Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 January

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< December 2022 Deletion review archives February 2023 >

31 January 2023

edit

30 January 2023

edit

29 January 2023

edit
  • Abhaya Sahu – Deletion endorsed. There is no objection to the article being improved in draftspace, and anyone who is prepared to invest the time in doing so may ask for the deleted content to be placed there. Such a request can be made at WP:REFUND or on my talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Abhaya Sahu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Delete rushed through, without any broader participation, with some boilerplate arguements about lack of notability coverage. The notion that Times of India (3 largest newspaper in India, 1.5 million daily readers) could not be used as indicator of notability is ridiculous (whether TOI is reputable source for factual claims is another issue altogether). Checking available materials,

very long list of references (refactored by —Alalch E. 17:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Ping Liz. --Soman (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The Delete was not rushed through; it ran for the full seven days. The above URL Dump is too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if this is an appeal of the close. The close was the only possible close, as there was no reason to relist. However, the deletion discussion focused on political notability, and the appellant appears to be saying that the subject satisfies general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Review of Draft to establish general notability as if the deletion had been a Soft Delete, because GNG was not discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse correct interpretation of a unanimous vote for delete. However no objection to recreation with the above references, subject to its own AFD. Frank Anchor 13:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, allow draft. This person may or may not be notable, but that was the AfD's job, and now DRV's job is to review the AFD closure, which was the only interpretation of 2 delete !votes. Clyde!Franklin! 23:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Looking at the massive list of sources is not hugely useful because there are just too many. If you can't meet WP:N with the best 3 or 4, you can't meet WP:N with a wall of them. That said, the discussion didn't really discuss the sources and the level of participation, combined with the quality of the discussion, probably puts it as a WP:SOFTDELETE. That said, please be sure to indicate the 3 or 4 sources you think are best at meeting WP:N even if you list the rest in a collapsed box at the AfD. Hobit (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist while it's a low level of participation, on the face of it, crosses the threshold for delete. However, the nomination actually contains no policy/guideline based reason for deletion. Not satisfying NPOL is not grounds for deletion (or retention), it is simply an indication that presumed notability cannot be accorded. Furthermore, the nominee and one of the participants have a history of tag-teaming and canvassing at AfD [1]. Given all this, while one could possibly argue proceedural keep, there's one delete contribution that makes a policy/guideline-based argument. Therefore, I would give less than normal weight to the nomination and the other contribution and would seek more input. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD nomination was brief, but an unelected politician who fails NPOL is certainly a reason to delete (or Draftify) and this is a common outcome. Election candidates are frequently the subject of promotion, quite understandably, and the sources are usually promotional, non independent, on can be native advertising that is aggressively rejected by Wikipedia.
    Warn the tag teamers that tag teaming is WP:GAMING and could result in them being sanctioned, however, to make a case to sanction them you need to show a more egregious case of deletionism. Ideally, anyone invited to a discussion should declare their invitation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The comment by M.Ashraf333 in the deletion discussion addresses the quality of the sourcing, "Nothing about him in reliable sources." There was no controversy in the discussion, the comments were based on policy (yes, saying a subject does not meet NPOL is a policy-based statement), and the participation was sufficient. No error in this close. --Enos733 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, saying a subject does not meet NPOL is a guideline-based statement, just one that has, per se, no bearing on deletion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you carefully read WP:DEL-REASON#8? Notability guidelines require subjective interpretation appropriate to guideline status, but on making the connection of the appropriate notability guideline, it is pseudo-policy by virtue of explicit inclusion as a reason in WP:Deletion policy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOL (with NPROF) stands in distinction in that it accords *presumed* notability when satisfied, it's not derived from the GNG and therefore failure to satisfy cannot be seen as analogous to failing the GNG and implying a lack of general notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not disagree with the point made here, but many people use "Fails NPOL", "Fails NPROF", or "Fails NSPORT" as shorthand for both failing the SNG and GNG. I think the argument should be discounted only when another person does suggest that GNG is (or might be) met. - Enos733 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    “Presumed” notability evaporates when the article is nominated at AfD. Presumed notability is a good threshold for starting articles, but by sending to AfD someone has formally challenged that assumption and article proponents have to do better than point to the presumption threshold. Ideally, AfD nominators should address the GNG, but in the absence of any comments on the GNG, the failing of a subguideline is a reason to delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but Draftify given the long list of references. Endorse the AfD close as appropriate. To contest such a deletion, use draftspace and follow the advice at WP:THREE, and submit through AfC and/or ask the deleting admin. This need not take long, it can all happen in a day. DO NOT present dozens of references. If the best three are not good enough, there is virtually no chance that the rest will be better, and it is unreasonable to ask an independent editor to review dozens of references. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 January 2023

edit
  • Ushna Suhail – The discussion was reopened by Iffy. While a literal interpretation of WP:NACD ("Deletion-related closes may only be reopened by the closer themselves; by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning; or by consensus at deletion review", emphasis in original) means that it should have been an administrator that did this, considering the circumstances I personally support the action. For the avoidance of doubt should anyone wish to dispute Iffy's actions, I am happy to underwrite the action as an uninvolved administrator. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ushna Suhail (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Discussion was closed by the non-admin user Vecihi91 as keep just after one day run. Although the number of votes are keep but my concern is, the closing of AfD as a non-admin and as well as before the time. @Sportsfan_1234 (talk), please leave your input here for this closing. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bhupenddra Singh Raathore (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Discussion was closed by the nominator as speedy keep as they had withdrawn their nomination, however there had already been one delete !vote (mine) so the discussion should have been left to run its course. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrawn because there were 2 Keep votes, and it had completed it's 7 Days. I am now out of it, very less number of editor are really interested in the discussions. Rest is upon you. I also withdrawn Vinod Adani's AfD. I'm really very sad after these 2 bad incidents that i took it to Discussion and others are not even Participating well. Thanks --- Misterrrrr (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if there are incivility/harassment issues, then kindly report to admins. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate close and allow an administrator to close it or relist (if relisted, the nominating comment should be stricken). AFD ran its full seven days and in my opinion there is more policy-based reasoning to keep than delete. However, it is not the place for the nominator to close their own AFD when there are other delete votes standing. Frank Anchor 17:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Joe Williams (guard) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Closer (non-admin) !voted the same way in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruel Redinger, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Robb, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Babcock, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marv Smith, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Comer (American football), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie Flattery, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ja'Quan McMillian. Closed after less than four hours, he was voted Second-team all-pro by Collyer's Eye, I'd like to see what others have to say on this before the nomination closes. I'm not opposed to keeping but the discussion seemed cut a bit short. That's his only real claim to notability so far. Also now that there's no NFL NSPORTS guidelines anymore, so he has to have had SIGCOV, which is still lacking. Therapyisgood (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP made no effort to discuss this with me before bringing it here. He also reverted without discussion a talk page note from another editor. I stand by my close. If it gets overturned, you can expect a wave of keep !votes from editors who understand how notability works. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse several policy-based arguments were made for keep (establishing notability and citing WP:IAR as justification for having the article despite less WP:SIGCOV when he played in an era in which SIGCOV did not exist even close to today’s level). There was really no other way this discussion could have went. It was a bad nomination (though I believe made in good faith) that I was planning to non-admin close as WP:SNOW keep myself in the next day or so, but another user closed it ahead of me. Frank Anchor 11:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the Keep close. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to relist The AfD was closed less than four hours after nomination after three !votes despite the subject having not been shown to pass any inclusion criteria. There are no sources of WP:SIGCOV in the article and none was presented in the AfD. Regarding him being a Second-Team All-Pro, if I understand this correctly it is based on a selection made by E.G. Brands, a correspondent for Collyer's Eye in Chicago, which I find an insufficient reason to use WP:IAR. With all that in mind, I find it highly premature to close the AfD by an editor heavily involved in similar AfD's after such a short time. Alvaldi (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny how it's such a big deal to close an AfD after four hours when it was clearly headed toward a keep result, but the OP can AfD an article 3 hours after it was created and nobody bats an eyelash. This is a farcical situation. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to relist per Alvaldi's concerns. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 18:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Void NAC and trout those who think otherwise We don't let NACs IAR close things early, we don't let reasonably involved anyone (admin or NAC) close AfD discussions, and SNOW has historically required at least 6+ unanimous rejections of the rationale over at least 24 hours. This close is so not appropriate that it calls the policy understanding anyone here suggesting that it is appropriate into question. Jclemens (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Contrary to what you may think, this was not an involved close and I resent the insinuation. Maybe my close was ill-advised, but I completely reject your implied assertion that I was formally out-of-order in any way, shape, or form. Furthermore, I've been editing off-and-on (mostly on) for over a decade, and I don't believe I've ever heard anything about a specific numerical requirement for a speedy close. If y'all want to reopen it, whatever. Be my guest. But I hope you haven't forgotten that we are supposed to be building an encyclopedia rather than looking for loopholes that allow you to dismantle what we already have. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the things about doing NACs is that you are held to every expectation of INVOLVED as an admin is, and that includes Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. (emphasis mine). A spot check of the appellant's assertions about your !votes in specific similar discussions substantiates them. This is not a new expectation. In the ~5 years I spent as an admin, 08-13, I deleted about 20,000 pages, precisely because I am a curationist, which many find indistinguishable from an inclusionist. Jclemens (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose your interpretation verges on reasonableness at least in some respects, and I see little point in dragging this out further. I've had enough bricks thrown at me for one day. I have vacated my close and reopened the AfD. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note from original closer: I have vacated my close. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Chance Odolena Voda (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Years-old redirects should not be speedy deleted per G6, but instead brought to RfD if they are thought to be incorrect. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • No objection I haven't had a chance to review, but it makes sense at first glance. It seems to be a good faith request. I completed the speedy but got caught up at work and haven't had time to re-review.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 January 2023

edit

26 January 2023

edit

25 January 2023

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Marta Grigorieva (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The person is not little-known, and the article is not advertising.

