. This does not belong at DRV. Blame User:SportingFlyer for blocking attempts at improving the broken documentation at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Purpose.
The AfD is almost a year old. The subject is active and could well now be notable. If the comedian is "definitely notable", one should be definitely about to demonstrate this with two or three suitable sourced. Read the advice at WP:THREE and use WP:AfC. Start by requesting a WP:REFUND for Mark Simmons (comedian). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Endorse and allow draft/re-creation per the above advice. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Dianne Morales
Dianne Morales (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The prior redirect result was proper at the time, as the subject did not then satisfy GNG. However, in the ensuing months, coverage has been such as to result in the subject now meeting GNG.
Thus, significant new information justifies recreating the deleted page--but in the form seen here. Which reflects the many RS articles devoted to coverage of the subject of the article. The subject has now received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.; 2603:7000:2143:8500:7913:1C16:7EF2:49A9 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Endorse Nothing in the previously recreated version] of Dianne Morales indicates that the subject has attracted more attention from significant sources. Per WP:NPOL, Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline . That would mean that Dianne Morales would need to meet WP:GNG by as an unelected political candidate who has never held office. Morales' campaign has received coverage from local sources (NY1, City & State NY, Bklyner, Gotham Gazette, Norwood News, BK Reader, News Break Brooklyn) and blogs (Human Services Council, BeLatina, Labyrinth (?)). National sources that cover Morales only mention her in the context of the broader mayoral election, which does not satisfy in-depth coverage. If she wins the incredibly crowded primary for 2021 New York City mayoral election, I support the recreation of her page, but not at this time. KidAd talk 02:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment. The article satisfies the GNG. Because the topic has received significant coverage (addressing the topic directly and in detail) in reliable secondary sources (both reliable and WP notable, actually) that are independent of the subject. Including the non-exclusive 9-article list below. Beginning with 3 articles, devoted to the subject, by The New York Daily News, Politico, and The Hill. Some editors say "show me three articles" - well these would be them. Followed by other articles, also devoted to the candidate. By NY1, City & State, Norwood News, and the African-American oriented magazine The Root.
Shahrigian, Shant (November 2, 2020). "Progressive mayoral candidate Dianne Morales wants to rewrite NYC's 'social contract'". The New York Daily News.
Durkin, Erin (November 19, 2020). "Dianne Morales officially kicks off mayoral campaign". Politico.
Williams, Jordan (December 3, 2020). "NYC mayoral contender challenges New York Times for defining candidacy by marijuana use". The Hill
Gloria Pazmino (November 12, 2020). "Dianne Morales Touts 'Lived Experience'". NY1.
"She Helped House New Yorkers. Now Dianne Morales Is Running for Mayor". NY1, October 9, 2020.
Jeff Coltin (December 1, 2020). "Dianne Morales' NYC mayoral campaign theme: 'power to the people'". City & State.
Jeff Coltin (August 5, 2019). "Dianne Morales wants to be New York City's first female mayor". City & State.
David Cruz (August 29, 2019). "Bronx-Based Nonprofit Director Launches Mayoral Bid". Norwood News.
Terrell Jermaine Starr (January 11, 2021). "Mayoral Candidate Dianne Morales Doesn't Want to Return New York City Back to 'Normal'". The Root.
Furthermore, the editor's assertion that "Nothing in the previously recreated version of Dianne Morales indicates that the subject has attracted more attention from significant sources" mistates the rule. The GNG test is significant coverage in "reliable sources." Which we have.
And the editor's assertion that there has been no increase is simply incorrect. We indeed obviously have an increase in the amount of coverage by RSs. The prior AfD closed on September 13. Simply look at all the refs of articles that came out after that. Seven of the above nine articles, for example.
The editor also confuses why this subject is notable. It is only suggested that she is notable under GNG. Which she is. It is irrelevant whether or not she - in addition - is notable under NPOL.
And GNG cares not a bit about whether she has held any office or not, or whether she will win, or whether her field is crowded. Which much of the editor's focus seems to be. That is all irrelevant.
Finally, the editor ignores the full articles devoted to her in the national publications The New York Daily News, Politico, and The Hill. While focusing on the more NY State and NY City focuses on her. Certainly, we have those as well, for example NY1, City & State, and Norwood News. However, those are all fine publications, all reliable sources as required by GNG, and taken together all these articles satisfy GNG.2603:7000:2143:8500:7913:1C16:7EF2:49A9 (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Endorse as a valid close and the right close, with the following points:
Allow creation of a new draft in review, but not direct creation in article space.
Recognize that publicity resulting from a campaign for public office is usually downgraded in the context of general notability.
A history merge is required if the article is accepted.
If the community doesn't like the downgrading of election publicity as counting toward GNG, an RFC is in order.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Could you please not make stuff up? There is not one word in the GNG that "downgrades" election-related coverage, and discussions such as those surrounding Theresa Greenfield show that there is not consensus support for it. Responsible editors should not advance such positions as though they are policy- or guideline-based. They are not. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - I am not making anything up. I am stating what is the usual application, with exceptions, of general notability to political candidates. Tf you are saying that this downgrading is a non-policy-based result, then I agree, but that should be discussed elsewhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
A standard that is not based in policy or guideline is just made up. A "non-policy-based result" is by definition inappropriate and cannot legitimately be supported. Your endorsement makes no sense and should be disregarded. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Endorse. Only way the discussion could have been closed. To continue the discussion with any new information, continue at the talk page of the redirect target. Continue at Talk:2021_New_York_City_mayoral_election as the correct forum for this question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Per DGG below, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dianne_Morales&oldid=1000017728 contains enough new sources, not discussed at AfD, to justify re-creation. Permit that re-creation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Permit recreation. I don't see the point of sending it elsewhere--we are competent to decide if there's enough, and my opinion is that there is. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC) .
