Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October

< September 2023	Deletion review archives	November 2023 >

31 October 2023

Kyle Kumaran – Relisted. There's some appetite to just overturn without relisting, but the consensus seems to be to just relist now without faulting the closer, rather than letting a renomination happen (or not). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Notable Indian racer. Please check references available. Seems very notable and winning more and more championships every year

1. https://www.firstpost.com/sports/kyle-kumaran-steals-show-with-two-wins-vineeth-takes-championship-lead-in-jk-tyre-novice-cup-category-11826711.html,

2. https://www.indiatoday.in/auto/latest-auto-news/story/2021-fmsci-national-karting-championship-kyle-kumaran-wins-senior-title-peregrine-racing-claim-overall-honours-1882192-2021-11-29,

3. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/kumaran-triumphs/articleshow/87992828.cms
Starling2022

(talk) 06:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

relist The discussion was poor and the sources seem decent and not discussed. I've no idea if those sources were in the deleted article, but the topic at first blush appears to meet WP:N. We should have a guideline-based discussion. I don't know the area well, and I know Indian sources can sometimes be questionable, but these seem reasonable and good. Hobit (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- These were the sources in the deleted article: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a case of "good closure, bad discussion". There's only so much a closer can do with three unanimous delete !votes, but an AfD that doesn't even examine the cited sources (much less any others) is pretty clearly deficient. Usually in this situation we'd just restore or allow recreation, but given how recent the discussion is, I guess there's no harm in a relist for the sources to actually be looked at. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•Relist- per @Hobit, @Extraordinary Writ & @Starling2022 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist noting that the close was correct based on the information available in the AFD. There were two delete votes plus the nom, which is barely more than a soft delete. A good faith effort to restore the article should be considered. Since this was recently closed, a relist makes the most sense. Frank Anchor 02:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist due to additional information not discussed at AfD, while noting like others that the close based on the discussion was good. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. No need for another round of AfD which will obviously result in keeping. No fault of the closer.—Alalch E. 17:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. I don't really see the point in relisting either, but no prejudice against renominating for anyone who does. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse was there any effort to engage with the closer? (I cannot see any, but happy to be corrected). I agree with Frank Anchor, the discussion itself was essentially only minimal endorsements of the nomination, so a soft delete would have been a reasonable. Nevertheless, absent of any engagement with the closer, I feel a need to respect the decision which was within reasonable discretion. No prejudice against recreation. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. No closure error, but new evidence has been presented and the three delete votes were all pretty weak IMO. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 22:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse insofar as the close was correct based on what was in the AfD, and the closer did not err. However factoring in the new information, undelete. I'd say no relist is needed automatically as part of the DRV, but it can just be nominated by any editor at their own discretion moving forward. Daniel (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

OggConvert – That's probably enough WP:PILEON. If anyone wishes to pursue this (with policy-based arguments) the correct venue is WP:AfD. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This program has been untouched for 15 years. It is impossible to compile since 2019 because it was never converted from Python 2, which is unsupported and removed from all but a couple of really outdated Enterprise Linux distributions until their EOL. OggConvert was dropped from Fedora 32, and at some point by Debian and Ubuntu as well. It's extremely unlikely that this will ever be made to work again given that Python 3 is incompatible with version 2, and that it also relies on Glade from GTK 2, and possibly other unmaintained software. As such, this program is no longer notable enough to have a Wikipedia page since it would need a major rewrite. (At least two-thirds of the code). The last proposed deletion was in 2009, and should be overturned as the program has rotted away. Daemonfc (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DRV hardly ever overturns an afd to delete, and it's certainly not going to do so with one from 13 years ago. You can renominate it for a new deletion discussion, but if it is deleted there, it won't be because of your arguments above - if something is notable, it's generally always notable. (Be aware that "notable" has a specific meaning in Wikipedia jargon; software quality or maintainability has nothing to do with it, except to the extent it influences the subject's coverage in reliable sources.) It may be that the article's sourcing doesn't meet our current standards, though. —Cryptic 04:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse. Original AFD over 13 years old. If you want to nominate it for deletion again, that would be done at WP:AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OggConvert (2nd nomination) ended in keep. This does not belong here. If someone believes it should be deleted a new AFD is needed. ~ GB fan 10:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per above. The AFD was closed as keep almost 14 years ago. I also would not recommend taking this to AFD with the mentioned rationale because software becoming obsolete does not make it not notable. The nominator claims that this program is no longer notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, however notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Frank Anchor 14:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frank is right. (I had typed virtually the same comment but Frank beat me to the punch, GMTA) Notability is not temporary. No comment on whether it ever passed the bar for notability to begin with. The discussion in the AfD concluded there's at least one good source. A new AfD could be opened but would certainly fail if the only argument is that the software is obsolete. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
speedy close an AfD this old doesn't belong here. In addition, the reasons for deletion given by the nom are not policy or guideline based. If the nom wishes to see this deleted, they should go to AfD and make an argument for deletion based on WP:N. Hobit (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