Exhibited on the websites: https://www.artprice.com/artist/521635/marta-grigorieva https://www.artnet.com/artists/marta-grigorieva/

Published in articles: https://www.visitmonaco.com/en/news/25222/marta-grigorieva-exhibition-at-the-columbus-monaco https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/experts/1858 https://monacolife.net/women-in-monaco-marta-grigorieva/

Published in the magazine: https://viewer.joomag.com/eng-monaco-issue-16/0427110001545753193?page=170

She has her own book: https://www.amazon.fr/Marta-Grigorieva/e/B085CM9JYK?ref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share

Listed on the site: https://www.askart.com/artist/Marta_Grigorieva/11201845/Marta_Grigorieva.aspx Jhin435 (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Badnaseeb – Reclosed as redirect. A majority here, even if maybe not amounting to a consensus to overturn, agrees that this was a mistaken and inappropriate non-admin closure. Accordingly, I'm re-closing the AfD in my individual capacity as an administrator based on JoelleJay's comment with which I agree. This new closure can in turn be appealed to DRV. Sandstein 06:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Badnaseeb (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think that this closure incorrectly assessed the discussion, wherein keep !voters failed to substantiate any of their claims regarding the depth of coverage available. That this is a subject which has been previously deleted at AfD is a further reason to consider "no consensus-keep" a poor outcome. Beyond that concern, it's an example of WP:BADNAC cases 2 and 4, as a close-call closure in a discussion that could result in a non-actionable result for a non-admin. I raised my concern with Superastig on their talk page, to which they responded I know that the "keep" votes are weak, but they still have merit whatsoever. And I don't see enough consensus for it to be deleted or redirected either. Therefore, I don't see a reason for me to revert my closure. signed, Rosguill talk 02:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse the no consensus closure as after three weeks of discussion there clearly was not consensus to delete or redirect. However, WP:TROUT User:Superastig for performing a NAC as those should be reserved for cases in which consensus is more obvious. Frank Anchor 03:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect. This is a case where there's enough of a strength-of-argument disparity to overcome the split in numbers, in my view. The delete/redirect !votes made specific arguments that the available sources didn't meet the GNG for specific guideline-based reasons (reliability, depth of coverage, etc.), while the keep !votes didn't rebut those arguments and just asserted with minimal reasoning that the sources were sufficient. (Tellingly, questions like "what do you feel are the top three sources in the article that have significant coverage of the show and are not interview pieces?" and "Could you identify precisely which sources you believe add up to meeting GNG?" went unanswered.) Consensus isn't a vote, and "unsubstantiated personal opinion[s]" about the sourcing don't outweigh well-argued, guideline-based !votes. (I'd feel the same way if the roles were reversed: if the keep !voters presented sources and explained why they meet the GNG while the delete !voters said nothing more than "delete; fails WP:GNG", the proper closure would be keep regardless of the vote !count.) There's thus consensus against a stand-alone article, so redirect (as an unrebutted ATD) is the proper closure. And that's all without considering the BADNAC aspect of this, which I think is an independent reason to overturn the close. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Redirect - This would have been a dubious close by an admin. The closer refers, on their talk page, to the Keep !votes, and does not state how they weighed the IP votes. In my opinion, the IP votes should have been either discounted completely, or treated as one vote by one human behind the two IPs. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per RosguillFrank Anchor. Anyone wishing to redirect the article would be welcome to do so as an normal editorial action. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rosguill opened the DRV to challenge the closure- are you referring to someone else? Thanks and apologies if I missed anything. Cheers. VickKiang (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops. Brainfart fixed, thank you. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak endorse No keep really specified the best sources, only the nomination really discussed specific sources. I think this is a NC, but leaning toward delete pretty hard. I tend to be supportive of NACs, but this one is not a clear NC (yes, those exist). Given the closer is, if memory serves, very experienced at closing these things, I don't know that I'd overturn on the basis of being a NAC. But vague waves to the article's sources by the keep !votes aren't very convincing given the rest of the discussion. Hobit (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect - I don't think this was a WP:BADNAC as the closer is experienced, a plain headcount of !votes does suggest no consensus, and the discussion had already been relisted twice. However, good policy-based arguments for deletion were made, and really were not refuted. Several editors provided a cursory review of the sources and generally agreed that they amounted to passing mentions, and that notability was not established. A new source was added during the discussion, however when evidence was provided casting doubt on its reliability, the keep !voters either did not respond or simply asserted its suitability without providing any evidence in its favour. The weight of policy is clearly with the delete !voters, however redirecting the title is preferable to deletion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, regarding appeals to Superastig's experience as a closer, they have been warned against closing close or contentious AfDs when brought to DRV before (June 2021, November 2021, November 2022, and an ongoing discussion at January 2023). I'm not sure what the positive side of their unchallenged closes look like so I'm not trying to build consensus for a ban, but given that they seem to rarely engage with the actual DRV discussions, it seems that someone (I am obviously not an ideal messenger here) should have a word with them regarding when it's appropriate to NAC. signed, Rosguill talk 19:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-admin closers who continuously do BADNACs aren't helping themselves towards administrator tools. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a quick check of last couple of dozen closes and I think I have some level of objection to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatih Mehmet Gul (none of the 'keep' arguments are doing much for me here) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish Association of Chartered Surveyors (per Liz's relist comment). Definitely need to sit down and read some more to work out where I actually sit on them. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate to allow an administrator to close. Per WP:NACD, non-admins should not perform no consensus closes of AfDs; apparent "no consensus" situations are inherently "Close calls and controversial decisions". Another outcome may be preferable, but I don't think it's necessary to get into that here. —Alalch E. 20:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Redirect per Extraordinary Writ's analysis. I am involved (I voted redirect), but from my involved point of view the keep votes are somewhat weaker in that the 2nd and 3rd keep votes are a bit vague, and are from IPs who have both only edited on a single article, List of programs broadcast by Hum TV (a related article that I proposed a redirect to). This might also be a controversial non-admin close that falls under WP:BADNAC criteria 2 (though I understand that is an essay). Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BADNAC doesn't say that NACs can't close AFDs as "No consensus" and it isn't uncommon in AFD-world for them to do so. So, while you might want to overturn this closure, it shouldn't be on the basis that NACs shouldn't close discussions as "No consensus". BADNAC warns against close calls but not all No consensus closures are close calls, sometimes it's the only sensible closure to make. Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & redirect. This was pretty even off headcount, but the delete !votes seem to have more merit, and redirecting is an ATD. Clyde!Franklin! 23:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn / Redirect The keep arguments are generally weak and fail to respond to the far stronger counter arguments and source analysis presented by the delete/redirect proponents. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Frank's and Hobit's argument. I agree with the closer that the keep !votes do have merit as the delete !votes. So it's unfair if they should be discarded. However, the NC isn't that clear for a lot of editors. So the closer needs some explanation to carry his closure. SBKSPP (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/redirect a patently poor NAC. 2 out of the 3 keep !votes are unsigned comments by Pakistan IPs with total article overlap and should have been discounted entirely as obvious socking. The sole other keep !vote (from an editor who has made the exact same types of edits to the exact same page the IPs edited...) vaguely claims to have added refs that were "not merely passing mentions or brief paragraphs" but does not explain how they count towards GNG and did not address the comments demonstrating several of the sources they added were not RS. Meanwhile, the delete/redirect !votes made P&G-based arguments and actively engaged with specific sources. This was an easy redirect close and probably should have resulted in an SPI. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 January 2023

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Speaker Knockerz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A couple of months ago, I created in my user draft a lengthy and well-sourced article on the late rapper Speaker Knockerz using sources deemed reliable by the community (see WP:MUSIC/SOURCE). 8 years prior to the creation of my version of the article, a poorly sourced article on Speaker Knockerz was published and went through an article for deletion nomination where the topic was deemed non-notable and consequently resulted in its associated article being deleted and salted. Seeing as the page was previously salted against creation, I made a request to remove the protection on the title so that the article could be created. An administrator fulfilled my request and a couple of months later, a contributor opened a second article for deletion claiming that my article was an identical version of the 8-year-old article and requesting its deletion. An administrator found the contributor's words sufficient and closed the discussion a mere 6 minutes after it was opened failing to look further and leave room for debate. My version of the article was not only far from an identical copy of the deleted version but also automatically rated as B-class with information coming from numerous well-known sources. Although he might not have been Wikipedia standard notable at the time of his passing, Speaker Knockerz's legacy was solidified post-humously with him now being known as an influential figure of modern trap, being cited as an influence to numerous prominent modern-day rappers, and even being the subject of a musical tribute by Kevin Gates which landed on the Billboard 100. I find it extremely disappointing to see my hours of research in order to document the rapper's legacy erased in such a rushed and careless manner. Célestin Denis (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If an administrator could provide an archive of my deleted version of the article it would really be helpful to solidify my case. Célestin Denis (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm interested in what uninvolved administrators have to say about the similarities between the two versions. WP:G4 only applies to essentially identical copies, so it should be easy to see if there's been a mistake. Are admins able to see multiple deleted versions? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 19:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The page was temporarily undeleted and history is now made available. It is now clear that the 2014 version of the article is not similar to my version. Célestin Denis (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Temporarily undeleted for DRV. (I have undeleted all revisions of the history for G4 review purposes, not just the latest incarnation of the article.) Daniel (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Célestin Denis: Please advise the administrator who most recently deleted the article that you have opened a DRV, as required by point 2 of "Steps to list a new deletion review" listed at WP:DRV. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Callanecc: Célestin Denis (talk) 7:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Overturn and finish discussion: Looking at those couple versions, WP:G4 clearly does not apply. Notability is another question entirely - Looks like it passes my standards, but I'm pretty lenient and I realize this isn't the venue so, at a minimum, the AfD should be allowed to run its course. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 19:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist G4 is not appropriate in this situation. The article was not salted, at least through an AFD discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn and relist You can't shrodem a shrug but you can shrug a shrodem. Errr... Do not G4 articles that aren't close to being identical. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist WP:G4: "not substantially identical to the deleted version". Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Per all above. G4 does not apply here. Frank Anchor 03:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - I have not seen the 2014 version of the article and am relying on the opinions of administrators who have seen the two deleted versions and said that they are not the same. There are a few matters that make this case confusing, but it appears that:
    • The article was first created in 2014, shortly after the death of the subject.
    • The article was nominated for deletion, citing notability and sourcing considerations. The AFD was closed as Delete in September 2014 and the article was deleted.
    • The article was recreated three times in 2015, and was deleted three times in 2015 as G4.
    • The title was salted in 2015 due to the repeated recreations.
    • The appellant requested in 2022 that the title be unsalted so that they could create a new article on the subject.
    • The new article was nominated for deletion in January 2023. The nomination was an AFD, but the rationale was mostly G4 rationale. Maybe the nominator did an AFD rather than a G4 because they couldn't see and compare the 2014 article.
    • The AFD was closed as Delete, not Speedy Delete, but the closure was done almost immediately after the AFD was opened. The log indicates that the deletion was G4, although the AFD just says Delete. I see the close of the AFD as sloppy in not stating in the AFD that it was a G4 Speedy Delete.
    • If the 2014 article and the 2022 article are not substantially the same, a seven-day deletion discussion is in order.