Permit recreation clearly over the WP:N bar now. Hobit (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Restore already-recreated article text. As has repeatedly been affirmed here, no permission is required to write a new text for an article which is not substantially identical to a previously deleted text. The fact that an AFD closed as redirect rather than simply delete does not mean that permission to write a new and different version is required. Not one word of deletion policy supports this limit, and attempts to "enforce" should be treated as disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
NIDA (political party) (closed)
Ripple Music
Ripple Music (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
After weeks of AfD discussion and re-opening, the company's notability was not sufficiently established. Despite this, the discussion was closed with a "Keep" result by a non-administrator. Law15outof48 (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Overturn. After weeks of discussion on the AfD page and being re-opened once, the company's notability failed to be established per WP:ORIGCRIT. WP:GNG: the article should be deleted. Law15outof48 (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Overturn (ie reopen). This should never have been closed by a non-admin. Several of the keep votes look potentially suspect. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Overturn - If I had !voted, I may have voted keep, there are claims the label has a significant influence on a music genre. But I haven't verified those claims. All that is beside the point, I do not see a consensus for "keep", and any such close would need an good explanation, of which there is none. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment I saw the opened discussion that was 8 days older. I counted the the keep votes (4) and delete votes (1) and hence closed the discussion as keep due to the leading number of keep votes. Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 20:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:VOTE: "most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule." Secondly, the discussion actually had 4 'delete's and 5 'keep's (the 6th 'keep' was from someone who voted twice). You treated the discussion as a vote, tallied the votes incorrectly, and closed the discussion with a 'Keep' result, all with zero explanation. That's not how this works. Law15outof48 (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Relist Four of those participating don't have many edits. The second edit one ever made was to nominate the article for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Law15outof48 Anyway this non-admin closure should not have been done since people disagree on the outcome. The rules for non-admin closure should be more clear, just flat out say "you can't do this unless everyone but the nominator says to keep it". Only one blue link in the list of bands with anything released by this label so probably not notable. If someone wanted to contact them on their official website and ask if they got any coverage in any legitimate media, that might help find something to see if they pass the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 22:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Relist as a bad non-admin closure. The rules on non-administrative closures are incomprehensible, and should be reworked. Maybe the advice to non-admins who want to be useful on deletion discussions would be to clarify that non-admins should be welcome to do the Relisting. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment Hi folks, I voted twice on the Ripple page -- not intentionally trying to mess with the process, didn't realize each Keep was a "vote." Then when I saw the message to strike though one of them, there was already a direction not to further edit that page. I've written and edited a few articles in the past but this is my first time participating in a deletion discussion. Thanks for your patience! Hopefully people can look at the big picture and determine some clearer guidelines for record label notability as part of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Labels. Glad to see the Ripple page remains, as a consensus to delete has not been established. Jessiemay1984 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Overturn to no-consensus There is not a consensus to keep nor is there a consensus for deletion. In addition, the close is a bad non-admin closure. --Enos733 (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I would have closed as no-consensus, but that's also a not-delete result. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Relist. I have read the other arguments presented here and have changed my opinion. Relisting this is the best option given the circumstances. Law15outof48 (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Endorse Endorse the original closing (Keep or non-delete) with comment that it might have had a bad non-admin closure. The page needs fixing not deletion WP:DINC. The central points asserted by the user requesting deletion have been addressed on page and in discussion. Evaluation should consider possibility or potential for WP:VOA in contribution pattern of nomination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Law15outof48.Krakan.silfursolin (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment A facsimile of the following comment was added then removed from original discussion. KEEP The Ripple Music article describes actively engaged recorded music label, publisher, distributor, and cultural entity in music genre and subgenre operating for over 10 years representing broad roster of active musicians and significant catalog of recordings. Ripple Music is clearly a long standing active entity on AllMusic https://www.allmusic.com/artist/ripple-music-mn0002560446 Ripple Music is clearly a long standing active entity on Discogs.com https://www.discogs.com/label/209142-Ripple-Music. WP:MUSIC indicates that many artists in repertoire would meet notable criteria, whether or not they themselves are represented with Wikipedia articles or entries. There is limited discussion indicating how to assess Notability for smaller and independent record labels and music publishers as culturally significant. Wikipedia Notability guidelines should not unintentionally bias toward "major" international corporate entities or certain "major" institutions. Discussion appears to contain Moving Goalposts when presented with notable references by invoking WP:INHERITORG, WP:ITSOLD, & WP:LOCALFAME to refute notability. These can continue to be leveraged to argumentum ad infinitum as invoked here, they would also apply to most genre or regional music organizations that exist to promote culture and artists. The page needs fixing not deletion. (I am newbe, apologies if awkward. If this does not belong here, please advise. Thanks.) Krakan.silfursolin (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Endorse the reverted NAC at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ripple_Music&oldid=999933871
Allow re-listing at AfD, but demand a carefully written nomination statement that summarises the previous AfD and this DRV. The previous AfD is too much a mess to re-open. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
EFounders
EFounders (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Minimal participation with 1 nomination, 1 lean delete, 2 keeps. Closed as keep. Closer stated they closed based on a headcount and has since realized closing it as keep was not very accurate. Closer lacks technical capacity (despite some instructions offered) to relist or close as non-consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