30 October 2023

Atlaspheres – Pages refunded to userspace by original deleting administrator. Daniel (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I'd like to userfy these pages so i can migrate them to a dedicated fandom wiki TheDireMaster chat 11:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is this a Request for Undeletion? Has it been to Requests for Undeletion yet? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should have been queried to the closing administrator (myself) first. I have no objection, and can look at this later tonight. BD2412 T 19:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked into it? TheDireMaster chat 09:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine refunding all. Real-life matters are delaying me. I will take care of it this afternoon. BD2412 T 15:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDireMaster: These are all done, I will follow up on your talk page. BD2412 T 18:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The pages have been refunded to userspace. This can be closed. BD2412 T 16:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ace Pijper – Relisted * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I closed this as keep but User:GhostOfDanGurney asked me at my talk page to consider reopening and relisting it due to canvassing for the keep !votes. I don't have a strong view but my rationale for closing as keep is, despite the canvassing, the keepers make sound policy-based arguments and, other than the nomination itself, there are no !delete votes at all. I don't see a need to relist - the discussion was open for the full 7 days - but would value some other opinions hence bringing it here. Waggers TALK 09:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn close and relist - The canvassing is apparent and there are no !votes at all once you remove canvassed opinions and the page creator. There were unaddressed concerns about WP:NOTINHERITED, sources that were only WP:PRIMARY and WP:CRYSTAL. Although a second editor did not express a delete !vote, there were clear questions raised and unaddressed. There is a prima facie argument that the article is here too soon based on current content alone, and no source analysis that establishes WP:GNG is met. To be clear, however, it could be met. This needs more eyes, and the end result could be the same or it could be delete, but we don't have that clarity yet. Thus relisting for another week would seem to be sensible. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – As the nominator of the AfD in question, I have obviously expressed my desire to see the page deleted. I largely agree with Sirfurboy's assessment, and as I noted in the AfD discussion I am not at all convinced by the sources and arguments put forward by the keep !voters. I don't think there was really a good way to close the AfD: there wasn't enough support for deletion to close it as no consensus, but at the same time the fact all !voters were canvassed makes it difficult to see the result as a convincing keep. I would be happy to see it relisted for further discussion. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The word canvassing is still being used and the point is being missed because they were not asked to vote to keep it. Editors who are some of the most knowledgeable in terms of the subject matter will not be able to comment on an article nominated for deletion unless they know about it in the first place. Furthermore, surely they are best placed to comment on a subject that they know the most about and this can include voting for it to be deleted. I have noticed in recent years the increase in users acting as though they own Wikipedia and discouraging the 'average' editor to interact. This goes against the core values of Wikipedia. Pyeongchang (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect Pyeongchang you do not seem to understand how the word "canvassing" is used on Wikipedia. As GhostOfDanGurney clearly explained in the AfD discussion, your actions have been perceived as canvassing because you had good reason to believe that the users you notified would !vote in favour of keeping the article. While actually asking an editor to !vote in a certain way would definitely be an obvious example of canvassing, it is not at all a requirement. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi 5225C, you replied to every 'keep' comment on the nomination deletion page and even replied to my comment here. You have missed the point of my comment above and if this is not a case of trying to dominate proceedings to back up your nomination then I do not know what is. I quote the well known phrase - He who shouts loudest. Pyeongchang (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you refer to the tagging of !voters as having been canvassed, then that was not me. If you are referring to responding to other comments and !votes, then that is standard practice for nominators at AfD. I do note that this was only your second AfD, perhaps you are unfamiliar with them? The entire goal is to "back up my nomination", if I wasn't willing to back it up then I would not have opened the AfD. Do you expect me not to respond to glaring errors? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. After removing the possibly canvassed votes, it is apparent that there is one "keep" (the creator) vote against one "delete" vote (the nom). There is nothing wrong with an article's creator defending his or her work, especially when constructive arguments can be made, and the creator asserts passage of WP:GNG. A no consensus close would be okay but it is possible another week would allow consensus to develop. Frank Anchor 18:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Overturn and Relist, based on the closer's comment that there was canvassing. ~~This is a weak overturn because neither the closer nor the original nominator has said so that I could understand it exactly what the nature of the canvassing was?~~ For instance, did the author comment on the user talk pages of certain editors? That would be canvassing of a subtle sort. Yes.Did the author comment neutrally on project talk pages? That is not canvassing. I am relying on the closer's judgment that there may have been canvassing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These difs were listed in the AFD to support evidence of canvassing. Messages on the users' talk pages that the subject AFD was taking place. Michig Johnny2hats2 Rcclh. Frank Anchor 20:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Frank Anchor for the explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the closer for administrative integrity and for being ready to reopen their close when it was challenged. (I ~~don't~~didn't know what the nature of the canvassing was.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. There is canvassing because the notification messages, while not blatantly non-neutral (i.e., they were not saying "please vote keep"), clearly chooses a biased audience who has never edited the articles in question (so are not appropriate notifcations) and are chosen solely for their perceived views. These cause the AfD to be tainted by it, and no clear consensus can be ascertained. VickKiang (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Pyeongchang - You should consider this DRV as a warning against future canvassing on deletion discussions. Notifying users whom you have selected is defined as a form of canvassing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't object to a relist, and have no idea whether this person is notable or not; but as in the past, I feel compelled to observe that a broad definition of "canvassing" is problematic if it precludes bringing a discussion to the attention of the people who are (1) most likely to be interested in the discussion, and (2) most likely to be able to make well-informed comments in the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there'd be a problem if the user had simply left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport or the sub-project that deals specifically with motorcycle racing. I feel that part of the reason for these WikiProjects is to bring awareness of XfDs, RMs, RfCs, etc. and I would very much have considered it an WP:APPNOTE. The issue here is the specific targeting of select users based on known opinions to message via Userspace, rather than letting those users find their own way via a WikiProject message. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posting a neutral comment on a Wikiproject is fine in my opinion also, as persons in a Wikiproject have a knowledge or interest in a topic that the average editor does not. An interested user may be better able to assess the notability of a page or find resources to "save" a page that would otherwise be deleted, redirected, etc. However the canvassing that occurred here is reaching out to three specific users about a page. It is unclear if the Pyeongchang had a bias (i.e. this user didnt say "there is an AFD on Ace Pijper, I need you to vote keep") but it is suspicious that all of those canvassed users voted keep despite having never edited the page in question. Frank Anchor 13:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For some context. I would consider myself an 'average editor' and would not have any knowledge/interest in any Wikiproject pages. Had I not been notified, I would not have known the page would have been up for deletion until I accessed the page directly. There was no reason for me to edit the page as it's already in good shape from when it was created, I don't see a point in editing something for the sake of it. I was neither asked to vote for delete or keep, but as somebody who has an advanced knowledge of speedway, I voted keep as I know this page is relevant within its sport. Looking at Pyeongchang's previous edits, he clearly also knows about speedway and therefore feels others who know about speedway are knowledgeable enough to make informed decisions on the subject. Johnny2hats2 (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist in the hopes of a better source analysis occurring there. I'm not as concerned about whether to call the notifications to others "canvassing" or not in this instance. I do feel the discussion was ultimately defective, in that much of what was written didn't engage with our actual notability guidelines. Fundamentally, we have the nominator's claim, "non-notable athlete, a WP:BEFORE check reveals almost entirely primary sources or routine coverage, and very little or no significant coverage" versus one policy based response stating "while there's not a great deal of third-party coverage around, there's enough in the Speedway Star and Polish and Netherlands media to scrape through". Hopefully, given more eyeballs, this difference of opinion can be resolved and a policy-based consensus reached. Martinp (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for help undeleting all the unknown outlines in draft space – The drafts listed below are restored, except as noted below. (This may take a little while.) I'm not going to go to the effort of moving any of them to userspace, but others are free to do so if desired. If you come across any more drafts that were G13'd, you can list them at WP:REFUND for a quicker response. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to restore the following drafts:
- Draft:Outline of Right-wing populism: just a redirect to Outline of Right-wing populism, which was deleted per AfD consensus.
- Draft:Outline of Roget's Thesaurus: just a redirect to Outline of Roget's Thesaurus, which was deleted per AfD consensus.
- Draft:Outline of conservatism: just a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of conservatism, which was deleted per MfD consensus.
- Draft:Outline of hip hop: just a redirect to Draft:Outline of hip hop music, which is being restored separately.
- Draft:Outline of lists: deleted per MfD consensus.
Feel free to discuss with the relevant AfD or MfD closer if necessary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Extended content

I'd like all the deleted outlines in draft space revived, so that I can look them over to see which ones are closest to completion. There may be as many as two hundred, but I can't remember what their titles are. How do we get these drafts revived, not knowing their titles? Are they lost in the ether? — The Transhumanist 01:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would suggest that the Original Poster is more likely to get help in determining how to identify the drafts with names of the form Draft:Outline of ... or Draft:Outline for ... at the Help Desk or Village Pump Technical. There is no luminiferous aether. Einstein explained that the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that there is no aether drift because there is no aether. Subsequently, it was concluded that wavicles travel in a wave-like manner without the need for a medium. What you probably want is for some sort of search for or report of deleted titles by someone with administrative privileges, and I am guessing that the Help Desk or Village Pump are less unlikely places to find that expertise. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't need an admin just for the list, just a rigorous definition of what should be on it. "All pages starting with 'Draft:Outline '" is probably good enough at least to start with. I've pasted the titles in the collapsed section above; there's some more information about them at quarry:query/77737. Yes, there are deleted revisions at ones that are currently blue; no, I haven't looked at any of them, though I'm guessing you're not interested in the first six. —Cryptic 22:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I've pared the list down to those I'd like to inspect or work on. — The Transhumanist 22:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refund to userspace of the DRV nom so that the pages wouldn't be G13-eligible (imagine undeleting them, no one working on them, and having to delete this many pages again). Userspace drafts of outlines are G13 immune because they should never be submitted through AfC. There is no reason to deny the request.—Alalch E. 00:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to draftspace once the list is properly confirmed – not to userspace, which is a lot of effort done only to circumvent G13. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleaned up the list, removing non-outlines and titles that already are outlines in article space. — The Transhumanist 21:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's next? - @Cryptic, Alalch E., and Stifle: — The Transhumanist 05:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator will close the DRV and do what needs to be done. —Alalch E. 08:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...once at least 7 days have past since its listing. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 03:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 October 2023