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon You can see the 2014 article from history, as all revisions have been undeleted starting with the initial creation. —Alalch E. 10:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Akinlolu Jekins – Relist. I see slightly more support for relisting + recategorizing this as soft deletion as opposed to endorsing the hard deletion. While soft deletion may have been an appropriate AfD close, it is clearly not a valid final outcome in this case since this very DRV is itself a request for restoration. It's generally a good idea to relist whenever the DRV is longer than the AfD and DRV consensus is not 100% clear one way or another. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Akinlolu Jekins (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Following the AFD discussion,Chagropango (talk) hinged her argument on the reliability of PulseNG as a valid source of information, and stated expressly that it is a pass if PulseNG is credible. We editors on Wikipedia are known to be researchers, so I'd kindly request 1) the jury looks into accuracy of content from PulseNG, 2) Check for other sources if the information stated in PulseNG exists elsewhere.

For the record, PulseNG is the most authoritative source of entertainment news in Nigeria. This information should kindly be researched and confirmed/debunked.

DOOMSDAYER520(TALK|CONTRIBS) admits he 'comes close' to notability and said he needed more coverage, and the article may be an a promotion attempt. I disagree for the following reasons;

1) the article did not have promotional content to it, and no other reviewer seconded a motion that it was promotional.

2) It was speedy deleted and I challenged successfully for a review of the content before it was re-instated. Furthermore, if the article comes close to being notable and needs more coverage, does it not imply obliterating the article is not doing justice to our goal of curating and serving encyclopedic information, especially with developing pages on Wikipedia? If it was a stub and given some time for upgrade like the many others we currently have on Wikipedia?

Thirdly, the page obviously had a bad history I was not aware of; I feel strongly that influenced this decision to delete this page.

Finally, I recommend the draft page be made available so it can be further developed. Thank you. Pshegs (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - DRV is about reviewing whether or not the closure of the deletion discussion was performed properly. It is not the place to relegislate the merits of the article. As I read things, there were two respondents in the discussion. One had a strong case that cited multiple policies on notability that the article failed to pass. The other was on the fence due to the potential questionability of PulseNG. Given these responses in the discussion, Liz closed the discussion as delete. This looks correct to me. I recommend that Pshegs discuss at WP:RSP about adding PulseNG to the list of perennial sources to remove the issue regarding using that website as a source for notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to soft delete (if the page was eligible for soft delete. Otherwise endorse). There was one delete vote along with the nom. There was also one "weak keep or weak delete" vote, which I will interpret as "neutral." With minimal participation in the AFD, I have no issue with restoring this page (my preference is in draftspace because the reason for deletion was a lack of WP:SIGCOV). Frank Anchor 14:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse - A valid conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - while the final !vote appears on first glace as indecisive, a thorough reading shows a sentiment more towards delete, than keep. There's an overall, policy/guideline-based consensus for delete. While the nomination fails to identify a procedural flaw with the close, purely for informational purposes, the NPP source guide indicates no consensus on the reliability of PulseNG. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to relist I don't think we have consensus on the sources at this time. It's not been relisted and only one person other than the nom stated a clear opinion. I don't think this needed to be closed yet. And frankly, I think it's a close call--the sources are hard to evaluate. Hobit (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Hobit. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the discussion consists of two policy-backed delete !votes, plus a comment that is back and forth but appears to be leaning delete. That strongly suggests a consensus to delete. I might have considered soft delete owing to low participation, but I don't see any indication this needed to be relisted. I would support draftification. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 January 2023

edit

22 January 2023

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Hurricane Polo (2014) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Only 3 participants, 2 merge and 1 keep. Should be relisted for broader participation amidst a small and non unanimous discussion. 72.80.246.5 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Participation was limited, but the only keep vote, which I presume was yours, did not provide a policy-based reason for keeping. No evidence of notability was put forward, and no evidence was put forward to show that a standalone page was needed. Rather than wasting more community time here, and (if relisted) at AfD again, why not expand the target article yourself? A merger does not rule out a future spinoff if sufficient encyclopedic material is found. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, as AFC accepting reviewer, meaning that I thought it had a >50% change of passing AFD. The guidelines for tropical storm articles are vague, so that both a strict interpretation and an expansive interpretation are consistent with the guideline, and AFDs show that lack of clarity. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, there is no need to relist a deletion discussion in which nobody - even the nominator - has argued for deletion. The debate about whether to merge or not can, if necessary, continue in article talk space without the need for a misleading and ugly red box on an article. In this case, considering the lack of any policy-based rationale for the "keep" vote, I think Vanamonde's closure of merge is reasonable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the lone keep vote was not at all based in policy, while the nom and other merge vote properly cited WP:NWEATHER and WP:NOPAGE as to why this subject is not notable as a stand-alone article. While more participation would have been ideal, it is not a requirement to assess consensus. Frank Anchor 17:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as correct reading of consensus after weighing the arguments of everyone involved. —Alalch E. 19:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The merge side is IMO substantially stronger (citing WP:NEVENTS and WP:NOPAGE compared with the lone keep vote, which opined it was notable and participants could look into more information without specifying a policy or guideline. VickKiang (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The storm is fundamentally notable. It killed 1-4 people and caused $7.6 million in damage(which is a lot in Mexico), and we have articles on a lot of less significant US storms. Seems like ethnocentrism to me. 100.12.169.218 (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Systemic bias is absolutely a problem on Wikipedia, but the solution to other articles of less significance existing is to nominate those for deletion rather than having yet more non-notable subjects. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, reasonable reading of consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 January 2023

edit

20 January 2023

edit

19 January 2023

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
21 High Street Doha (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

NAC close which was to merge, even though the clear consensus was to delete. The NAC closure acted as a !supervote, inserting their own opinion as an ATD into the decision. I have asked the editor to reverse their decision, and they have politely declined. The discussion should either have been closed delete, or relisted. Onel5969 TT me 19:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vacate NAC and reopen. I oppose a straight overturn to delete because there was clearly not consensus to delete (as opposed to merging) and none of the delete arguments made any opposition to merging. While a merge close is not an unreasonable outcome, a NAC should only be used in cases where consensus is at least somewhat obvious, and four delete votes vs two merge votes does not show an obvious consensus either way. The close did not appear to be a super vote as the only comment, “as an ATD,” is commonly added in the reasoning of ATD closures. Frank Anchor 23:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The nomination and delete contributions are clearly within policy/guidelines, the merge contributions are simply assertions with no response to the arguments presented. ATD is not a blanket cover-all that can be delplyed in the absence of any justification. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate NAC. In theory it could have been clear that the merge close is underpinned by a delete consensus, with later merge !votes being based on the same delete rationales as those above, while identifying merger as a reasonable alternative to deletion, with no subsequent substantive opposition to merger as opposed to deletion. The problem is that it isn't clear; close to being clear, but not quite. I'm open to revising this comment. —Alalch E. 13:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse NAC As noted above, no refutation for merge as an ATD after it was raised means that the ATD is the policy-based consensus, no "supervoting" involved because the delete opinions didn't explain why deletion was superior to merging, especially considering that notability was the issue under consideration. Jclemens (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist/vacate. I don't have a problem with these sorts of closures in general, but in this case I'm not comfortable !voting endorse for a combination of reasons: 1) this wasn't uncontroversial and shouldn't have been NAC'd, 2) the merge !votes were entirely unreasoned, and 3) the merge suggestion didn't appear until the end of the discussion, so the delete !voters had insufficient time to respond and should have been given another week, especially after the closure was contested on the closer's talk page. I agree with Frank Anchor that overturning to delete wouldn't be justifiable since no arguments against a merger were presented. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to comment on the relist vs. vacate question below: when we're this many days removed from the closure, the AfD won't show back up at WP:OLDAFD if the closure is vacated, so there's a risk that it'll be forgotten about and remain unclosed for a long time, as has happened in the past. I think I'd thus prefer to relist (with the understanding that, per WP:RELIST, the discussion can still be closed at any time), though obviously it's not a big deal either way. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I would've voted to relist the AfD. But when I realized that the content has already been merged to the article, I decided to endorse the closure. I agree with Frank and Jclemens that the closure is not a supervote at all. SBKSPP (talk)
  • Comment The merge !votes are not refutations, they're simply assertions crucially lacking any reasoning whatsoever of why non-reliable source, not independent material should be merged. An ATD still requires compliant material; there's no element of the discussion which refutes the arguement that the material is not compliant with the guidelines. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree this would be a concern if true, and apologize for not reviewing this issue, but it didn't see that issue raised in the AfD. That is, "the sources don't count for notability" is different than "the sources don't establish verifiability", and the latter a lower bar than the former. Reliable sources don't have to be independent or non-trivial/significant, else the GNG wouldn't have separate clauses for them: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There's literally millions of shopping malls worldwide, we are not a travel guide or directory. Verification is not the concern, the issue is whether there is a justification for noting the existence of this commercial establishment (whether as a stand alone article or included elsewhere), which requires secondary, independent sourcing (otherwise we become a directory). The delete arguments make a clear, guidance-based argument why this commercial enterprise should not be noted, merge fails to refute that. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, that's a different argument, one that is not particularly relevant to deletion, since there's nothing in policy that would prevent a new redirect and adding the material to the redirect target. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate. I don't mind (or, if anything, prefer) closure as an ATD against headcount, but given the merge !votes only being a WP:JUSTAVOTE and a WP:PERX, more input is needed. Clyde!Franklin! 04:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - What does Vacate do, exactly, since some of the Vacates have not said either Relist or Delete? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ve always considered “vacating” a close to be a simple revert of the NAC (and, in this case, the resulting merge/redirect) and allow an administrator to either close or relist. Someone can correct me if this is not a good assessment. Frank Anchor 15:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Warn the originator that their persistence in moving an article to article space is acting like a paid editor. If they aren't a paid editor, they shouldn't act like one. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't. That's better handled in the ANI, not here. Besides, there's nothing wrong if they merged some, if not all, of the content to the article. That doesn't make them paid editors. SBKSPP (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closure as merge was wrong and contrary to consensus. As Goldsztajn quite correctly states, ATD isn't a licence to ignore consensus. As a borderline decision, it was also not eligible for a non-admin to close. However, the article has now been merged and forms two sentences of Katara (cultural village), with a redirect in place. This is a sensible outcome, even if it was arrived at by a suboptimal set of actions. As such, I think it is appropriate for DRV to take no action with respect to the article, whilst politely disapproving of the closure. A relist would inevitably lead to the same result, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The merger did not produce a good result. Raw pasting infobox and all (although often justified when merging, but not here) did not lead to an improvement of the target article. All the target article needed regarding the subject of the discussed article was a single sentence about the open-air outdoor air conditioned shopping mall, listing it with the rest of the facilities (what that looks like), in a way which flows with the rest of the prose. The desired state of the target article didn't really depend on merging, so for me, merger was not an obviously sensible outcome. Further, "21 High Street Doha" is not the proper name of the thing. It is named "21 High st". So the redirect is not useful either. "21 High st" could have been / could be a slightly useful redirect. Update: the article already had content about 21 High st, while it was named "Katara Plaza" (during development). Merging the content caused it to appear as if "21 High Street" and "Katara Plaza" were different things when they are the same thing. —Alalch E. 17:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse at the least deletion isn't an option--there is a reasonable redirect target. And merging seems to be the better policy-based outcome even if those !voting to merge didn't explain their reasoning. No objection to a relist to get more input however. Hobit (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 January 2023

edit

17 January 2023

edit

16 January 2023

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Southern Cross Ten.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Maybe this file, should be recreated using the same format as File:Southern Cross.svg, right? This logo should be restored because it was a very important logo that was used for 11 years (August 2005 to June 2016). I may put it in the 10 (Southern Cross Austereo) article, if it’s undeleted. From Bassie f (his talk page) 22:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 January 2023