It says "(non-admin closure)". I don't think they can do that unless everyone agrees. The "leaning delete" person didn't bold their vote or specifically say delete. Leaning sounds like "considering" which in context of them stating they were unsure about things, makes sense. Need to ask them to clarify their vote. If you get an administrator to close this it'll just be "no consensus" more likely than not. Dream Focus 17:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this should have been closed as no consensus and that a lean delete isn't the same as an actual delete (regardless of whether someone bolds or not). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
endorse Not a great discussion but I think most people would have closed it that way. NC would also probably be within discretion. Hobit (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
A three or four person discussion where there isn't a clear consensus doesn't strike me as something where most people would have closed that way - or at least I wouldn't if I were closing it. As noted above in response to DF, I do think this is a NC on both consensus and due to a lack of participation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
No consensus is the same as keep, the article is not deleted. So I don't see why you wish to bring the case here. The outcome will be the same. Dream Focus 17:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Endorse The choice to close as keep is reasonable (as would have been a close of no-consensus). The discussion was relisted twice. --Enos733 (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Could have been no-consensus, but it's the same outcome really. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Should have been no consensus, after weighting the votes. The practical effect of this is to enable an early relist, which a "keep" outcome precludes.—S Marshall T/C 16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Endorse. Could not have been closed as "delete". Read advice at WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha
Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The page was deleted even though there were third party independent sources cited It is a more than century old organization and certainly worth encyopedic Jethwarp (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Could we get a temp. undelete please? Hobit (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Endorse, I had participated in the discussion. The AfD Nominator had raised the concern appropriately and the AfD participants rightly pointed that WP:ORGCRIT was not meeting. The closure is justified. Good close by Sandstein. --Walrus Ji (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The deletion nomination did talk about self-published sources and a COI primary author; but then it shot itself in the foot with its references to "unacceptable unencyclopaedic fonts" and its telling admission that the nominator had tried to clean it up but been reverted. I see some red flags for the misuse of AfD for cleanup. What might in fact be needed here is not deletion, but for a sysop to step in and restore order. Before we go there, though, the concerns about sources need input from a previously uninvolved, trusted Hindi speaker in my view.—S Marshall T/C 16:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)ou
Comment Thank you S Marshall for your perfect reading of situation and red flag for misuse of AfD for clean-up. The problem here was not with article's worthiness it was due to some ip and user Tathya the Fact trying to promote his personal vendetaa on this page , whom I got immediately blocked [3] and also informed the participants in Afd. Instead of dealing with vandals and PoV pushers by Admin intervention, the nominator took AfD route, which is inappropriate and not proper. Wikipedia has policy on how to check and deal with vandals and POV pushers. AfD route to deal with this is misuse of AfD process, as you correctly pointed out. Regards Jethwarp (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Jethwarp, you have created this article that was judged as failing WP:ORGCRIT by the community. Where are the third party sources you claim to exist? Instead of resolving the actual WP:ORGCRIT concern you are now attacking the nomination on technicalities. Considering that this article is about an advocacy group, can you please clarify your Conflict of Interest with this group? are you a member of this group or from Khsatriya?--Walrus Ji (talk) 17:59, 14 January2021 (UTC)
Let other editors decide about the cited sources and I don't have any COI interest in the aricle. Anyone can check the page history to see what are cited sources and which editors could have CoI intrest in the page. Jethwarp (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
In fact I just got curious about using of AfD route by Heba Aisha and found out to my surprise that user is after all articles related to named Rajput, Kshatriya and even Jats. Just check the articles user has been able to via delete AfD procees[4] one example is Sodha it was deleted thru Afd where as independent sources are available [5] (talk)
Jethwarp, all these article which I tagged were one or two line article with almost no source and some of them were already tagged that they may not meet WP:GNG for years.example: [6] Noone tried to improve them and I believe that this was because, they failed to possess required number of third party independent sources.About the page we are discussing here,: I didn't object after you provided explaination in delition discussion.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, I would like to clarify, if you have checked the pages nominated by me. You would be knowing that I have also nominated many movie related articles too. And, those who commented in the AFD deletion discussion expressed their view after checking whether the source exist or not.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I also possess the same concern that Walrus Ji possess, most of the pages you created are related to a particular social group or notable personalities associated with them I.e Rajput. Example: the pages of many of the landlords who you edit regularly also belong to same social group and this organization was also of the same social group. I would like to tag admin Bishonen, about the disruption that has happened in recent times with pages related to this caste. The pages which got deleted faces the same problems example Rajput weeding, admins can check.It was with one source and the whole commentary was nothing but a WP:POV violating castecruft. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