28 October 2023

27 October 2023

List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada – Both List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada will be relisted in a bundled nomination, referencing this DRV. Daniel (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This article was nominated alongside List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, however they were not nominated in a multi-article nomination, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (2nd nomination) saw considerably less participation than the other two AFDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, both of which were relisted three times to the one time for this list, both of which closed as no consensus). Complicating the issue is that both the list of Israeli casualties and Palestinian casualties were transcluded in to the Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada article. Now Im not disputing that taken by itself one could say that there is consensus for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (2nd nomination), even if the participation is sparse, but the end result of all three of these discussions is such a glaring NPOV violation that I dont know how it can stand. Currently, the Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada contains a comprehensive list of every Israeli civilian casualty, and not a single Palestinian casualty and instead has a failed transclusion, despite the approximately 3:1 ratio of Palestinian civilian casualties to Israeli civilian casualties. I think the only reasonable thing to do here is to overturn this to a new multi-article deletion discussion, potentially when the region isnt so actively on fire that it makes it difficult to discuss things calmly. But the idea that we should only document civilian casualties if they are Israeli seems so blatantly non-neutral that I think that is the only way to resolve the issue. I discussed with the deleting admin, he did not seem amenable to reconsideration on his talk page. Nableezy 16:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closer comment, just noting that I support this DRV to find some broader consensus per my longer comments at User talk:Seraphimblade#Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada as the situation that came from the three distinct AfDs isn't a longterm solution. Thanks Nableezy for raising this conversation. Star Mississippi 16:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC) In case it wasn't clear, noting that I'm the closer of two of the three referenced discussions, Israeli civilian & Civilian casualties. I did not close the Palestinian civilian AfD. Star Mississippi 23:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
inviting @Jay to this discussion per User talk:Liz#Second Intifada AfD in case they have anything to add per the RFU request, which I'm unable to locate. Will leave Liz a note in the section on her Talk as she doesn't use pings I don't believe. Star Mississippi 17:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RfU was archived to WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 389#Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Jay 💬 07:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to remember my role in all of this and it's because I originally closed the AFD for Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada as Delete and deleted the article (along with quite a lot of redirects). I was asked to revert and relist so I restored the article and relisted the discussion. So, there was a period of time when two of the three articles were deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist based on limited participation and no convincing arguments to delete. This AFD probably should have been "bundled" with List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, but it was not. The nom, plus the three other delete votes, cite WP:NOTMEMORIAL, Mistamystery explains the NOTMEMORIAL concerns can be cleaned up (therefore making them WP:SURMOUNTABLE concerns). This point is not rebutted by any delete voter. I also find it very unusual that the Israeli civilian casualty list was relisted while the Palistinian civilian casualty list was closed as delete despite similar vote totals and arguments, by the same user (Seraphimblade) within one minute of each other. Frank Anchor 17:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that I oppose relisting all three as a bundle. The other two articles were correctly closed as no consensus. Frank Anchor 13:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relist per Frank above, and the AFDs should have been bundled.VR _talk 19:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Page was deleted prematurely as a cleanup effort was underway. Information on casualties in the Second Intifada is crucial to the subject, and it’s important there is equal representation from all sides in the conflict. Mistamystery (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as a bundle with the other two articles, which had No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist all as one bundled nom. Levivich (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as bundle, those results clearly do not make this encyclopedia better. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn per WP:DRVPURPOSE#5: Deleting the Palestinian casualties list created a technical error in Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada because the table was transcluded there, and now the transclusion is broken. Content being trancluded from one article to another, means that the content is included and exists in the target article as if it had been a part of the target article's wikitext; transcluded content has the same status as native content; the issue of it being transcluded is just technical and not editorial in nature. Deletion of one page broke another page which should never happen and this makes for a substantial procedural error. The Palestinian casualties list could never have been deleted in the first place, as long as the content is either transcluded or substantially copied because of attribution. A consensus to delete could only have led to subtituting the transcluded content into the target page, and the source page then would have to be preserved in the form of a redirect in order to provide attribution. But the separate Israeli and Palestinian casualties lists should have been discussed together, as it is highly odd that one should be deleted and the other not. So relist List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada but *do not relist* Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. The question in the AfD will be whether to fold the separate lists into the existing Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada which they already duplicate. There is no need to rediscuss Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, that AfD was fine, a normal no consensus outcome, and it can wait to be WP:RENOMinated.—Alalch E. 13:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada article is terribly damaged now, and it is really aberrant that there is a table with Israeli casualties but not Palestinian casualties because of a broken tranclusion, this should be done immediately; the state of Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada should not be tolerated for multiple days. —Alalch E. 13:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the fault of the closer, it just happened.—Alalch E. 13:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relist: alongside the parallel Israeli casualties list, if not also the parent. Per the above arguments, and my initial observation at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Second Intifada casualty lists. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

SSSniperWolf – The request has been fulfilled. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

There are more sources now, see Wikipedia:SSSniperWolf sources overview. Please also undelete Sssniperwolf and SSSniperwolf if their history contains anything usable and merge them into SSSniperWolf. List of AfDs.

Update: the article exists now, but I'd still like to examine the old versions for sources I might have missed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could we also get the article (if it ever gets restored) semi or 30/500 protected? There have been five attempts to get SSSniperWolf on Wikipedia, with one of the attempts being successful. — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 11:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore what I just said. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 11:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Following the AfD, the title was recreated as a redirect to Jacksfilms#Conflict with SSSniperWolf (2022–present), that redirect is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 21#SSSniperWolf. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2023 versions of this article have history at SSSniperWolf, the December 2019-May 2020, September 2020 and a 2023 redirect from move are at SSSniperwolf (lowercase W). The only history at Sssniperwolf is a single entry recording a move to SSSniperwolf. The correct spelling of the subject's name is "SSSniperWolf". Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The multiple AFDs for this YouTuber illustrate a major case of the gaming of article titles by changing the capitalization, which illustrates that she has ultras, fanatical followers, who are distracting from any real effort to establish notability. ~~It appears that none of the versions of the title have (yet) been locked.~~ The tweaked versions should remain locked, or be made into locked redirects, if a good version is ever accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert McClenon, if the article ever gets restored, would there be any level of protection to it considering the ultra issue? — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 23:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Davest3r08 - I don't think that the article will need to be protected if it is accepted. Ultras are not vandals. Genseric was a Vandal. Ultras are trying to get an article for their person. If they succeed, normal editing is sufficient to keep fancruft out of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert McClenon, MER-C regex salted the title on MediaWiki:Titleblacklist as a result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive355#SSSniperwolf.
  I'm unsure if this was a case of gaming the system, when I created the source assessment page I called her "Sssniperwolf" in the pagename. (the page has been moved since) Careless really, I should have looked up the correct capitalization. And the thread on AN/I was titled "SSSniperwolf" (lowercase W), also wrong. No comment on whether or not she has ultras. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Alexis Jazz - You may have made a capitalization error, but the various forms of capitalization by the SssniperWolf fans are very much a case of gaming of titles, which often involves changing the capitalization. The only difference between this and BFDI is that there may be reliable sources that mention SssniperWolf. The ultras were creating multiple versions of the title to game the system. The only question is whether to accept one of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Robert McClenon, now you called her SssniperWolf, another incorrect variant. ;-) So it's easy to get her name wrong. I'm unsure what (if any) warnings a mobile user (or even a desktop user) might have received years ago when trying to create the article with incorrect capitalization. Without actually knowing the history of the various creations, I assume good faith. (perhaps naively) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - User:Alexis Jazz - .Whether they made good-faith capitalization errors or were trying to game the system is not important with regard to what we should do, but I have seen that changing the spelling or capitalization of a name is often done to be evasive. She is an Internet celebrity, and they have ultras. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow review of draft using the analysis of sources provided by the appellant. I don't mean that the reviewer should agree with the appellant, but should either use the source analysis or use it as a starting point. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The RFD can be paused while the draft is reviewed, or subsumed into review of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should we close the RfD? The latest comment is from 2 days ago. — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 15:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refund to draft. There are some new sources. This doesn't affect the RfD. The redirect, if it isn't appropriate for BLP reasons as said in the RfD can be deleted. Then, when the article is ready for publishing, there will be the article. AfC, as always, is optional. (Just don't move to mainspace without a solid effort to add content sourced to references which demonstrate notability.)—Alalch E. 23:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The draft has been restored. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 00:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one of the draft pages was restored which was written in 2018. Draft:SSSniperWolf and Draft:Sssniperwolf are still deleted and so is everything in article space. I'd suggest history merging all the draft and mainspace pages into Draft:SSSniperWolf. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The pages were started and developed at different times by different authors. History merging is not the right thing to do. Content may be merged after restoration, and all pages may redirect to the central article. Jay 💬 05:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Update. The article SSSniperWolf exists now. In my opinion, Alexis Jazz should be granted their desired refund to help make potential improvements to the article. Anything which can be refunded on-site should be restored to Draft:SSSniperWolf, which would then be re-redirected, and that which can not because of disparate histories can be emailed. —Alalch E. 17:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  To clarify, that is what I stated on RfD. If the deleted versions could be refunded to draft and/or my userspace and/or emailed I'd appreciate that. I mostly want to examine them for sources I may have missed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Emailing isn't really practical. Sssniperwolf only contains a redirect left by a move, but SSSniperWolf and SSSniperwolf each contain hundreds of revisions, heavily edited (and some oversighted) such that it's not at all clear which are the most complete. —Cryptic 18:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Cryptic, do [8] and [9] help? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  They do. I'd been looking only at Special:Export, which doesn't include deleted revisions; I'd had a feature request for an option to do so half written-up. —Cryptic 19:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Cryptic, thanks! I received 2 out of 4 mails, not sure what could have happened to the other two? (I checked my spam folder) I replied. Again, thanks, and hopefully the other two mails can be recovered or re-send. :-) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  My reply tool pings automatically, I'll try to remember not to ping you.
  I had kicked my watchlist addiction a long time ago but recently I've suffered a relapse. Thanks for sending the other two again, they arrived this time! I extracted a list of URLs and posted it on Wikipedia:SSSniperWolf sources overview#Links from deleted versions of the article to comb through. I looked at the list for obvious defamatory or spam links but didn't notice any. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Alexis Jazz, is there anything else left to do here, or can this be closed? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Extraordinary Writ, this can be closed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 October 2023