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rosebud Primary School (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The consensus to me clearly was for delete not redirect. I don't believe there is consensus for redirect. I contacted the closing admin and she gave this as her reason LibStar (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, more editors asked for this article to be deleted than for a redirect. But I thought in my position as an AFD closer, I am allowed some leeway to consider alternatives to deletion, in this case turning the page from an article to a redirect, an idea that was suggested by one participant. This is a frequent ATD closure decision for school articles to be redirected to either the school district or to the town that they are located in. I don't think I went "rogue", that would be if I had closed the discussion as "Keep" which would have clearly been going against the consensus of the participants. If the opinion of editors at this deletion review is that this closure should be overturned, then may I ask for the article to be deleted and then a redirect created on this page title as I think it is a valid search term for readers looking for more information on this subject. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse. This might be a controversial vote, but I'd weakly endorse this outcome. In the discussion, there's a clear consensus that the subject is non-notable. The proposed outcomes by the voters delete, redirect, and merge. However, one of the delete AfD participants explicitly contradicted merging through the line I couldn't find sufficient independent sources to show notability. I've added the year the school was established in the Rosebud article, but I'm against merging anything else as the majority of the article is unsourced. Therefore, merge is not the preferred outcome. Nevertheless, the redirect voter suggests that a redirect (WP:ATD) is valid as the subject is briefly mentioned in Rosebud, Victoria, which is not contradicted by other delete voters. If there has been an explanation by the delete voters about why the redirect per WP:ATD is unsuitable in the AfD, then an overturn to delete is necessary IMO. However, this is not the case; as such IMHO the redirect ATD close is also a reasonable conclusion by the closer. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the delete !voters are clear in the view that the school is not sufficiently noteworthy for a standalone article but do not explicitly suggest that redirecting is unsuitable. By the same token, one could argue that for the most part, redirecting isn't offered as an alternative, although it's not unreasonable for the closer to move in this direction as a suitable WP:ATD. General procedure with school articles tends to favour a redirect to the area or region instead of outright deletion, except where a redirect is unsuitable or explicitly voted against. By redirecting, the article is no longer in its standalone state and as such I think is consistent with the consensus from the !voters. The other way to look at it is that the article could be deleted and a fresh redirect recreated by someone else, which would not fall foul of the afd and offer the same outcome as currently given. Bungle (talk • contribs) 23:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1, as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally the case in North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body). VickKiang (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES redirects to its Schools subsection) is tagged with {{Supplement}}, which describes it as an "explanatory essay". Its Citing this page in AfD section is a disclaimer with a dedicated {{Outcomes}} template. Flatscan (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. I am aware and I believe that Bungle also understand that what has been cited is merely an essay, not a policy or guideline, and could be considered as an argument to avoid if it is the only argument in AfDs. (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an effective summary of how deletion discussions on Wikipedia tend to be resolved, but using it as the only argument for keeping or deleting an article can lead to circular reasoning. Participants can refer to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES but are expected to further explain their reasoning in discussions.) Personally I don't think this is the case here, but I also am aware that if the overturn to delete votes like yours with a differing interpretation on WP:ATDs (also I agree that the overall guidance on ATDs probably requires additional clarification per Extraordinary Writ's comment) are found to be more persuasive policy-wise, my reasoning might be given less weight accordingly. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was a policy-based argument made in support of redirection (WP:ATD-R), while there was no policy-based argument (or any argument at all, for that matter) made against it. If someone would like to explain why a redirect is unsuitable here, I don't have a problem with relisting to consider that argument, but otherwise I think this is an appropriate determination of consensus. That said, policy needs to give clearer guidance on this issue so we don't keep having to relitigate it at DRV every six months. I don't think we've had an RfC on weighting ATD arguments since 2011: it's absolutely time for another one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Measuring current practice would be important data. My perception from manual sampling is that the two closers in the linked DRVs have a pattern of merge or redirect closes that deviate from the apparent consensus. To be clear, I have occasionally seen closes by others that lean toward merge or redirect. ATD has come up more recently than those DRVs. A related hypothetical – based on a disputed interpretation – was proposed as WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Workshop#Alternatives to Deletion and rebutted (June–July 2022). WP:Deletion review/Log/2022 December 19#Daily Dozen Doughnut Company was endorsed as delete despite recommendations to overturn to merge that cited ATD. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Deviate from apparent consensus could be better characterized as implementing Wikipedia's policy preference for non-deletion outcomes when reasonable. Yes, I know you don't believe there's a preference in policy. No, I don't agree, nor do I think logic remotely supports that position. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse a "delete as non-notable" vote and a merge or redirect vote are essentially the same, with the only difference being that there is a suitable target identified in the latter case. The redirect voter cited WP:ATD as to why a redirect close was valid and none of the delete votes had specific arguments against a redirect. Frank Anchor 01:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Suonii180: argued against merge with their !vote [2]. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They stated that: I've added the year the school was established in the Rosebud article but I'm against merging anything else as the majority of the article is unsourced, which isn't specific against a redirect but specific against merging information (which is what you said). I do agree that merge is not a desirable outcome here though. VickKiang (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Suonii180 made an argument against merging content and did NOT make an argument against redirect, which was the result of the AFD. Merge and redirect are two distinct outcomes. Frank Anchor 03:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You say above " a merge or redirect vote are essentially the same". LibStar (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for catching this inadvertent error in the prose of my argument. It has been corrected. Frank Anchor 05:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse viable and common ATD. The school isn't notable, but a viable search in the context of the location. No reason not to redirect. Star Mississippi 02:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom here cited WP:NSCHOOLS in the AfD which links to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which makes it clear the standard outcome here is to redirect. Now, if there were a good reason to not redirect and that was brought up at the AfD, that could be quite different. More broadly, if there is a place to redirect to, we generally should. endorse Hobit (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Redirect is usually a valid conclusion when there is a delete consensus and a clear redirect target. This is such a case. There is no need to delete when redirect will work as well, and no argument why redirection will not work. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete to reflect the consensus, but allow a redirect to be created, which would be similar to delete and redirect. Red-tailed hawk recommended merging, but that was rebutted by Suonii180, and thus the page history is not required. I am not aware of any widely-accepted policy basis for overruling a consensus to delete with redirect and keep history. I wrote WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Evidence#Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion in July 2022, focusing on WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion (policy, shortcut WP:ATD). Flatscan (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read your evidence submission (which the ArbCom does not appear to have adopted whatsoever), but frankly it seems to be a frank misreading of Wikipedia's notability policies and guidelines. The meaning of WP:DEL-CONTENT (If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page) is quite universal, with rare exceptions. It's the fundamental principle behind WP:NEXIST ([n]otability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article), and even WP:TNT gives it due deference (it applies to when the damage is beyond fixing) and advocates for a fairly narrow exception (if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article). I just don't see why we should give weight in a deletion review to an evidence submission that (1) so flatly misunderstands the fundamentals of the community consensus around deletion and (2) was not even cited by ArbCom in the relevant case. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If my presentation is wrong, you should be able to rebut specific points. For example, ATD, policy 1 notes that the sentence you quoted is in the Editing and discussion subsection (WP:ATD-E), with no text between the ATD and ATD-E headers. (WP:DEL-CONTENT is a shortcut to that same subsection, despite being in the WP:ATD shortcut box.) Do you dispute its location? Do you believe that it applies to all of ATD anyway? WP:Notability is important to deletion discussions generally, but I don't see a close connection between ATD and WP:NEXIST. Do you have discussion links or diffs to substantiate a relationship? I am open to continuing on this DRV's talk page, as the nominator requested an early close. Flatscan (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As I noted in the discussion itself, even if no content is merged, a redirect seems warranted on the basis that the topic is mentioned there. This is more than a reasonable WP:ATD, and no arguments against redirection were presented. The nominator explicitly notes that there was some pushback against merging content (Suonii180: argued against merge with their !vote), but that's plainly not an argument against the different outcome of deleting the content of the page and redirecting it to where it is mentioned. As consensus is not ascertained by counting votes, but rather by Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, redirection is the consensus outcome. If the nominator does not like the existence of the redirect following the discussion (something neither the nominator nor anyone else involved in the discussion expressed whatsoever), WP:RFD is that-a-way, but that isn't reason to overturn the closure here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. When the closing admin finds consensus to delete and believes that there is a suitable page to redirect to, they can do this. This outcome emanates from the consensus to delete. —Alalch E. 08:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it's entirely reasonable to close as Redirect when there's a consensus that we shouldn't have an article about the subject, the title is a reasonable redirect and nobody has actually opposed redirection. I suppose we could delete the page and recreate it as a redirect but I can't see any reason to do so. The arguments for deletion were based on the subject being non-notable, not that the content was in any way harmful. Hut 8.5 08:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, I was against a merge as mentioned above but I don't have any arguments against a redirect as it was already mentioned in the target article. Suonii180 (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Fair reading of the discussion and an outcome justified by both the consensus and policy. Also, largely agree with Extraordinary Writ's analysis. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the above. Closers are allowed (some would even go as far as to say encouraged or even required) to consider alternatives to deletion - in this case an alternative to deletion was suggested that was in accordance with both policy and precedent and no arguments were made to the contrary either explicitly or implicitly so this was a good close. Thryduulf (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can this review be closed as consensus is very clear? Asking as nominator of this review. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete in line with the clear consensus of the discussion. It is not for closers to substitute their own opinion for a proper reading of the debate; a potential closer who feels inclined to do this should refrain from closing and instead cast a !vote. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I have on numerous occasions raised an eyebrow at some of Liz's decisions, I can't say this is one of them. The AfD debate was minimally participated, although sufficiently that a conclusion could be drawn. The consensus I draw is that the !voters did not believe the article on a school was warranted. The outcome of this is that we no longer have an article on this school. The concerns about a redirect in this instance, as opposed to a del+rd I can only surmise as being attributed to concerns that the article could be recreated from history, although any such attempt should be suitable reverted. I observe you reverted the closure of this DRV to make your contribution, yet I can't disagree with the sentiment of this already being WP:SNOWy. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that someone can use a redirected non-notable article as a suitable starting point to create an appropriate encyclopedia article is a feature, not a bug. Deletion prior to redirect of articles whose only failure is non-notability is a curiously non-encyclopedic way to run an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, closer's discretion is IMO not only allowed here but absolutely beneficial to the encyclopaedia. Closes like this should be highly encouraged. However, when this DRV is over, an RfD should be opened: there are multiple Rosebud Primary Schools mentioned on the site. J947 † edits 21:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and support NAC closure of this discussion. Look, this isn't going anywhere, and not because people are all flocking to the interpretation I advocate for ATDs, which I will avoid repeating here. Rather, SCHOOLOUTCOMES specifies redirection or merging as default outcomes, so there's general agreement that admins can rely on such documentation of past practices for routine cases. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse not implausible search term, not outside the bounds of the consensus of the discussion, within discretion. Enough said. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close was in line with policy per WP:ATD-R as there was a suitable redirect target. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 January 2023