the Wikipedia deletion policy clearly states that if no one is improving article that cannot be reason to nominate articles for deletion. If reliable third party sources are there one should try to improve it. just in case of Sodha you should in this particular case should have opted for AfD process diligently. thanks and regards and please don't discuss on my edits and personal attacks, I am here to save this particular article and not saying all your nomination were right or wrong. Jethwarp (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I said that because you also accused me of taking Afd route and not warning the disruptive user, but [7], you should have checked that I warned him three times. Also, I still believe that most of the hindi sources you are keeping are not independent and anyhow related to that organization possessing COI related materials. As I couldn't see enough quality newspapers itself in the source list, those flashing there were just poor materials of dubious quality news websites. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Requesting speedy close according to the Clause 8 of WP:DRVPURPOSE Jethwarp, This is not the page to attack Heba Aisha, you can take your grievance to Heba Aisha's talk page. If you read the definition , it says Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions;. Instead you have started this for all the wrong reasons listed st WP:DRVPURPOSE (1) because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome. (2) to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion; (3) to argue technicalities (4) to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed). Walrus Ji (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The red flag were first raised by S Marshall and As I realized that arguments are drifting away from main cause I remarked that I am here to save this page and would like to stick onwards only for this deletion review in future also Walrus Ji you first deviated from Deletion Review Clause 8 by asking me questions on my affliations etc. ThanksJethwarp (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Endorse. Read advice at WP:THREE for how to contest a decision to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment - would request all to please check the cited sources all are independent third party reliable sources cited in the article:-
1. Singh, Ujjwal Kumar (2007). The State, Democracy and Anti-Terror Laws in India By Ujjwal Kumar Singh - the book mentions how the organization took up fight against Mayawati government for her targeting of Rajput and Thakur castes
2. भारत रत्न महामना. बालमुकुन्द पाण्डेय, देवेन्द्र कुमार शर्मा · 2015. 2015. p. 85. - the book on Madan Mohan Malviya clearly states about the Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha and it's meet of 1922 under chairmanship Nahar Singh of Shahpura and it's pioneering role in bringing back Muslim Rajputs in to Hindu Rajput fold. The book also mentions Mahatma Gandhi was averse to this idea but the organization was blessed by Malaviyaji, who later passed similar resolution Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
3. Government Gazette: The United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. Year 1910. p. 144 mentions about the organization and it's meetings etc
Cited here only above 3, Any one can verify the other cited sources non- are self published sources or advocacy group links
Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Out of curiosity I looked at the reference 1 posted above. In this 350 page book, this organisation has only a single mention in a line saying that it wrote letters to the legislators. This is not what Significant coverage is supposed to mean. It appears that Jethwarp has some competency issues in understanding WP:Significant Coverage. In any case, if this is the #1 source in the list of top 3 sources then this only proves the non notability of this org. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
It is also known as All India Kshatriya Mahasabha google book search for same [8] Jethwarp (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Check link [9] and [10] and [11] and [12] and [13] and [14] and [15] and [16] and [17] and [18] for example.
Most importantly right from 1910 till date you can find different google books of every decade mentioning about the organization. Jethwarp (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Jethwarp, I have checked Reference 1 with your new search string. The alt name has zero mention in reference 1. I also clicked and reviewed all the links of google hits that you have provided above. They are trivial mentions. I could not even find one source that could convince me to vote a Keep. While we need to find multiple as WP:ORGCRIT demands. Walrus Ji (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
With due respect your opinion is already known. Let other knowledgeable editors check the links. You have already voted in AfD and saying same thing again, with regards. Jethwarp (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Ashli Babbitt (closed)
Category:Fictional armoured fighting vehicles (closed)
Bling Bling (group)
Bling Bling (group) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
It have mentioned in some newspaper in google, see here StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ My contributions | talk to me ] 10:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Additional link: [20], [21]. StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ My contributions | talk to me ] 03:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Additional reason: It is meeting the WP:BAND#C9 and WP:BAND#C10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Smile (Love & V.A.V.I) (talk • contribs) 10:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment - My usual thinking is that any questioned A7 or G11 can always go to AFD. An AFD is no more disruptive than a one-week DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Can we get a temp undelete please? Thank you, Hobit (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
And so, it is done WilyD 21:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the A7. It is also copyright violation of [22], so a G12 also. endorse speedy. Hobit (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Fandom is licensed by CC-BY-SA, so it's not G12-able. Licence attribution can be fixed. WilyD 11:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Yep, I knew is was CC-BY-SA, but for whatever bizarre reason didn't consider the lack of a cite could be trivially repaired. -3 internet points for hobit. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Endorse. The links found by following the nom's link do not give evidence of Wikipedia-notability. See advice at WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: A7 criteria mean band or artists does not have enough claim of significance. Singificance is lower requirement of notable. StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ My contributions | talk to me ] 04:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The DRV nom's statement did not mention that, they only provided a link to junk sources, which is a waste of our time. If these sources are the best, it will surely be deleted at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm the nominator of this DRV and also the creator of this article. I have put some other link to show it's eligible to have article. StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ My contributions | talk to me ] 03:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Overturn A7 - In my opinion, it doesn't satisfy musical notability, but it clears the low bar of a credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
What claim are you seeing as meeting WP:CCS? Hobit (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Endorse A7 deletion. Contains no claim of significance; being a girl group is not one. Sandstein 11:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Overturn. The deleted article contained a link to an Allkpop article here that said, "Bling Bling is MAJOR9's first girl group. The label is well-known for being home to ballad singers such as 4MEN, VIBE, and Ben, as well as Dongjun (ZE:A) and Kasper."