25 October 2023

24 October 2023

Adrija Roy – Recreation allowed subject to a new AfD. There's no interest here in restoring a deleted version. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The actress has played several prominent roles in many Bengali television shows and films post the last deletion in 2020. Recently in 2023, she played one of the leads in the sequel of hindi television series Barrister Babu. Moreover currently, she is playing the lead titular role in the series Imlie thereby passing WP:N 117.246.109.169 (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and Relist Can the consensus be overturned and the article be relisted in the AfD? So that a better conclusion can be made on the WP:N of the actress? 117.246.109.169 (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the 2020 close, as the correct reading of consensus in 2020. The appellant does not appear to be claiming any error in the 2020 close, but rather says that the subject has become notable since 2020, which doesn't require overturning the 2020 close. The title has not been salted.Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation, either in article space or in draft space, subject to new AFD in article space or to AFC review in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The latest article of Adrija Roy was deleted very recently on 18th of October under G4. Can that article be restored and be subjected to AFD?117.249.189.24 (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have undeleted the October 2023 edition for G4 comparison purposes. Courtesy @Secretlondon:. No comment on merit as I do not have time to assess at the moment. Star Mississippi 00:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. I would not have speedily deleted the 2023 version under G4 as it contained information relating to post 2020 roles, however it was completely unreferenced and definitely would not have survived AfD in the state it was in, indeed the only reason it would have passed A7 was the implied claim of significance of having roles in multiple notable productions (notability is not inherited, but significance can be). Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent version was completely unsourced, and in that respect was not an improvement on the AfDed version (which did cite sources). It did include information on roles she had since the last AfD, so the G4 is at least debatable, but I would strongly recommend trying to write a version with sources instead. Hut 8.5 12:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With respect to what @Thryduulf: and @Hut 8.5: have said; Can the last AFDed version of 2020 and the latest 2023 version of the article Adrija Roy be merged and restored to the article space? We (myself and my fellow editor friends) will work relentlessly on it and modify it within a week with respect to the demands of an article of Wikipedia. But, if the admins still feel it's not worthy enough to be a Wikipedia article then it can pass through the process of AFD once again.117.249.238.129 (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better in draft space where you have six months* to get it into shape for an article, or (if you create an account) userspace where there is no deadline. (It's a rolling six months from your most recent edit to the page). Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need. We are confident enough to create an article on Adrija Roy with apt references respecting the needs of a Wikipedia article once we are allowed to recreate.117.249.190.174 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? —Cryptic 18:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Myself and my fellow editor friends. One of them has an account but she doesn't use it much. All of us have a really good experience on working with Wikipedia articles and know what are the requirements to create a perfect WP:BLP. 117.246.207.36 (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the undeleted page has no sources and says almost nothing; at best restoring that article will have minimal benefit. The 2020 deletion was clearly a correct reading of consensus. I see no reason why the IP can't start a new article at Draft:Adrija Roy with actual sources demonstrating notability, if she is in fact now notable. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we want to recreate a new article on Adrija Roy. We will do it once @Star Mississippi: removes the undelete tag from the undeleted page. Once we recreate, if you feel that it doesn't meet the standards of Wikipedia then you can subject it to AFD 117.246.144.215 (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: - Can we recreate the article of Adrija Roy now? We do not want any restoration of the recently deleted or the AFDed version of the article. We are ready to start afresh everything.117.246.144.215 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can work on a draft at any time. I would advise against creating one in mainspace until you know whether the sources are sufficient as it would likely be re-deleted. Would you like me to restore it to Draft:Adrija Roy? Star Mississippi 15:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No @Star Mississippi we don't want any restoration. We are confident about recreating the article in mainspace with reliable sources to support the article. But if you still feel that the article is not meeting Wikipedia standards then we are completely ok with the article getting subjected to AFD and getting deleted. Can you please grant us the permission to recreate?
Even the maximum votes in this DRV is to allow recreation.

117.246.144.215 (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer admin User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Deletion_Review:_Adrija_Roy Star Mississippi 14:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for trying to speeden up the process of this DRV. Actually I am not really aware about the time span of a DRV which is why I was getting impatient as it has already been a week after I raised the concern on Adrija Roy's article (plus all other DRVs of 24th October were closed). The major reason for me trying to hurry up the process is that I really really want to concentrate on my studies. If anyone over here is a postgraduate student in India then please understand my situation on how important it is to crack UGC NET. I wholeheartedly apologize for my behaviour and I promise that this will not repeated again and I will wait patiently until someone closes this DRV. 117.219.208.254 (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per Capita – Socks don't have standing. Any established and unconflicted editor is welcome to bring forward a new draft. Star Mississippi 23:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Reason: Article reads like an advertisement or promotion. Makes loads of unsubstantiated claims which aren’t backed up by third-party sources.