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
M Lhuillier (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Credible claim of significance that is beyond what an A7 is for, multiple in-depth articles about the company in reliable 3rd-party press. Examples are Manila Bulletin, BusinessWorld, Philstar, The Manila Times and SunStar. A copy of the article along with sources used is available at sandbox. Orasims (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 January 2023

edit
  • Category:Wikipedians with ADHD – While there is some rough agreement that the category does not necessarily abide by the guidelines present at WP:USERCAT, editors discussed if we should still be holding the finding from a 2007 CFD with such strength. To show a change in how the community sees these kinds of categories, participants pointed to more recent discussions, with some closing as "keep" or "no consensus". As such, I see a rough agreement that this category should be allowed recreation to potentially stand a new CFD. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 14:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Wikipedians with ADHD (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Outdated decision (taken on 1 October 2007). There's hundreds or thousands of Wikipedians with ADHD, deserving the same consideration as other Wikipedians by medical condition, for example Wikipedians with autism (Wikipedians with autism, Wikipedia autism, WikiProject Autism). We currently have 7 different templates for users with ADD/ADHD, that could easily help us with the categorization. Regards, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the other category deletions made on the same day for the same reasons have already been overturned, for example Category:Wikipedians with bipolar disorder (deletion page). Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. I'm not sure how I'd !vote if this came up at CfD, but I do think that if it's recreated it shouldn't be G4'd on the basis of a fifteen-year-old discussion, especially since more recent discussions (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 14#Category:Wikipedians with bipolar disorder and the two below it) indicate that consensus may have changed on this issue. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, don't allow re-creation - WP:USERCAT lays out the guidelines for user categories. The gist of that guideline is that user categories are supposed to be for collaboration to help improve the encyclopedia. User categories are, in essence, supposed to be for finding people who are similarly interested in collaborating on the topics related to that category. I would submit that a category for people who happen to have ADHD does not further that goal. You said it yourself, there are hundreds or thousands of Wikipedians with ADHD. To that I say, so what? Why do we need a user category for that? How would keeping a collection of such users benefit the encyclopedia? I would wholeheartedly support creation of Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to ADHD for those who are interested in using a category to help improve the encyclopedia. I don't, however, support keeping any number of categories of people with various medial diagnoses, and would support deletion of the categories mentioned above for the same reasons. There may be a select few categories that could be an exception based on plausible usage in the project, but I don't see how something as common as this would fit that mold. WP:USERCAT states "As with all categories, user categories should not be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices. If a Wikipedian wishes to have such a notice, they may edit their user page and add the notice in some other way (such as by adding text or a userbox) instead of creating a category group." Allowing this category to be re-created would be exactly that, simply a bottom-of-the-page notice without any plausible reason for someone to go looking through this category in an effort to help improve the encyclopedia. I don't like how there are differing precedents on the same type of category, I will grant you that, but I don't think that justifies bringing back an unhelpful category just for the sake of reconciling competing precedents. If anything, a CFD should be started for those other categories to accomplish that goal. I would support a wider discussion as to the appropriateness of these categories but I don't think a poorly participated in CFD from 2014 for a similar category is sufficient evidence on its own to say that consensus has changed (and, if it has, how does that reconcile with WP:USERCAT?) I'll also add that the fact there are templates for this should have zero bearing on if there should be an associated category. We have numerous userbox templates and plenty of them do not have associated categories, usually because such a category would not benefit Wikipedia. Note: I speedy deleted this category in 2012 per WP:CSD#G4, as detailed in the logs. VegaDark (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation, subject to another CFD if someone wishes to re-nominate it. A 15-year-old discussion should not be the sole reason this category is held back when categories for users with other medical conditions. I also disagree with VegaDark's assessment that a category for people who happen to have ADHD does not further the goal of finding people who are similarly interested in collaborating on the topics related to that category. Persons with a medical condition (and who wish to display it by including themselves in such a category) are likely to be more inclined to edit articles related to the medical condition, therefore the category allows interested users to collaborate on these topics. Frank Anchor 19:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Persons with a medical condition (and who wish to display it by including themselves in such a category) are likely to be more inclined to edit articles related to the medical condition, therefore the category allows interested users to collaborate on these topics." Even if this were true, wouldn't my proposed category of Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to ADHD be a more inclusive category for those who are interested in collaboration but don't have ADHD? It seems like rationalizing this category's existence in this manner would specifically exclude those without ADHD, and it also doesn't convey that the category is intended for collaborative purposes as opposed to a bottom of the page notice. Do you feel that, assuming both were blue links, Category:Wikipedians with ADHD has a encyclopedia-building function to serve that Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to ADHD couldn't achieve better? VegaDark (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
False juxtaposition and not exclusionary - self-identifying Wikipedians with ADHD may or may not be interested in collaborating on topics related to ADHD. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is a mess. First of all, on the merits of the category, I agree entirely with VegaDark and see no discernible purpose to having it. The nomination statement does not provide any such purpose, and merely says "there is a userbox, so there should be a category", contrary to WP:USERBOXCAT. But this is DRV, not CFD, and what DRV cares about is whether the consensus reached in 2007 still holds. On that matter, I must conclude that the fact that discussions such as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 14#Category:Wikipedians with autism and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 8 closing as keep have eroded the underlying 2007 consensus, so weak allow recreation, although I will bring any recreated category back to CfD and support deletion there. Basically per Extraordinary Writ, although we reached the same argument independently. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep deleted I find nothing here that is promoted by WP:USERCATYES, and find the arguments that WP:USERCATNO applies somewhat but not conclusively persuasive. I agree that the "interested in" syntax would clearly be a YES criteria, and suggest that the other categories focusing primarily on Wikipedians' medical characteristics be repurposed in such a manner or deleted. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have a problem with categories on Wikipedia. When an article is deleted at AFD, an editor can create a draft version and submit it through AFC and there is the potential that it returns, in a better state, to the main space of the project. But CFD decisions, even from years ago, tend to be upheld FOREVER. There is no draft space to introduce categories that were once deleted and old CFD decisions are usually brought up to decide current CFD cases on the same categories. I don't think a category deletion should be forever, there should be a way of overturning a poor closure or a discussion that was decided by two or three editors but I think that this rarely happens due to the conservative nature of the category hierarchy on the project. Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly agree with Extraordinary Writ and Liz. To be honest, the original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. Not only because it was taken 15 years ago by four people including the nominator, who commented in favor of the deletion not once but twice, but also for the same reason why I find these statements against the recreation very weak: there's no point in having all these user categories for Wikipedians by medical condition and not allowing us with ADHD to be categorised as any other neurodivergent community, that would help us find other people to work with on pages about neurodivergence/neurodiversity, as well as other common interests and hyperfixations we all have. So... I stand with:
Overturn as nominator, obviously. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 08:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Est. 2021:, Your nomination is already considered an "overturn" vote. Striking this duplicate vote. Frank Anchor 13:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank Anchor: I was just making a point: as I already said, "the nominator commented in favor of the deletion not once but twice" and nobody here contested that, so I did the same thing to get this comment. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing wrong with the 2007 discussion, which was unanimously in favor of deletion, and there has been no change in policy to make it inconsistent with current policies. The reason some people are wanting to overturn this is a combination of being willing to give you a second chance and the fact that uncodified consensus may have changes, but this comment is seriously overstating your case. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: Nice, but I made a point, so I'm not gonna be sorry for doing the exact same thing the original nominator did without being contested. I don't even think this is related to ADHD, it's just common sense IMHO. Have a good day, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this is the right venue. There seems to be no problem with the original discussion so overturning that seems unlikely. If this were an article we'd likely conclude it's an old discussion so if you can overcome the original reasons for deletion it can be recreated, no DRV needed. Is that the case here? It's a bit harder with these sort of things which aren't encyclopaedia content they are about the way the encyclopaedia is built and opinions on that often change as the people building the encyclopaedia change. And indeed we have a few more recent views that apparently such categories are useful, albeit those local consensuses don't necessarily trump the broader consensus represent in policies/guidelines etc. As such I suspect a broader discussion to gain a broader consensus on the broader topic of if such categories are useful would be required.
Personal view, I don't see the value in these, having a medical condition may indeed lead to an interest in that condition, but that doesn't necessarily lead to an interest in writing and encyclopaedia article about it (or indeed capability to do so). Likewise not having the condition doesn't preclude an interest and capability... There can't be contributions based on the personal experiences of sufferers of the condition without being OR. So I really don't see the value. As above though that would be my take, but really it needs a broader view from a broader set of people currently building the encyclopaedia. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation basically per Extraordinary Writ. No prejudice against a new CfD should anyone be so inclined. It just seems A) inconsistent with recent outcomes and B) the CfD is very not-recent and so that old that it shouldn't prevent someone from moving forward here. (So basically per Liz also...) Note: I may well !vote to delete it if it does make it to CfD--I'd need to consider the details more closely. Hobit (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Jclemens. No reason to overturn with regard to WP:DRVPURPOSE. Significant new information has not come to light, seeing that the 2007 discussion is fully compatible with the current WP:USERCAT guideline. Perhaps a discussion about such categories should be had on the guideline's talk page. —Alalch E. 09:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow recreation. As explained by others above, this category does not aid collaboration and therefore fails WP:USERCAT. Sandstein 14:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation per Hobit, Liz, Frank Anchor and Extraordinary Writ. A discussion this old that is contrary to more recent consensuses does not justify disallowing this category. Whether categories like this do or not meet WP:USERCAT is something on which reasonable Wikipedians clearly disagree, so this is something that needs discussion at the appropriate venue (which is CfD not DRV). I don't know what I would recommend at CfD, it may be deletion, but the arguments need to be presented and evaluated there. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation Concur with arguments in favour above, however, I would add that the result of the 2012 Gay Wikipedians CfD discussion is also germane. Self-identifying categories suggestive of an inability to uphold this encyclopaedia's principles are rightly considered inappropriate...but no argument here shows that to be the case with this category. Qui nocetur? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 January 2023

edit

11 January 2023

edit

10 January 2023

edit

9 January 2023

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Independent Media Association (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User believes page is advertising but COI has been declared. If they believe it wasn't written from a neutral point of view, editing it should've been preferable to make it so. I'm requesting that the draft is revived. (Redacted) 07:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 January 2023