Bling Bling is signed to Major9, the same record label as 4MEN, VIBE, Ben, Dongjun, and Kasper. Although that association is not sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, it is a sufficient indication of importance, which means that {{db-a7}} does not apply. Here are additional sources I found about Bling Bling:
안진용 (2020-12-09). "'반짝반짝 빛나는' 블링블링, 'G.G.B'→'너 나랑 놀래?'…후속곡 활동 돌입". Munhwa Ilbo (in Korean). Archived from the original on 2020-12-31. Retrieved 2020-12-31.
서상현 (2020-12-18). "블링블링 아야미, '너 나랑 놀래?' 무대의상 디자인 참여". Top Daily (in Korean). Archived from the original on 2020-12-31. Retrieved 2020-12-31.
"ガールズグループBling Bling、17日韓日同時デビュー". JoongAng Ilbo (in Japanese). 2020-11-02. Archived from the original on 2020-12-31. Retrieved 2020-12-31.
"[韓流]女性6人組Bling Bling 17日に韓日同時デビュー" (in Japanese). Yonhap News Agency. 2020-11-09. Archived from the original on 2020-12-31. Retrieved 2020-12-31.
김수영 (2020-11-21). "블링블링, 김연자와 만남 성사…'블링블링' 공통분모". Korea Economic Daily (in Korean). Archived from the original on 2020-12-31. Retrieved 2020-12-31.
이승훈 (2020-11-12). "'데뷔 D-5' 블링블링 아야미, "카리스마 래퍼..반전 매력 보여드리고파" [일문일답]". The Chosun Ilbo (in Korean). Archived from the original on 2020-12-31. Retrieved 2020-12-31.
Cunard (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that being signed to a 3 year-old label counts as a claim of significance. The sources appear to be largely (entirely?) rehashed PR bits, but I can't read either language so am relying on machine translations. Hobit (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Being signed to a three-year-old label by itself does not count as a claim of significance. Being signed to a three-year-old label that has also signed 4MEN, VIBE, Ben, Dongjun, and Kasper is a claim of significance enough to pass the low bar set by {{db-a7}}.
While some of the sources contain "rehashed PR bits", they also contain independent analysis and reviews from the journalists. From the Top Daily article written by 이승훈 about Bling Bling's appearance on the Mnet TV channel (translated from Korean to English using Google Translate): "In the broadcast, Bling Bling drew attention not only with the perfect performance, but also with the watery visuals and sword group dance. In addition to a song with a strong charm, he drew attention by decorating the stage with a special white costume."
From The Chosun Ilbo article written by 이승훈 about a Bling Bling "personal concept teaser video" featuring Ayami (translated from Korean to English using Google Translate): "In the released video, Ayami fired a charismatic, intense glance and overwhelmed her gaze from the beginning. Next, a soft yet powerful performance was presented, further amplifying the expectation for this stage."
There is enough analysis in the reliable sources that a reasonable case can be made for Bling Bling's passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
This assessment of notability is irrelevant here. DRV is not AfD round 2. We do not address the article's merits here, but only the merits of the decision to delete, which was correct based on the contents of the article. Sandstein 12:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I addressed why I believe the low bar of {{db-a7}} does not apply to the deleted article (being signed by Major9 which has signed multiple notable musicians is a claim of significance) and further expanded on what I would say about the sources at an AfD if one is created. When there is disagreement over whether {{db-a7}} applies, that indicates that speedy deletion was not uncontroversial. Cunard (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Endorse A7 does not require the deletion to be uncontroversial, only that the article itself has failed to substantiate its implicit claim of the subject's significance. My understanding is that this criterion implies that such substantiation is also not forthcoming, so that the article will continue to lack any rationale for its inclusion in the encyclopedia indefinitely. To say that rationale is forthcoming at this time appears to be WP:CRYSTAL, implying this group will have success or impact that is still to be determined. It is entirely possible such evidence, in its most bare minimum form, has arrived recently, but likely did not exist when the article was first created. In that case, I would suggest to the author to take this to WP:AFC and present as thorough a case as possible for having an article on this subject on Wikipedia. As the page has been restored from a deletion and is not currently available for editing, it is not possible for the author to insert evidence of notability that did not exist in the article's first incarnation, so I would like to gently suggest saving the article's current content elsewhere, possibly in a draft, and pursuing AFC as mentioned before, allowing this process to close as endorsing A7 and deleting the article as it currently exists. Any worthwhile article is worth the work it takes to write it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I have copy it to my draft, you may see User:J. Smile (Love & V.A.V.I)/sandbox. StayC, BAE173 and music fans [ My contributions | talk to me ] 09:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Overturn A7 because a credible claim of significance doesn't even have to be one which would plausibly ever reach N, and this one arguably does if given a bit more secondary support. Jclemens (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Reason (software) (closed)
Archives, by year and month
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=971092758"
This page was last edited on 4 August 2020, at 03:38 (UTC).


The Kent KS20 is ideal for styling shorter or layered hair whilst blow drying.
The heat reflecting core ensures maximum drying whilst the small barrel is suited to use with fringes, short or layered hair.
Kent have been supplying stores such as John Lewis, Selfridges, Harrods, Fortnum and Mason along with leading chemists in the UK for over 200 years.