This page wrongly deleted by LibStar & A MINOTAUR 15:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

This page was not an advertisement/promotional material. It is a factual record of an existing organisation which regularly contributes to federal government submissions and whose research is featured in Australian media. The organisation in question is still operational and edits to the wiki page had been made in the last 6 months prior deletion. Similar organisations, i.e. other Australian Think Tanks, have not had their pages deleted even though they have the same quantity and quality of content, including references/resources from third party sources. If this page violated Wikipedia's policies than the same standard should be expected for the other think tank pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsablaupunkt (talk • contribs) 03:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Subject failed GNG. Half the sources cited were the subject's website. This is sour-grapes from an undeclared CoI who makes an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a long history of replacing this article with spam - previous versions (such as before this edit) weren't quite as horrible. (Others, such as before this sequence of edits, were at least as bad.) —Cryptic 03:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The right conclusion by the closer about consensus, and the right conclusion by the editors about organizational notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The only edits by the appellant are by this account. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse nothing unreasonable about the closing on the basis of the discussion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There is unanimous consensus for delete and three votes are enough for WP:NOQUORUM to not apply. VickKiang (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of roles in the British Army – Close endorsed. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

There was a policy-based rationale for deletion but no policy-based counter-argument. It seems clear that delete was the only correct outcome in this case. The admin would not self-revert. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closer note) The majority of 'keep' !votes were very deficient in their argument of policy and guidelines, and I acknowledged this in my closing comment. However, there is insufficient support for 'delete' within that debate to close as such, and to do so would be considered a supervote. It had been relisted twice, with the second relist being done by Rosguill and noting it was looking like 'no consensus' at that point. I agreed with this assessment and considering a third relist would not have been fruitful or appropriate in my administrative discretion, closed as 'no consensus' - which I feel is an accurate representation of the discussion. Daniel (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - no consensus based on policy but was really a WP:SNOW keep. When the discussion is so lopsided, it probably indicates the policy might be wrong. - Indefensible (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: Policy or the interpretation or application of policy. - Indefensible (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Could not possibly have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse - I'm on the fence between endorsing the NC close or voting overturn to keep, but both are the same result for practical purposes and the delete arguments were more based in policy. In a case like this where the overwhelming consensus goes against the a policy, it shows that the policy isn't perfect, and that's fine. Per WP:5P5, The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Consensus clearly shows this is one of those times. Frank Anchor 12:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per Frank Anchor. This appears to be a case where the appellant is saying that the closer should have supervoted and ignored the consensus. The closer was taking policy into account, which is why they closed as No Consensus rather than as Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the closer said there wasn't enough support for deletion to close as Delete, even though the Keep arguments were weaker. The Delete arguments were not "policy-based", they were based on WP:NLIST and WP:GNG, which are not policies. Furthermore while the Delete arguments were stronger there doesn't seem to have been much attempt to find more sources about the topic. I'm sure there must be plenty of sources out there discussing careers in the British military. Hut 8.5 19:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think people are just using policy-based as a shorthand for P&G based- I don't believe anyone is actually claiming that GNG is a policy. VickKiang (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If people mean guideline-based they should say guideline-based. The OP's position would make a lot more sense if the arguments for deletion actually were policy-based. Guidelines on the other hand are much more amenable to occasional exceptions. Hut 8.5 07:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While some of the Keep opinions were weak, there was definitely not a consensus to Delete this article. No consensus seems appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Hut 8.5 and Liz. In particular the keep opinions don't argue for ignoring core policies like WP:OR or WP:V but for making an exception to the guideline WP:NLIST. Guidelines should not be applied mechanically but in accordance with consensus, and poor arguments should be down-weighted but rarely all the way to zero. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I did downweight some arguments in this debate all the way to zero - the final two comments being two notable examples. They are not arguments at all for keeping, and totally irrelevant to the debate. "Big enough to have its own page", "Warrants its own article" and similar contributions should always be weighted at 0 in my personal opinion. Daniel (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, as there certainly is not a consensus to delete, but feel free to throw a few dozen {{citation needed}} tags on all the uncited purported "roles", and take a flamethrower to whatever doesn't get sourced. BD2412 T 03:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Keep, this was an uncharacteristically poor close from an otherwise good admin, on this occasion showing a poor understanding of the role of AfD, and of the role of administrators. The whole point of AfD is to allow editors to make a case which may be based on quite a wide and nuanced interpretation of multiple policies, including a consideration of what an encyclopaedia is here to do. The definition of Wikipedia as an online encyclopaedia is actually more "core" than any of its written policies, which are ultimately merely the mechanism by which its encyclopaeidahood is enacted. Daniel I was somewhat hurt by having my "keep" !vote casually disregarded as not based on policy, if I'm one of the two "notable" examples (the word notable was an unnecessary jibe at my competence, I thought). There are a lot of problems with closing against a very large majority of !votes with the explanation that they weren't "policy". One is that we can argue indefinitely about what "policy" actually is, wikilawyering backwards and forwards between different guidelines, distinguishing guidelines from policies from essays. The other is that ultimately, it makes it look rather as though the viewpoints of normal editors are liable to being ignored by an admin, which is contrary to the principle that when it comes to content, all editors are equal. Elemimele (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Elemimele, you seem to misunderstand - your specific contribution was not one that I largely disregarded, as it was the other two I actually quoted in full in my above comment (03:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)). I would have thought that was rather clear, but apologies if it was not. I cannot agree that they should not be largely disregarded given what they wrote (again, quoted in full above), per my above comments. But your comment certainly wasn't. Daniel (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Daniel I apologise for taking it personally and for misunderstanding which comments were being ignored. My paragraph rant above was a bit of an emotional response that was probably over-the-top. I certainly think you were right to refuse to go for a delete, and in the end there's not much practical difference between no-consensus and keep. I don't envy anyone who tries to close AfD debates. Thank you for your prompt and kind response to allay my concerns! Elemimele (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problems, thanks for the further elaboration; and apologies again for any ambiguity in my notes that caused this misunderstanding! Daniel (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to keep Yes, the keep !votes are mostly weak. But the delete !votes are just vague waves at a guideline. As far as I can tell, no one explained how that guideline applied to this discussion. And it's a guideline that says "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists". That's a pretty clear indication that lists are an area we don't have black-and-white rules for how to handle inclusion. So we largely rely on the opinions and thoughts of our editors. And here it's very clear that our editors think we should keep this. So we should. Hobit (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The keep side has a large majority, but for the most part substantially weaker than the delete one. Therefore, IMO the closer was right to override the numerical count and close as NC. VickKiang (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep, mostly per Hobit. I do see some poor keep votes that should have been excluded but I also see keep votes that make strong points that should not be excluded. What I don't see any are delete votes that were not completely addressed by those in opposition. Rigid adherence to guidelines is both contrary to the explicit nature of guidelines and also results in perverse outcomes where articles about topics that people expect to find in encyclopaedias are deleted because the real world doesn't fit the neat boxes we like to put things in and/or different countries do things differently. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This could have been no consensus or keep. It would not be a reasonable outcome for this discussion to be closed as delete. The reason I say it could have been keep is that while I agree less weight can be given for !votes that lack in policy (and more weight to those that back up policy claims in detail), I also think if an editor in good standing takes the time to !vote, their opinion mustn't be fully discounted, due to a variety of factors like implicit policy claims that fail to drop UPPERCASE, an implied different interpretation of already mentioned policies, or a desire to IAR without explicitly stating so. No consensus is still a reasonable outcome. —siro χ o 17:28, 27 October 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 October 2023

22 October 2023

Nakba Law – Procedural close, no page has been deleted or deletion discussion closed, therefore this is out of the scope of DRV. Daniel (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

In direct contrast to the reason for speedy deletion, this is a translation of a scanned copy of a public domain work, the law of a government - see Public domain#Government works. There is no copyright infringement here. Furthermore the deletion blindly removed other edits and improvements to the page which did not relate to the intended removal Xland44 (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page was not deleted, but a small amount of content was removed as being a violation of our copyright policy, and I did revision deletion. The section I removed was provisions of the law as translated in this copyright journal article. Creating a translation generates a new copyright. Please see my response here. — Diannaa (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close - There hasn't been a deletion or deletion debate. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 23 October 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 October 2023

IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications – SNOW overturn and relist. It's rare for deletion reviews to be closed early, but I'm going to do it in this case because the matter has attracted more than enough commentary for the community's decision to be clear; and some people here are using this DRV as a platform to attack the closer, which the SNOW close is intended to stop. DRV is explicitly a drama-free zone which means that you are to be respectful as well as civil here.—S Marshall T/C 18:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The discussion clearly has a consensus for keep. The closing admin simply discarded all opinions they deemed 'not based on policy', and supervoted, rather than assess the actual consensus of that discussion. All opinions were based on sound rationale, and addressed whether sourcing was adequate to established notability and all but one participant were unanimous that the journal/magazine was notable enough for Wikipedia. See also User_talk:Spartaz#IEEE_Computer_Graphics_and_Applications. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen and relist. I'm not as convinced as Headbomb that the discussion provides a guideline-based consensus for keep, but there is certainly no consensus to delete/redirect. The close was as obvious an example of a supervote as I can remember seeing. (Note: I participated in the discussion, but did not provide a keep/delete opinion, and am still on the fence about which way I think this should go. In the discussion and in edits to the article during the discussion, several independent reliable sources on the topic were provided; the discussion has not yet clearly addressed the question of whether these sources have the required depth of coverage.) —David Eppstein (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. Allow me to explain my "keep" !vote in the AfD. I argued that because the journal is included in three highly selective databases (Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, and MEDLINE-for the latter even in the highly-selective subset Index Medicus), it meets the requirements listed in the essay WP:NJournals. But for the sake of the discussion here, let's ignore the essay. Getting indexed in the three databases mentioned is not a trivial thing. It means that each one of them independently has evaluated the journal in-depth by an independent commission of specialists, who have concluded that this journal belongs to the most important ones in their field. To me, that's enough to demonstrate notability. Compare this, for example, to the guideline WP:ACADEMIC, where we assume a person is notable if they occupy a named chair or are editor-in-chief of a notable journal, which is also based on the reasoning that universities/publishers know better than us and only get above-average academics for this kind of positions. Finally, if we decide that this particular journal is not notable, then >95% of our articles on academic journals should be deleted. Would that really improve the encyclopedia? --Randykitty (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-close properly. People may !vote at AFD to override notability requirements and the consensus may, on occasion, be to de so. The criteria are by way of guidance – guidance that may sometimes be inappropriate. For example, community consensus may have changed but the documentation has not yet been updated, or the guidance may never have been sufficiently nuanced to deal with a particular situation. Also the !voters understanding of notability may be better than that of the person making the close. Thincat (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved); consensus is determined by by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy; through that lens this close was correct. If some editors here would prefer a different result then the correct response in to get the cited essay promoted to a policy or guideline and then overturn this close on that basis. BilledMammal (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every opinion had quality arguments behind it. That the arguments aren't official policy is irrelevant, because policy is meant to reflect consensus. When consensus differs from "official" policy, consensus trumps policy because policies/guidelines/etc is not expected to be able to get the nuance of every situation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've always been a bit confused how the WP:IAR policy intersects with the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy. In this specific case, one observation is that if Keep voters were voting on an WP:IAR basis, they probably should have done so explicitly so the closer could interpret their arguments more clearly. Suriname0 (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments here and at the AFD I find very helpful. How does a very well informed impartial observer know that the AFD discussion represented merely a "local consensus". Is there somewhere to look or ask to discover a possibly different global consensus? Clearly some people here and at the AFD seem to know that there should not be an article, but how do they know? Where do we find the "lens of Wikipedia policy" as it applies to this article? WP:NOTABILITY is a likely place to look but it only offers guidance, not instruction, for how to assess an article. It seems to me that at that point people can take a view (hopefully giving reasons). Whether those reasons necessarily involve IAR is up to the individual. Thincat (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to interpret my !vote as IAR, that's fine with me. If this journal gets deleted, the vast majority of journal articles would be open to deletion, which most certainly would leave the encyclopedia poorer. --Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The simple solution to that would be to get WP:NJOURNALS made into a guideline; I'm not sure why that isn't the path that people are taking? BilledMammal (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You took part in the recent long consensus-free discussion/arguments attempting to propose that it be made into a guideline as a pretext for deprecating it, and yet you think that would be a "simple solution" and you don't understand why others disagree? Or is this some form of sarcasm that I don't recognize? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a simple solution; if this isn't a local consensus, then there will be a consensus to promote NJOURNALS to a guideline. If this is a local consensus (and thus the close is correct) then it won't be.

If people aren't willing to make that proposal then I can only assume that the reason is because they don't believe that there will a consensus for this proposal - in other words, they believe that this is a local consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You took part in the discussion. You observed that there was no consensus, neither for one side nor for the other in that discussion. And yet you are insisting that the lack of consensus there means that one of the two sides is correct and that the other side's opinions must be completely discarded. I'm going to put this down as "willfully obtuse" rather than sarcasm. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten about that RfC; thank you for reminding me. That result gives the closer no option other than to disqualify the !votes based on criterion one as a local consensus.

I would still, however, encourage that an RfC on promoting the entire essay to a guideline be opened - and if it continues being cited I might do so myself. BilledMammal (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it will actually help any on this topic but can we please relist this, and leave the close instead as a comment (administrativeor otherwise) or delete opinion? Thanks. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen and relist per David Eppstein, though I will add that the WP:DRV listing may have been premature, as closing admin Spartaz may yet have been prevailed upon to relist in their talk page discussion. In cases like these, relisting is overwhelmingly the best practice, as it creates opportunities not just for additional opinions, but additional development of the article itself. BD2412 T 17:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As an aside, it is remarkable how varied these journal AfDs can turn out. Here we have a journal that easily clears NJournals. And here we have a journal that is an epic fail of NJournals and GNG, but still gets multiple "keep" !votes based on arguments like "it's a peer-reviewed academic journal". Go figure. --Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen: I didn't participate in this AfD, but as someone who has participated in dozens of journal AfDs over many years, WP:NJournals is a hard-won compromise among editors in the academic journal field that has been used as a guideline for notability in AfD discussions for many years. Using the essay isn't a one-off IAR, it is adhering to a longstanding consensus. The closer may not have been aware of this history and so made a flawed call. I'll also note that the indices don't just provide, e.g., an impact factor, they usually have a good bit a basic information about the journal that is good, verified-by-an-RS content. That content by itself often supports an infobox and a short stub of an article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think "adhering to a longstanding consensus" is a bit of an exaggeration. User:Vanderwaalforces closed the RfC from last month as no consensus, writing in part that "views are divided on whether the inclusion of a journal in selective citation indices alone should be considered sufficient for establishing notability." Suriname0 (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry for not being clear, I'm taking the long view, over the past 8-10 years or so. As I said, this has been a hard-fought consensus and not every editor is on board. But if you look at the history of journal AfDs, most, and nearly every journal AfD I've participated in, have been judged against NJournals. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, thanks for clarifying! Suriname0 (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist - The close was a supervote. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - Clear supervote and dismissal of the consensus established. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - There clearly is not consensus to delete/redirect. I don't see policy-based consensus to keep either. While an overturn to no consensus could be appropriate as well, I think relisting will allow time for consensus to be driven one way or the other (particularly with added visibility from this DRV). Frank Anchor 13:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) - Nobody even tried to post not even one source that met WP:N (WP:GNG), as far as I can see, nor were ther any in the article. All the "keep, meets NJOURNALS" votes were properly discounted. All that's left is the obvious WP:ATD of redirect. If Wikipedia guidelines and consensus policy is to mean anything, closers must be allowed to discount AFD votes that don't properly apply N. "Keep, meets [essay]" is a throwaway vote. NJOURNALS is an essay. Levivich (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is an accurate description of events. My comment in the AfD listed three independent reliably-published prose sources [10] [11] [12] and during the AfD one of these and one other were added to the article [13]. There was no discussion within the AfD of whether these were in-depth, but I think one of them at least may be, and my edit summary adding it to the article says so [14]. In addition, plenty of the comments described the indexes about the articles as being the necessary reliable sources for them; whether the summary information provided by an index counts as an in-depth source is a matter of ongoing debate, but it is disingenuous to claim that listing such sources was not attempted. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you or anyone in the discussion suggest any of those met GNG? Are you now suggesting any of those meet GNG? Levivich (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the edit summary I linked above strongly implying that the source it added contributed to GNG? Or are you now just throwing out rhetorical questions to distract from the point that your endorse comment here is based on airy nothing? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary is irrelevant as it isn't part of the AfD discussion. Levivich (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you said about those sources in the discussion: "I can find books calling it a technical journal [1], "a technical journal that almost comes into the magazine category" [2], or a monthly magazine [3] but without much detail that would help explain those labels."