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:WIN Television 2016 logo.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This file was deleted in June 2017 (5 years ago) and I want someone to restore this file after this deletion review closes and put the file in the WIN Television article. Bassie f (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 January 2023

edit

6 January 2023

edit

5 January 2023

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Stochastic_terrorism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Significant sources have appeared for this NEO since the last AfD in 2018. (see Google Scholar). The term is distinct from Lone Wolf Terrorism in the same way that dog whistles are distinct from dogs. The article can be expanded to include links to Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory and Attack_on_Paul_Pelosi. [This older version] is preferable and should be restored rather than the current subheading under Lone Wolf Terrorism. Serinus1 (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Lovejoy (band) – The upshot of this DRV is that the AfD can be considered null and void. Anyone can recreate an article to replace the redirect at their own convenience, using any process they like (draftspace, WP:AFC, or just simply writing it in mainspace replacing the redirect). Once the article is created, it can be renominated at AfD by any interested editor immediately, should that editor believe it doesn't meet our policies and guidelines. Daniel (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lovejoy (band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The band have now gone on to chart 6 times in the UK singles chart and once in the UK albums chart[1], and they are also set to perform at Reading and Leeds Festivals in 2023. NME & Dork (magazine) have also written articles about them, its time for a standalone page rather than directing to Wilbur Soot. More than happy to create the page if needed. George (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There was an AFD, and it is shown as withdrawn after agreement to merge, which seems to have the same effect as a close of Merge. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovejoy (band). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, as I explain below. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also disagree that it has the same effect, and have given my reason for why this is so below. —Alalch E. 15:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Review of Draft - The title does not appear to be locked. I don't think that DRV is necessary in this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a mess It looks like several people have used a consent AfD to re-redirect this to the most notable member several times since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovejoy (band) was closed as.... withdrawn after an agreement to merge among three editors. GorillaWarfare did the right thing by withdrawing the nom--that's what happens when the nominator is satisfied with the agreed outcome, which was itself reasonable at the time. But that also means there was never any AfD basis to keep re-redirecting the article, and hence there's really nothing for us to do here, other than point out that WikiDan61, Onel5969, and Wizzito have been inappropriately referencing a withdrawn AfD as normative, including someone getting Kinu to semi-protect the redirect. A bit of education and a return trip to AfD if someone wants to keep it redirected per WP:BLAR are in order. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't fault WikiDan61, Onel5969, and Wizzito. They saw the result as normative, because the result whereby the nominator withdraws (speedy keep), is normative, causing them to be justifiably confused by the irregular combination of nominator withdrawal and merger outcome. —Alalch E. 15:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing about this band is that although they meet the notability requirement of having charted, the band had no notable coverage in RS the last time I checked. I did believe that the AfD resulted in the merger, but I didn't know it was that complicated. wizzito | say hello! 21:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Y'all see? This editor (and the other two certainly as well) thought the AfD resulted in merger. This is because on the talk page it says "Withdrawn after agreement from all participants to merge." which reads the most like a normal merge from AfD due to snowclose ("agreement from all participants") when it was not the case (if it was, then there would have been an AfD basis to re-redirect). Instead, it was a speedy close due to withdrawal with a separate layer of consensus about merging, but on the AfD side of things the outcome was essentially speedy keep, it's just that the two issues were conflated and compressed to a single point in time. (Yes the word "withdrawn" is also there, but it's confusing.) —Alalch E. 22:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and Deny request. Out of scope for DRV as there was no deletion. To reverse the decision to redirect, use the talk page of the target to establish consensus. See Talk:Wilbur Soot#Update Lovejoy section; there is already an objection even for expansion. Discourage drafting of spinouts unless done with consensus on the talk page of the parent article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to null outcome. This is a mess as Jclemens says because the close is bad. The nominator erroneously thought that she can close the AfD herself because there is agreement among all participants. WP:CLOSE says: In uncontentious circumstances, even an involved editor may close a discussion. For example, if you propose something, and it's obvious to you that nobody agrees with you, then you can close the discussion, even though you're obviously an "involved" editor. But nominating for deletion and getting support for merger is not nobody agrees with you, that's "everybody agrees with you on the key issue that there should not be a standalone article, but they've also come up with an alternative to deletion". In this case things are mostly going your way, but you can't shortcut the discussion, precisely because you're invested in the success of your proposal even if in modified form. Simply, The AfD nominator can't close with the outcome of "merge". Early close due to nominator withdrawal given the fulfillment of the necessary condition that there are no !votes except for keep !votes gives "speedy keep" as the outcome. The nominator can declare their withdrawal in a comment, but can't close themselves when there are !votes other than keep. The intent was great, but the result caused lasting confusion, as was already noted in this discussion, and this AfD needs to go away, despite being quite old now.
    Because this AfD was closed by its nominator with a result other than speedy keep, and especially seeing how the support was not the required type of support, there was a substantial procedural error. This is per WP:SKCRIT 1.3. (See also WP:WITHDRAWN and the nom withdrawal AfD instructions.) The AfD is invalid, it can not be corrected, and its result is null. —Alalch E. 14:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Just noting that this has been here before: see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 August 29. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. I apparently entirely missed that discussion, but I agree with your statements there. Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Review of Draft, though this is an AFC matter and not a DRV matter, so I really see no action needed here. Frank Anchor 19:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that AfC be mandatory in this case? Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    AFC is never mandatory (unless the page is protected in mainspace, which is not the case here), anyone can simply move the content into mainspace, subject to another AFD. However, a review of the current Draft:Lovejoy (band) seems like a reasonable conclusion to this discussion. Frank Anchor 03:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really sure why this is here. There is nothing stopping the OP or anyone else from writing an article at this title, it isn't salted. There isn't any requirement to get a draft approved either. Nor is there really an AfD consensus against having an article, the AfD was withdrawn after people agreed to a merge. It was inappropriate for people to repeatedly use this withdrawn AfD to revert the recreation of the article, if there is a dispute about whether an article should be redirected then the appropriate course of action would be to start a new AfD. If what the OP says is accurate then the subject clearly meets WP:NMUSIC and notability isn't likely to be questioned if the new version is properly written. Hut 8.5 11:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Lovejoy UK Chart History".
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 January 2023

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Olga Obukhova (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to request the undeletion of this Page, which was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olga Obukhova, with Explicit as closing admin, please.

The decision for the deletion of this Page was made without any Consensus provided by the deleting administrator to substantiate the allegation of "the page for the Russian author seems to be poorly sourced". This claim is untrue. There were multiple sources given for the author having written and published 20+ books. The page had existed for good 15 years, with this Russian author publishing more and more books and earning quotes, until someone decided to wipe it out. Without any resemblance of Consensus. This is not becoming of Wiki! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LvivForev (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
ACF Investment Bank (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I would like to request the undeletion of this Page, which was deleted under section G11, please.

The basis for the speedy (and almost immediate subsequent) deletion of this Page was made without any shred of evidence being provided by the deleting administrator to substantiate the allegation of "the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person". This unsubstantiated claim is emphatically and categorically untrue.

I asked the deleting administrator to provide clear and objective evidence to support his/her assertions - and of course, none was received. Instead, all I received was 'pile-in' accusations from another administrator.

Both administrators could only speak in vague terms about what "seems" and "hallmarks" - with no evidence being offered whatsoever to back-up their decision.

In addition, as you can see from the timeline of events, there was no time to contest the deletion. I even asked the initiating administrator to help retrieve the deleted material on the Page. An appeal to which I have still not received any response.

I created the ACF Investment Bank Page following extensive research - providing Wiki-linking, in addition to offering comprehensive citations on the not-insignificant role ACF Investment Bank has played in the global TV and industry over many years.

In encyclopedic terms - given all the TV shows listed on the now deleted Page that ACF Investment Bank, I believed it would have provided linked information about the obvious and important role a company like ACF investment Bank plays within the TV industry.

I would therefore request the undeletion of this Page with the same alacrity in which it was erroneously deleted.