A narrow, satin wood, pure soft white bristle brush. A flat faced dual timber brush made from satin wood and beech. The beech face is filled with soft white bristle whilst the back is capped in satin wood. A terrific grooming brush for people with fine or thinning hair. The bristle helps clean the hair whilst promoting shine and stimulation to the scalp.


text:
France: Shooting near Christmas market leaves 4 dead
Incident occurred in Strasbourg's Place Kleber square
At least four people were killed and 11 others injured Tuesday when a gunman opened fire in the French city of Strasbourg, according to local authorities.
The incident took place close to the historic Christmas market in Place Kleber square.
The prefect of France's Bas-Rhin region announced that the attacker had been identified but had escaped on foot after being cornered by police, during which there had been an exchange of gunfire. A search for the assailant is now underway.
The incident was being evaluated as a terror attack, the prefect added.
The gunman was injured during the clash with security forces before escaping, according to French media reports.
"Shooting in the center of Strasbourg. Thank you all for staying home and waiting for a clarification of the situation," Strasbourg's deputy mayor, Alain Fontanel, wrote on Twitter.
Shooting Near Christmas MarketStrasbourg Shooting
Tourists die as freak storm hits northern Greece
Candidate seeks to be 1st Turkish-American in Congress
Trump slams UK envoy over leaked insults


text:
Kapapamahchakwew - Wandering Spirit School
Community Liaison Office
Indigenous Days of Significance
Indigenous Education Library
Contact the Indigenous Education Centre
School Council Funds
Types of Fundraising
Approved Fundraising and Fun Fair Vendors
Statutory Advisory Committees
Parent Involvement Advisory Committee
Alternative Schools Community Advisory Committee
Black Student Achievement Community Advisory Committee
Community Use of Schools Community Advisory Committee
Early Years Community Advisory Committee
Environmental Sustainability Community Advisory Committee
Equity Policy Community Advisory Committee
French as a Second Language Advisory Committee
Inner City Community Advisory Committee
Urban Indigenous Community Advisory Committee
LGBTQ2S Advisory Committee
PIAC 2018 Conference Resources
Enhancing Equity Task Force
Enhancing Equity Task Force Recommendations
Heritage and History Months
PIAC 2019 Event
What is a model school?
Permit Categories and Fees
Responsibilities, Emergency and Safety Information
xoTO Film Permits
xoTO Schools Locations
xoTO Schools – Permit Rates
Policy Consultations
French Review
Freedom of Information & Privacy
Freedom of Information Process
Kapapamahchakwew - Wandering Spirit School of Toronto
A School that Places Culture in the Centre of the Circle
The focus of Kapapamahchakwew - Wandering Spirit School is to offer a tradition-based curriculum that meets the requirements set by the Parent Council, the Toronto District School Board and the Ontario Ministry of Education. First Nations Public School is unique in that Indigenous values, spirituality, culture and language are integrated throughout the school curriculum. The goal of this integration is to ensure that urban Indigenous children have the opportunity to learn about their heritage and the traditional Anishinaabe (Ojibwe) cultural perspective while acquiring the skills necessary to survive in the world today. While a large base of the student population of First Nations School is of Anishinaabe ancestry the school welcomes children of all backgrounds.
The 200+ students of Kapapamahchakwew - Wandering Spirit School enjoy a culturally enriched program that incorporates programs like Native Second Language, traditional singing and drumming, powwow dancing and community feasts.
For more information on Kapapamahchakwew - Wandering Spirit School and the programs and courses offered, contact Kapapamahchakwew - Wandering Spirit School of Toronto.
Centering Indigenous Ways of Knowing Across the Board
Kapapamahchakwew - Wandering Spirit School and the Urban Indigenous Education Centre are not the only spaces doing work to advance the Indigenous ways of being and knowing. The following schools deserve special acknowledgement for their work in supporting Indigenous Education:
Eastview Jr. Public School is a Junior public school providing instruction from Junior Kindergarten to 8 and is located in the vicinity of Kingston Road and Lawrence Avenue in Scarborough. Eastview has a large community of indigenous children and has been a leader in developing First Nations, Métis and Inuit education programs in an urban setting. Eastview Jr. Public School offers First Nations, Métis and Inuit studies across the curriculum through specific programs and support initiatives such as the Native Second Language Program from Grade 4 to Grade 8 (Ojibwe) and a Cultures and Traditions Program for all students. For more information about the school and the programs offered contact Eastview Jr. Public School.
Riverdale Collegiate Institute is the only Secondary school in the Toronto District School Board that offers the Native Second Language Program at all four language levels. Riverdale works with a high proportion of Indigenous students and has many special supports for Indigenous youth. For more information about the school and the programs offered click on Riverdale Collegiate Institute
The Native Learning Centre is a partnership that was developed in 1998 between Native Child and Family Services and the Toronto District School Board. The program provides opportunities for re-entry for students of Indigenous ancestry who are in grades 9-12+. The program is a highly individualized one, designed to support students working toward high school graduation or apprenticeship programs. Class sizes are small and opportunities to receive feedback and support are constant. For more detailed information, visit the Native Learning Centre.