You did not even suggest those sources met GNG in the discussion, in fact you seemed to concede they didn't ("without much detail" doesn't sound like SIGCOV). If you're now saying that one or more do meet GNG, that might be a reason to reopen. But right now I'm not seeing that any of those three meet GNG, nor am I seeing you or anyone else argue that they do. Levivich (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the sources do or do not meet GNG is not a matter for this DRV to decide. What is clear is that (1) sources were presented during the discussion and during improvements to the article over the course of the discussion, (2) the effect of those sources on the notability of the subject was not adequately addressed during the discussion, (3) it would have been reasonable for a closer to relist, noting the lack of focus on those sources within the discussion in a relist comment, but instead the close statement totally ignored them, and (4) your endorse comment here falsely presents that situation as "no sources were provided". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "no sources were provided." Levivich (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (commenting as participant). Tossing out !votes because they make no argument to any kind of encyclopedia-worthiness is one thing; this close was something else. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I can only see one person apart from the nominator who supported getting rid of the article (JoelleJay). That's not enough to support a closure of Delete or Redirect. If the debate had only consisted of the nomination and JoelleJay's comment then it would have been either relisted, closed as soft delete or closed as no consensus. In fact the debate consisted of that plus a load of people who supported keeping the article. If we close as Redirect then we're saying, perversely, that a bunch of people supporting keeping the article made it possible for the article to be deleted. Furthermore the GNG is not a core policy, it's a guideline which allows occasional exceptions, and AfDs can occasionally keep things which don't meet the notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 18:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The merit of the arguments notwithstanding, it's very difficult to see how an AfD with five keeps, one delete, and three comments could be closed with a consensus to redirect; even if all of the arguments to keep were horrendously bad, it's just not the case that the discussion resulted in a consensus to delete or to redirect. jp×g 23:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, supervote closure. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (uninvolved), as a clear supervote closure and one of several questionable closes by the user in question. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. There can be cases where a discussion closes like this despite lopsided naive counts, but it generally involves 1 !voter being a respected expert and the 5 voters being recruited randoms from Reddits voting based on ILIKEIT. That wasn't the case here. The way notability essays gain power is precisely via the consensus of the community. If the closer truly felt that this essay has no power, they need to !vote that, not close with a supervote. SnowFire (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I agree with the closer that the keep arguments are generally weak and discounting weak contributions in a deletion discussion is core to our methods. I agree with the DR nominator (and others) that the conclusion of the closer is a supervote not reflective of the discussion. That said, I have no problem with allowing discretionary decision making to closers, but such discretion should be exercised at the point when a discussion is exhausted, which I do not necessarily see from this discussion, especially as there was a fence-sitting contributor. I'd suggest a better intervention here would have been for the closer to either contribute with a !vote to redirect or to have relisted, noting the weakness of the keep arguements and seeking to direct/concentrate the discussion further. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Seems to be a clear supervote by the closer. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

African eelephant – Deletion endorsed * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This page is being used as an example at Wikipedia:Redlink examples and Wikipedia:Red link, however I believe that this fits the criteria at WP:RPURPOSE "[l]ikely misspellings", and that therefore it is more important for it to be a redirect to African elephant than an example at Wikipedia:Redlink examples. Therefore, I think it should be un-salted, recreated as a redirect and removed from Wikipedia:Redlink examples and Wikipedia:Red link. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 13:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible misspelling, and not a common typo (603 ghits, and only 19 different enough from each other that Google doesn't collapse them, including WP:Redlink examples). I'd endorse this if it had been deleted as an R3 instead of a hoax, so keep salted. Further, n o n e o f t h e o t h e r letter-doubling typos of "African elephant" have ever existed except for African eleephant (which I'll be taking to RFD when this DRV concludes, on the off chance we have to go through the full process for this one too), and neither has eelephant, so I can't help thinking you're bringing African eelephant up solely to make some kind of disruptive point. —Cryptic 16:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic: Firstly, no, I'm not trying to make any kind of disruptive point (I just noticed this randomly). Secondly, I believe that plausible means that it is "conceivably true or likely" (quoting Wiktionary). Therefore I think it is plausible someone could accidentally type "African eelephant". Even if only 50 people per year use the redirect, it is still a useful redirect. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 11:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'll note that both Wikipedia's search function and most mainstream search engines are smart enough to correct for minor typos like these. As Cryptic alludes to above, it's impractical to have redirects for every typo of this kind, and not particularly useful either. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matr1x-101: By the way, isn't this the incorrect venue for this discussion? ~~Deletions under CSD G3 are eligible for appeal at RfU.~~ —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Requests for undeletion's header says not to ask for G3s, but more to the point, they won't restore anything controversial - and the creation protection shows that it is. This is the best venue, though WP:RFPP sometimes deals with unsaltings too. —Cryptic 01:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I misread that sentence and thought that those were the accepted CSDs for that venue. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation based on WP:R#KEEP, #5 stating in part, Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody has claimed that they'd find this useful, just speculated (contrary to evidence) that someone else might. —Cryptic 05:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation of redirect because redirects are cheap. If it has been mentioned as an example of a misspelling, that is close enough. Redirects are cheap, and an element is a massive beast weighing several tons. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been mentioned as an example of an implausible misspelling. That doesn't make it plausible. —Cryptic 05:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Cryptic: I don't understand what you mean by "it is implausible". You said that it has 603 ghits. I think you're forgetting that redirects are cheap; there's at least a few people (maybe ~20 being conservative) per year that would make this misspelling as evidenced by the ghits, and use this redirect in a year. There is no reason not to have this redirect. — MATRIX! (a good person!)^{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much!]} 11:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  There were 19 non-duplicate hits among 603 mirrors and other duplicates (more now), and the last redirect created to illustrate this point has gotten three hits this year - about as many as you'd expect from people seeing it on WhatLinksHere and wondering wtf it's doing there. —Cryptic 12:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Cryptic: Still, I don't believe that there is a good reason not to have the redirect. If you zoom out and look at the redirect you mentioned's history from it's inception (small note: I have omitted everything pre-2017 since that was mostly vandalism), you can see that there are regular misspellings happening, and that this redirect is therefore somewhat useful. — MATRIX! (a good person!)^{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much!]} 14:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The only significant hits were caused entirely because it was still linked from WP:Red_link until late 2019 and still on its talk page until June 2020. Hits from an actually-plausible misspelling not caused by internal-to-Wikipedia discussion look like this. —Cryptic 15:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Cryptic: Still, redirects are cheap. What's a reason not to have this redirect? Even if a sixteenth of that traffic was legitimate, that's still something. — MATRIX! (a good person!)^{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much!]} 15:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The red link page has to have an example of an unnecessary red link. People think it is enormously funny to then create the target so that it's blue. As explained above, redirects like this are not necessary and are impossible in practice (how many misspellings of each word in a title are there?). The pageviews are because it's a red link example. Johnuniq (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I know you meant it rhetorically, but I've already looked at the numbers. For just this class of typo - adding an extra copy of a single letter - it would be between 114,905,950 and 305,143,807 redirects, so 8½-22½ times as many redirects as currently exist. That's the number of times letters appear in the titles of pages in the main namespace, including (the high number) or not including (the low) other redirects like Loxodonta. They're both minor overcounts because they count already-doubled letters (like the f in giraffe) twice, and don't account for cases where redirects for such a doubling represent either another subject (like Cerone/Cerrone) or are reasonable misspellings that already exist (like Lattitude). —Cryptic 02:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Creating this as a redirect to African elephant seems like exactly the kind of redirect that WP:PANDORA warns against. Wikipedia's search, as poor as it is, is sufficient to get readers to the article they are looking for here; and whether or not this is a plausible misspelling I don't think it is a particularly likely one: certainly not significantly more likely than Aafrican elephant, Affrican elephant etc. none of which are redirects. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Allow recreation~~ as a reasonable misspelling per WP:RPURPOSE. Frank Anchor 13:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to neutral. I do maintain this is a plausible misspelling. However, if this was included as a redirect, where would we draw the line for what is and isn't an acceptable redirect? A search with this misspelling would likely reachthe intended result anyway (see this serach for "eelephant") Frank Anchor 12:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If we allow re-creation, then we'll probably need to have a separate discussion about replacing the example in Wikipedia:Red link. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not particularly useful as a misspelled redirect: redirects are cheap but we should not have redirects for all possible combinations of doubled letters or transpositions in article titles, and I see no compelling argument that this misspelling is particularly likely. More, adding this as a redirect would destroy its value as an example of a redlink. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Such a redirect would likely be deleted at RfD, so its creation should not be allowed here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No action. This is not plausible, and process for process' sake. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have undone the nominator's withdrawal due to there being arguments against endorsement. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]
But why? There seems to be a clear consensus against allowing recreation. — MATRIX! (a good person!)^{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much!]} 10:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is long-established practice that an XFD or DRV ceases to be the "property" of the nominator once it has been opened, and if anyone has independently expressed the same view as the nominator, the discussion should be seen out for its usual duration in the absence of a WP:SNOW-level of consensus. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 October 2023