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EastThermopolis (talk • contribs)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 January 2023

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Emanuel Zíma (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted for alleged copyright infringment, however, nothing is of the sort. The rationale used for G12 was "Unambiguous copyright infringement of mzv.cz/budapest/en/about_the_embassy/index_2.html". Other sources were used and this link from the Czech Foreign Ministry page was used as a source multiple times in the article. I wonder how it is unambiguous when more than one source was used to confirm the same information. All information used was not copied and pasted onto the article. I wonder if the admin who deleted the page actually went piece by piece to see if this violated the G12 policy. This is part of the pattern of the tagging editor to just delete, remove, and move pages to draft without seeking to fix the issues. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am the admin that deleted the article. I reviewed the article and checked using WP:EARWIG, and also looked at the article and source manually to confirm that there was material copied with the same wording in the article and the source. The entire article was not a copy but a significant enough portion that was interleaved throughout the article. There was no non-infringing version to revert to so it was deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has encyclopedic value. The least anyone could have done was just give my attention to it. I would have worked on it. The article should be undeleted so I can address editing out the copyright issues. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how copyright works. Replacing a copyvio with an obfuscated copyvio makes the problem worse, not better.—S Marshall T/C 02:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article was deleted for copyright violations only. You are free to write a new version of the article in your own words. Do not copy the text of a copyrighted source and alter the wording as that likely be a close paraphrase which is also not allowed and considered a copyright violation. I can provide you with a list of the references and further reading the article. I'll place it on your talk page. As a note for future reference, you skipped step 1 of the instructions for DRV which is to contact me before filing this. This conversation could have been had on my talk page without filing a formal DRV. -- Whpq (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing to do here we have the appellant admitting copying text and an admin saying that copying was out of line and offering guidance to help fix it. I trust that a non-copyvio version will be made presently, and trust that the restorable bits can be reworked into the new version. We don't restore copyvio material--we overturn G12s when there's clear evidence the assumptions about licensing or copyright ownership were erroneous, and that's not being argued here. Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow creation of new article as per Jclemens. The request to restore the copyvio material so that it can be cleaned up is stupid. The copyvio material exists on the Internet. You can find it and do a real rewording of it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 January 2023

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Squirrel Plush Toy.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This image was nominated for discussion by someone who thinks the subject in it (a stuffed toy) is copyrighted. The admin who closed the discussion took things too quickly and deleted the image before a consensus could be reached. However, there is something I noticed in the nominator's rationale. Yes, the nominator believed the toy is copyrighted, but did not specify things like character or maker. It's like the nominator would regard any toy as copyrighted regardless how it's made. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and restore. Commons policies are not Wikipedia policies. Things we would delete are kept there, and things we would keep are deleted there. The "delete" side needs to make their case in Wikipedia policy, and it hasn't yet done so.—S Marshall T/C 21:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist - The only proponent of deletion was the nominator, User:Whpq, and the only proponent of keeping is the appellant. That isn't much participation and is not a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The image was said to breach copyright, and it isn't necessary to cite WP:COPYRIGHT to give that claim validity, it's necessary to explain why it breaches copyright. The delete argument was that the image was uploaded with a free license when it should not have been, due to copyright law. The closer found consensus to delete after discounting the comments forming the line of arguments of the keep side regarding copyright, i.e. copyrightability of toys and how de minimis being applied to a scene containing toys applies to an image of a single toy as well (obviously wrong and also an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF). When the argument of the opposition was discounted the only thing that was left was support for deletion, and the closer was right, or at least very reasonable, to consider the support arguments as correct on policy. Alalch E. 21:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But unlike Commons, we allow photographs of copyrighted works. We have {{Non-free 2D art}} and {{Non-free 3D art}} specifically for this purpose.—S Marshall T/C 22:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FFD is an excellent place to sort out whether an image wrongly tagged as a free image perhaps could have been and should be tagged with some non-free use rationale, yet after a normal period of discussion nothing was sorted out except for the fact that there was a copyright problem. This logically led to deletion. —Alalch E. 23:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FFD didn't think about fair use rationales. We can correct that at DRV though; we aren't constrained by the poorly attended discussion in the venue below.—S Marshall T/C 09:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A use rationale must be offered on one's own accord. If we instructed the applicant to provide an alternative use rationale it would resemble begging the question as we would to our outcome impart our individual beliefs about the likelihood of there being a certain appropriate use rationale, which we can only speculate about, and I believe that we should keep ourselves distanced, which is more in the spirit of a review process. Offerer of use rationale needs to offer one without any outside influence. —Alalch E. 10:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good lord, really? Why is that?—S Marshall T/C 10:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the person who uploads a file knows the truth of where the file came from, and the circumstances that affect copyright, and we don't. FFD is a dialectical process of reaching a satisfactory level of assuredness that the use rationale really applies, it isn't about crafting the most fitting words that make it look like one applies. A healthy dose of skepsis is needed, and telling the uploader "well if your file for deleted for this reason, try some other rationale -- like this one" is not that. —Alalch E. 11:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I reject that utterly. The idea that DRV isn't allowed to help the applicant absolutely will not fly. The point of this and any other discussion is to make the encyclopaedia better, and we do need fair use images—particularly in cases like this where free content maximalists are saying US copyright law won't let us photograph a toy, for goodness sake. You'd expect any decent encyclopaedia that covers toys would have pictures of them.—S Marshall T/C 15:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article where this was added doesn't seem to have a shortage of pictures of toys, no text was added with the picture and no assertion that this picture has any particularity about it, so your fears that it'd make us less of an encylopedia by not having pictures of soft toys seem to be unfounded. I also don't think anyone has said you (or anyone else) isn't allowed to help the applicant here, and indeed some have mentioned non-free content, though I don't think anyone is obliged to do so, and if meeting such criteria seems unlikely I can understand why anyone would be reluctant --81.100.164.154 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't know how else I would interpret Offerer of use rationale needs to offer one without any outside influence except as a claim that we shouldn't help. How would you understand that? I don't think the NFCC are hard to meet for a toy, because it is apparently impossible to take a photo of a toy that isn't copyrighted. One image for each brand or variety that has an article would surely pass NFCCs #1-7 and #9, and could be made to pass #10. NFCC#8 is so vague that our decisions about it are hard to predict but I would argue that it shouldn't be hard to pass that in the circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 19:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the discussion was about what happened at FFD not about what should or shouldn't happen at DRV, and I would take it as that editors personal take, I understand the thinking we aren't trying to shoehorn stuff in which doesn't fit, but given that the same editor hasn't been jumping on those who have mentioned non-free here I would assume they aren't saying it's totally impermissible. If you think NFCC are going to be easy to meet for a toy, then great, but you can't dictate that others must see it likewise and therefore are required to attempt to do such. At times I see far more disservice done to individuals in the name of helping them when it's basically it just delays the inevitable and potentially just makes them even more frustrated with the process/policies involved. Given the article already has multiple pictures I can't see how it would pass the non-replaceable element absent some particularly defining feature, I haven't checked the other images but if your assessment is correct that they must all be under fair-use then we'd just be picking to use this one over any of the others, so again I wouldn't see the point in doing so unless there is something particular... --81.100.164.154 (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I see that, but the fact that this image isn't needed in stuffed toy doesn't mean that it isn't needed anywhere in the whole encyclopaedia. There were reasonable alternatives to deletion!—S Marshall T/C 21:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the project is focused on free content enabling reuse which is limited in many countries (no fair dealing permitted) I can't imagine the foundation would permit us retaining non-free images on the off chance that in the future we might be able to use such an image. I certainly don't think commenters in the FFD could be responsible for trying to hunt down other places where a non-free image might be appropriate, if they don't what are we going to do, keep the non-free image anyway - I really don't see the foundation standing by on that. Regardless I think it would pretty difficult to find such where the image meets that adding significantly to understanding and not-replaceable with a few image requirements. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In what article are you saying the image would be needed and meet NFCC, S Marshall (talk · contribs)? We can't keep fair use images around just because someone might use them somehow some day. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't know how I can answer that without being able to see it. Presumably it would be useful in an article about the manufacturer.—S Marshall T/C 12:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Red White Blue and Yellow: Please advise the editor who closed the discussion that you have opened a DRV, as required by point 2 of "Steps to list a new deletion review" listed at WP:DRV. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Red White Blue and Yellow also did not complete step 4 either. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (I nominated the file for deletion). Although Enwiki and Commons do have different policies, and files that do not qualify for Commons may qualify for use here, this image is not one of those cases. There was no argument put forth to use it as non-free content. It's usage in the stuffed toy article would not not have met WP:NFC#1 as there are freely licensed images available and in use in the article. The link to a commons page was useful for providing information about copyright of toys, and not an application of Commons policy. United States copyright law applies both for images here and on Commons, and the page from Commons provides direct information about toys and copyright under US law. Contrast this with the more general guidance we have for derivative work which is what this photograph is. The closer correctly weighed the arguments of our policy to follow US copyright law. -- Whpq (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the image is a derivative work since I did not alter the image or the toy itself.
    Another thing. If you think the toy is copyrighted, what is it really? You sound like you would call any stuffed toy copyrighted. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The picture was a derivative work of the toy. If I create a copyrighted painting and then you take a photograph of it, then my copyright still applies to your photograph. If you take a photograph of a copyrighted toy then the toy copyright still applies to the photograph. And yes, almost all stuffed toy designs will be copyrighted, unless they are old enough to be in the public domain. Hut 8.5 08:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does copyright apply to a recreationally made toy? 104.172.112.209 (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the maker of the toy (as distinct from the taker of the photograph) could grant a free licence on it. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does Commons go by different rules than Wikipedia which is why images of plushes in Commons don't seem to get nominated for deletion? 104.172.112.209 (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Commons only accepts free images, so either the images have been determined to be free or the images haven't been noticed as non-free and will deleted at some point. The detail on toys being subject to copyright was part of the commons guidelines. One correction on the point above about recreationally made toys, If I make a toy from scratch to my own design I could release it under a free license, if on the other hand I use a pattern or kit where someone else has designed it, there is a good chance the copyright would at least in part rest with the designer/manufacturer. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When a toy is recreationally made, it usually isn't copyrighted unless the maker applies for a copyright at some office. One exception, however, is a toy modeled after a copyrighted character, 104.172.112.209 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is totally incorrect. As I not elsewhere under the Berne Convention "Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic;" -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse FFDs often don't get much participation and are often closed with fewer participants than would be acceptable at other deletion venues. The discussion was not closed early. The Keep comments made in the discussion focused on the existence of other images of toys, which isn't particularly relevant (different images are, well, different). Nor do I see anything here which would change the outcome. The fact the nomination didn't specify the toy manufacturer is irrelevant - copyright exists automatically unless explicitly disclaimed, which is extremely unlikely for a commercially produced toy, and even if the manufacturer has somehow released the copyright then the onus would be on the uploader to show that. While this isn't Commons, the Commons page linked in the nomination merely explains US copyright law, which the English Wikipedia is required to follow. There wasn't any claim of fair use and the image's use would not have been compatible with WP:NFCC. Hut 8.5 08:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus reached was correct, process was properly followed. I have consulted the image and agree it is necessarily copyrighted. Relisting would be process for process' sake. If someone wants to propose to use the image under fair use, which would be a high bar, they should say so and attach a draft rationale. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse under the Berne convention copyright is automatically granted on creation of the "work", there is no specific method of production etc. required. I have more sympathy for this sort of thing than many cases which crop up (though I can't see the picture) the rough form of toys is often dictated by the subject and different people/companies producing similar toys based on that underlying form makes it a harder pill to swallow. On the other hand we have various pictures which illustrate the article, so forgoing this one based on the information we have so far doesn't seem to be a particular detriment to the encyclopedia. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, this is a place where Wikipedia does crazy things. But yes, such a picture could, in theory, be a copyright violation when put on Wikipedia. IMO (and IANAL) any attempt to sue Wikipedia for using such an image would be laughed out of court--it would be clearly fair use and cause no harm to the copyright owner. But Wikipedia has chosen to be conservative on the issue to the point of being ludicrous (as is the case here) and so deletion is probably appropriate as it doesn't meet our internal rules for fair use. Endorse is far too strong of a word as I think deletion is dumb here. But the deletion is in line with our (dumb) policies. Hobit (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said earlier, the image was nominated at FFD by someone who thinks the toy is copyrighted but does not know the toy really. This shows the nominator would call any toy copyrighted, even something made by an ordinary individual who only makes toys as a hobby. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. And as I understand it, that's correct. The issue is that a picture of such a copyrighted thing, in a context like Wikipedia would be fair use. But our rules for fair use claims don't allow us to claim fair use here. Which, as I said, I think is a dumb outcome. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer comment Alalch E. explained the outcome very well. While c:COM:TOYS is part of a Commons guideline, it is an explanation of why such a photo is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users like the nominator and closer like to talk about copyright and policy. However, they don't explicitly explain why the subject of the photo is copyrighted and not free-licensed. They would cite a page of rules, but their explanations don't not involve any description of the toy. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As copyright is automatically granted at point of creation, a copyright will exist there is no question about that. The question would be has the holder released it for free use, the nominator and closer can't prove a negative, i.e. that such a release definitely doesn't exist. The person wishing to use it should however be able to prove the positive much more easily, i.e. show the release from the holder. As a free content project the question of copyright is one taken seriously (some would argue too seriously, but the wikimedia foundation set tight boundaries here) so the default assumption is going to be that we can't use something unless we can specifically show different. -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:Recipients of the National Order of the Lion – No action taken. It is unclear whether the 2021 CfD closure, or the speedy deletion pursuant to it, are contested. The nominator has sidetracked the thread into a discussion of the merits of the category, and about geographical bias and consistency in the CfD process, which are all out of scope for DRV. To the limited extent people talk about what matters here - whether the CfD was properly closed or the category properly deleted - nobody apart from the nominator suggests any impropriety. There is therefore no consensus here to overturn any administrative action. Sandstein 09:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Recipients of the National Order of the Lion (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The discussion took place 2 years ago. My category was deleted yesterday by @DrKay, However, significant new information has come to light. However, even back then, the discussion was factually incorrect. For example, other countries enjoy have 8 different orders of merits (with even less significance for their recipient, e.g., Legion of Honour (Grand Master) and Category:Collars of the Order of the White Lion not to mention Category:Recipients of the Order of Cultural Merit (Romania) which does not have a main page at all!) but for some reason, the consensus on National Order of the Lion was to consider it redundant!