The Native Learning Centre East is housed at Sir Wilfrid Laurier Collegiate Institute and offers a wide range of supports to Indigenous youth. Structured similarly to the downtown Native Learning Centre this program provides opportunities for re-entry for students of Indigenous ancestry who are in grades 9-12+. The program is a highly individualized one, designed to support students working toward high school graduation or apprenticeship programs. Class sizes are small and opportunities to receive feedback and support are constant. For more detailed information, contact the Native Learning Centre East.
Visit the Urban Indigenous Education Centre on Facebook


The simplest type of whole-house ventilation is exhaust ventilation. In an exhaust ventilation system, a strategically located exhaust inside the home pulls air out of the home and into the atmosphere. The exhaust fan is usually placed in the attic with an exhaust vent leading to the rooftop.
Depending on the sophistication of the system, the exhaust fan may be connected to a network of air intake ducts located throughout the house. However, it is also common for a single exhaust fan to be installed with no connecting ductwork.
Exhaust ventilation systems function by pulling fresh air through tiny cracks and crevices found throughout the home's structure. In some instances, passive air vents are installed to aid in the intake of fresh air, especially if the structure is exceptionally well-insulated.
Another widely used whole-house ventilation system type is supply ventilation. Supply ventilation systems function in an exact-opposite manner than exhaust ventilation systems. Instead of pulling air out of the home, supply ventilation systems push fresh air into the home.
Supply ventilation fans are also commonly found in the attics of homes and use roof-mounted air intakes. As with exhaust ventilation systems, the efficiency of a supply ventilation system can be increased through the use of ducts located throughout the home. The ducts enable fresh air to be better distributed and provide balance for the overall ventilation effort.
Since fresh air is pulled into the home through the supply fan, the "stale" air inside the home is pushed out through minute openings located all over the structure. Passive vents can be installed to increase the volume of air exhausted from the home if the home's insulation characteristics make it necessary.
Several factors should be evaluated before a decision is made about which whole-house ventilation system is best for a particular home. Both exhaust and supply ventilation systems possess advantages and disadvantages, and knowledge of each can help make the choice easier for homeowners.
Exhaust ventilation systems perform best in areas with cooler, dry climates. In warm, moist climates, exhaust ventilation can introduce humid air into the interior spaces between walls and cause mold or wood rot.
However, in cooler climates, supply ventilation systems can create problems by forcing heated interior air into attics, basements or other cold spaces. This action may cause condensation to form in these areas, which can lead to moisture-related damage inside structures.
Another consideration when deciding what type of whole-house ventilation system to install is outside air quality. Poor air quality due to pollutants can make exhaust ventilation a bad choice for homeowners. These systems may draw contaminated air into the home and negatively affect the health of occupants as a result.
Supply ventilation can also present the same problem if the air drawn into the home through the fan is polluted. However, supply ventilation systems can be equipped with filters which will strip contaminants from the incoming air, and although such filtration will likely increase the cost of the system, it will overcome the difficulties associated with unfiltered air being passed into the home.
Whole-house ventilation can affect the operation of combustion appliances such as hot water heaters and furnaces. These appliances, fueled by natural gas, propane or oil, depend upon neutral or positive air pressure for proper operation. Positive air pressure occurs whenever interior air is at a higher pressure level than the air immediately surrounding the home.
However, negative air pressure can adversely affect the elimination of potentially deadly byproducts like carbon monoxide. In some extreme cases, negative air pressure can cause a backdraft of some of these byproducts back into the home where they can cause illness or even death.
If your home is equipped with combustion appliances, it's most likely that the best choice for whole-house ventilation is a supply ventilation system. Supply ventilation creates positive interior pressure, which can help eliminate the possibility of backdrafts.
For questions about whole-house ventilation, be sure to contact the experts at Ragan Mechanical for help. The professionals at Ragan Mechanical understand the need for effective interior ventilation and can assist you in achieving this result.


text:
Big Mouth Season 6 Release Date on Netflix and Trailer
ByKerem Dogan KarakocJuly 8, 2021 0
What is the release date of Big Mouth season 6 on Netflix? Fans of the series are curious about the fifth and the sixth seasons.
The series created by Nick Kroll offers an absurd and funny approach to puberty. The lovely characters of the series are all teens trying to figure out what is happening to them as they discover their hormones and meet hormone monsters. Nick Kroll, the cast, and the crew of the series have managed to come up with an amazing storyline for their characters so far. In fact, there is also a spin-off series in the works. Named Human Resources, the spin-off to flagship series Big Mouth will focus on the workplace of the Hormone Monsters. Netflix has shared a short teaser for the side series as well.
On the other hand, we know that Big Mouth season 5 and season 6 are officially in the works. The creator of the series stated that they are working hard to tell the new stories of the characters. Yet only four seasons of the series are available on Netflix. This means that we have to wait for a really long time for Big Mouth season 6. Although the crew behind the show wants it to continue, it is up to Netflix as the streaming giant could always cancel a show if the show's performances are below expected.
With that said, let's have a look at the release date updates of these two seasons and keep you informed about this great series.
When is the Big Mouth Season 6 release date?
If Netflix decides to continue with the series after the fifth season, the earliest possible release date for the sixth season is Fall 2022. It might even be the first quarter of 2023. So we will have to wait for the streaming platform to release season 5 first. After that, Netflix might even cancel the series even though Nick Kroll stated otherwise. So when is season 5 coming to Netflix?
The release date of the fifth installment of the puberty-induced cartoon series is late 2021. If everything goes right, we will get to watch the new episodes of the cartoon before this year ends.
Who will be in the Big Mouth season 6 cast?
The animation series focusing on the many problems of puberty introduces funny characters that are voiced by some of the most talented names in the entertainment industry. The first four seasons of the series introduced new characters as well. That said, we do not have any official information regarding the cast of Big Mouth season 6. We have listed the actors and actresses in the main cast:
Nick Kroll voices Nick Birch
John Mulaney voices Andrew Glouberman
Jason Mantzoukas voices Jay Bilzerian
Fred Armisen voices Elliot Birch
Jessi Klein voices Jessi Glaser
Mara Rudolph voices Connie the Hormone Monstress
Jordan Peele voices Ghost of Duke Ellington
Jenny Slate voices Missy Foreman-Greenwald
Is there a Big Mouth Season 6 trailer?
Netflix has not dropped a trailer video for the sixth season yet. We will have to wait for a trailer or a teaser video for the fifth season first. After the fifth installment of the series makes its premiere, we will probably see a trailer video for the next season a year later.
Here's everything we know so far about the new seasons of Big Mouth.
big mouth season 5big mouth season 6big mouth season 6 castbig mouth season 6 netflixbig mouth season 6 release datebig mouth season 6 storybig mouth season 6 synopsisnetflix big mouth
The Walking Dead Season 10 coming to Netflix in July 2021
New Series and Movies Coming to Netflix Australia in July 2021


Parents of children with mental and behavioral health problems look for help from the professional expertise offered by Children's Hospital of Richmond at VCU.
Dr. Flansburg works with children, adolescents, young adults and couples. Dr. Flansburg has expertise in the assessment of ADHD and learning difficulties in children and adolescents.
Commonwealth Counseling has more than 30 specially trained clinicians from different backgrounds and areas of expertise that strive to provide the best possible mental health solutions to each and every person who walks through our doors.
Dr. Kimberly Parker Nicolas provides assessment and counseling services to children, adolescents, young adults, and families. She offers a variety of testing services including assessment of ADHD.
Dr. Laura Brewer is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist who specializes in work with adult ADHD, couples (one spouse with ADHD), and adults with depression, anxiety, and life stressors. She also uses an educational approach with adults with ADHD.
Dr. Pattee provides assessment and diagnosis of children and adolescents with ADHD, learning obstacles and emotional or behavioral problems. Dr. Pattee also completes assessments of children for educational placement in kindergarten.
Dr. Marshall is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist who provides assessment and therapy services to children, adolescents, young adults, and families. She offers a variety of testing services including assessment of ADHD and learning disabilities.
She attended the University of Virginia and after graduation went on to her medical training at the Medical College of Virginia. Her special Pediatric Medical interests are mental health, and promoting children's abilities.
Dr. Raines provides assessment and diagnosis of children with all types of learning obstacles and ADHD. The goal of her assessment is to provide a profile of a child's learning potential to help in developing strategies and treatment.


This butterscotch beauty, his look determined, his eyes bright, seldom stops smiling. After being struck by a car and left battered and broken, the feisty pup fought his way back from the threat of death to the promise of life and all of its possibilities. Aptly named Oakley after the solid strength of the oak, he may have lost a leg in the battle, but his spirit has remained strong as he continues to heal. In fact, nothing holds this determined little dog down or back, as he regains his footing as a regular, rowdy and roguish pup. Playful and curious, happy to chomp on a toy or a flip-flop, Oakley is comfortable with children and gets along with other calm, well-mannered dogs. Although he tires quickly after a romp or a run, his fosters are working to build up his endurance, while teaching him basic obedience, and correcting any jumpy/mouthy behavior he may display. Understandably fearful of cars, he's slowly and patiently being taught that a car isn't a frightening thing but a safe place to be. Then, of course, there's cuddle time, which loving Oakley thoroughly enjoys, when he's the center of affection and attention. And who can blame him? Soon he'll be fit enough to find a loving, forever home, where the remarkable journey he's on can happily continue.
Donate NOW to Oakley's surgery fund!
Complete an adoption application today to meet Oakley.
Oakley's on his way to his foster home!
I'm ready to get out of the vet hospital and go home!
Oakley heading home to his foster home after spending two weeks at the vet hospital for recovery.
Yum, I found a sandal.
Which was quickly swapped out for an appropriate chew toy.
Followed by a good game of tug-of-war with a sock.


Hello I'll finish my work on time and perfectly.
I can do my best as soon as possible. Am well in data entry . So you can give this project to me. Am sure I complete this on required time.
Im really good at typing and editing texts. excellent level for grammar to make sure everything and clear and correct as needed.
Hi, I would like to apply for this job. You may check the my resume for your review. I assure to give my 100% on this job as always. Thank you and hoping for me to be consider on this job. Have a nice day ahead!
Dear client, My name is qamar and i am a typing expert. I have read your project description. so please hire me.
I will make it faster and with accuracy. I am a good Typer in English. I can complete your in given time. So it will be great to you if I do your work.


Finally, volume 1 of Rideshare Storytime is available in paperback and Kindle formats. It's 14 unbelievable true stories from your favorite rideshare driver! A reunion of ex's in a carpool, a dying pet rabbit, a Holocaust survivor and that's not even the half of it! Order your copy today!