Beyond that

@RevelationDirect argued no article and did not define awardee. Now, there is an article, and for half of the 85 removed awardees, it does define them as similar to any other orders of merits (e.g., Torild Skard, Ahmadou Lamine Ndiaye, Germaine Acogny, Didier Raoult, Mbaye Diagne, Esther Kamatari, Ndioro Ndiaye, Jean Miot and Aminata Sow Fall) plus why you think a European order of merit defines Queen Elizabeth more than an African one?

@Marcocapelle and @Just N. agreed without providing more information but repeating the WP:OCAWARD, which is not correct as per the examples I have mentioned

Another reason was that when heads of state and other officials visit Senegal or vice versa, the National Order of the Lion is given out as souvenirs = which is factually wrong. Only correct for the rank of the grand cross and again, why Category:Knights Grand Cross with Collar of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, a European order of merit, defines Queen Elizabeth more than an African one?

By thinking in this way, you are inadvertently entrenching the whole Geographical bias on Wikipedia. Robbing people of this honour, diminishes their notability, and increaseing the fights about what defines notability. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add the following categories, since they follow the same logic, after the catgeory I will add the XfD link and people (WP) who are affected by this
Category:Recipients of Order of the Queen of Sheba XfD (the deletion claims: (The only Ethiopians in this category are members of the royal family who are already well categorized under Category:Ethiopian Royal Family) , see: Norodom Monineath, Ibrahim Oweiss, François Duvalier, Margaret Kenyatta (mayor)
Category:Recipients of Order of the Star of Ethiopia XfD (the list mayb enough but why not both similar to Conspicuous Gallantry Cross and List of members of the Order of Merit) people who are affected: Mansour Ali Haseeb, George Merzbach, George C. Thorpe, Paul Scully-Power
Category:Recipients of Order of Solomon (XfD reason: given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit and to other monarch), which is true but then either also omit Category:Knights of St Patrick or be consistent
Category:Recipients of Order of Menelik II XfD similar reasons) = not entirely correct per: Jean Leclant, Ernest W Price and Abebe Bikila
PS: am still struggling to understand how you can accept e.g., Category:Commandeurs of the Légion d'honneur as a defining to Kenneth Anderson (British Army officer) and not Category:Recipients of Order of the Star of Ethiopia FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma: The same day this award was nominated, a German award was also nominated and deleted. The consensus in CFD has deleted dozens of other diplomatic award categories from around the world. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we agree the award isn't WP:DEFINING at least for those two. I clicked through the list you provided that had more people with actual ties to Senegal. Even here though, the articles don't treat the award as defining and tend to mention the award in passing with other honours: Ahmadou Lamine Ndiaye#Work and recognition, Didier Raoult#Honours and awards, and Ndioro Ndiaye#Life. (Germaine Acogny is an exception.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
mate, I didn’t agree with you on anything. You are exactly perpetuating the kinda of geographical bias that am talking about. “Tend to mention the award in passing with other honours” and other honours get a category and this not!
“d'honneur is a prestigious award given for outstanding contributions” and a Senegalese award is not because it was gave to Kim and Xi. You clearly did not get my angle when I asked “how you can accept e.g., Category:Commandeurs of the Légion d'honneur as a defining to Kenneth Anderson (British Army officer) and not Category:Recipients of Order of the Star of Ethiopia” FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect . Please do not compare apples with dissolved oranges and there is 37 German order of merit, see Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Germany, do you know which one is equivalent to Category:Recipients of the National Order of the Lion? I can tell you, you cannot even touch Order of Merit of Baden-Württemberg, a region award let alone trying to touch the highest German order of merit
@S Marshall you may also want to take a look to Category:Orders of chivalry awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members since you are anti-categories that is awarded to diplomats. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect can I reply to this because it is just wrong (your word in bold): I clicked through the list you provided that had more people with actual ties to Senegal. Even here though, the articles don't treat the award as defining and tend to mention the award in passing with other honours: Ahmadou Lamine Ndiaye#Work (re: tagged with a french Officers of the Order of Agricultural Merit, again how is this more defining the Senegalese one?) and recognition, Didier Raoult#Honours and awards (re:taged with Officiers of the Légion d'honneur, which is subcategory for a rank to an order that is given to more than 6,000 compared to one given to selected few), and Ndioro Ndiaye#Life. (same) FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the same day as this category was nominated, a German award category was also nominated. On the same CFD pages as the links you provided where African award categories were nominated, recipient categories for an American award, another German award, a Scouting award, and an Italian award were also nominated. All of these award categories were deleted by consensus. That's not to say there isn't regional/linguistic bias in Wikipedia though, but it appears more in the biography articles that have not yet been written (so they can't be categorized). - RevelationDirect (talk)
@FuzzyMagma: Sorry about that; I didn't mean to misrepresent your perspective so I struck that sentence. So how is this particular award WP:DEFINING to Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-il? - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect it is not, in the same spirit, how is the Order of the Liberator General San Martin is (with a category tagged to him)?
Agin, Xi and Kim are not the point, the other 83 who have the same honours are part of this point, the 8 I have listed above are. for these people it means something and defines them. For me when I am writing an article about an African and get bombarded by notability tags, it does FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sympathetic to the challenges of creating biography articles from under-represented regions. I don't see this category as the solution, but appreciate understanding the source of your frustration better. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see just how much category clutter these award categories create, just take a look at the train wreck at the bottom of this article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just be consistent. Either all awards be treated the same and each country to be reduced to one category or enjoy “the train wreck” while being fair. You don’t get to pick and choose based on what you perceive as prestigious or defining FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
or (and that will be my honest opinion), Royals should not be tagged with any Order of merits categories as they receive many for just being one, instead a list should be created for their honours, e.g. List of titles and honours of XXX (List of titles and honours of Haile Selassie), and tagged with the a category called Category:Royals list of titles and honours. But at the end these meaningless order of merits to Royals defines people notability as stated in WP policy and a mere MBE or can change your life but that is not limited to the UK, it applies even to Senegal and Ethiopia .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even though we're on different sides of this DRV, we both are looking at the same problem of award overcategorization. If there is a consensus for it at CFD, I'm totally open to rewording WP:OCAWARD to make it tighter. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Until we fix the system, let's treat Africans merit orders the same way we treat other awards, e.g., Order of the Liberator General San Martin, Category:Orders of chivalry awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members, and other examples I mentioned here and there. We do not want speculation about prestige and mention in passing to be the WP:OCAWARD that for some reason delete a country highest order of merit .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is not the forum to rewrite editing guidelines. We can't covertly create an alternate version of WP:OCAWARD here without WikiProject Categories and then start implementing that in the namespace against consensus. This nomination is not so much about the specific issue of how the admin closed this particular nomination, but the broader issue of how award categories are used overall. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect apologies I have fixed a typo that may alter your response. Replaced ‘by’ with be FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working toward clarity. My perspective remains that this is the wrong forum but I hope other editors weigh in with their perspectives. -RevelationDirect (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who have been working on under represented people in Africa. I share the perspective of FuzzyMagma. What affects one should also affects all. He has actually provided all the necessary requirements, instances and illustrations that also apply to most of these European award categories. Either the categories are allowed or deleted there should not be selective deletion. It can be equated to Geographical prejudice.

  • Closer comment The discussion couldn't really have been closed any other way. I don't see any valid reason to overturn the close. See Marcocapelle's 21:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC) comment. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems to me that the nominator isn't directly contesting the CfD closure, but the G4 speedy deletion. The focus of this DRV should probably be whether to endorse the speedy or overturn for a new CfD, rather than whether the 2021 CfD was properly closed. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC), 13:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 January 2023

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_January&oldid=1130595362"