19 October 2023

Global Day of Jihad – Withdrawn by HLHJ Star Mississippi 12:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

WITHDRAWN by requester. HLHJ (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found myself fixing and expanding some content on the day in question at Protests on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#13 October. The term "global day of jihad" was apparently created by rumour, mistranslation, and incautious journalism. The day was a non-event as far as terrorist attacks go. But the rumours had their foundation in a call for protests, and a day of protest did happen, and fears of violence on the day lead to bans on pro-Palestine and pro-Hamas protests in some countries, so it seemed reasonable to give some coverage in an article on protests. It is also a topic with a lot of misinformation, which it took forever to sift through, so some Wikipedia coverage seems desirable.

The deletion discussion contained a number of statements that, while the subject didn't merit a stand-alone article, some related content in another article would be appropriate. There are (I think) no statements to the opposite effect. Would a redirect to {{anchor|Global day of jihad|Global day of rage}} in the Protests on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#13 October section be appropriate?

I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing the original closure. "Redirect to non-existent content that may be written in the future" would not have been a sensible closure, there was no consensus about where content might be merged to, and the content I'm suggesting as a redirect target didn't exist. HLHJ (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a request for a redirect and not a re-creation of an article HLHJ (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. The dominant, uncontested argument at AfD was not that the content was bad and needed fixing or expanding. It was that the subject did not exist; it was a hoax (or mistranslation at best).

Additionally, it's worth keeping in mind that this hoax has already claimed a child's life, and it felt awful that Wikipedia kept perpetuating it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think having the facts here is makes it less likely similar things would happen than having nothing, but I'm sometimes too optimistic about the human condition. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you have a point, too. Why not including hoaxes and calling them out. Still, that would need a fundamental rewrite, basically WP:BLOWITUP (no pun intended, sorry). — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Hobit, Kashmiri. When researching this, it was much easier to find misinformation than accurate information. Stuff like articles claiming that every act of violence that happened worldwide on the 13th was related (only the killing of the 6-year-old seems to be); one has a headline that begins "Global knife frenzy". The standard of journalism is often awful. I think it's somewhere between gross incompetence and a hoax; a translation error and inadvertent distortion in transmission, aided by a willingness to believe the worst of an enemy and turbocharged by war propaganda, uncritically repeated by independent journalists who should know better.

I haven't seen the presumably-awful content of the article that was deleted. I don't propose resurrecting that article. I wrote some content from scratch, correcting the (mis)information on this topic that was in the protest aticle. I'm proposing we redirect the deleted article to that section. If there is anything in that section that needs a re-write, please let me know. HLHJ (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse It seems uncontested that this meets the GNG given the sourcing in the AfD. However, WP:NEWSEVENT applies and the discussion leaned pretty hard into it not being met. I don't see any possible way this could have been kept given both the strength of arguments and the numbers. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to come here to recreate this as a redirect, and since Protests on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Global day of jihad explicitly mentions this phrase and correctly characterizes it as a distortion, I don't think anyone would object. (And if they do, RFD is thataway.) —Cryptic 19:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- original relister I think I've messed up this process. I do NOT want to recreate this article; I want to turn it into a redirect to the linked section in the protest article. Cryptic, are you saying I should just have done that, and there was no need for this relisting, and I am wasting the time of all commentators, most of whom seem to think this is a request to recreate the article? If so, I owe you all apologies, and I would like to withdraw this request. I think deleting the article was a good call. HLHJ (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @HLHJ This process is essentially about undeleting a deleted article – it's a review of the original close, and editors opine whether the close was correct or incorrect given the consensus or its lack. But if you only want the term to redirect somewhere, then indeed this is a wrong process – redirects can be created without any discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Great. Done. Apologies to everyone. I thought since there was a discussion with no consensus for a redirect, I needed a new discussion to get consensus for a redirect. I would like to withdraw this request for review. I made it in error. HLHJ (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have preferred a justification provided for why this AFD was closed several days early. I'm not challenging the closure decision but a brief closure statement explaining the decision is usually helpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Clearly not a snowball's chance of any strong arguments for keeping it. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Relist~~ and allow it to run a full seven days. While it was trending delete, it certainly was not a WP:SNOW delete that warranted being closed two full days early (especially with WP:ATDs like merge and redirect receiving support). Frank Anchor 22:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to neutral to not hold up closure per above request to withdraw DRV. Frank Anchor 10:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the early closure of Delete as a valid snow closure. The consensus was continuing to trend toward deletion, even though some editors were calling for alternatives. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Green Gully Reserve – Consensus seems to be to endorse and allow RFD discussion on retargeting only. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Firstly, I wanted a correct redirect, so I posted at RfD but for some bizarre reason admin Thryduulf closed my redirect for discussion and wouldn't allow anyone else to take part in that, so we are now back here, simply because I wanted Green Gully Reserve redirected to the right place. Now to begin with, Green Gully Reserve mainly and largely is a Park. There is a large park area, with grounds for people to walk through, ride a bike. There is a stadium in the park area, with other football patches, tennis and an enclosed dog area. So why o why would you redirect a whole park, all these other venues to a football club. Simply being, this was a bad close and WP:COMMONSENSE was lacked from multiple people here at the AfD. I would prefer the article to be kept, in my view there is just enough in the citations to warrant an article. However the next logical step would be to redirect to Keilor Downs, Victoria and merge there. That was not done. This AfD really needed more participation from other souls. To me, there were a number of bad actions at this AfD which still need to be rectified. Hence why we are here. Govvy (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse There was consensus that the venue did not have standalone notability but there was not consensus to delete, so redirect is the correct outcome. A retargeting discussion can take place at WP:RFD. I saw an RFD discussion was started and procedurally closed on this article, but it could easily be restarted after this DRV is closed, if it is specifically brought up as a retargeting discussion. Frank Anchor 12:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as RFD closer. I procedurally closed the RfD (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 15#Green Gully Reserve) because the nomination rationale was almost entirely about contesting the AfD close, and the follow-up to my first comment made this motivation seem clearer. The closure was without prejudice to either a deletion review challenge of the AfD close or to an RfD nomination that was not based on challenging the AfD, as I explained on my talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Govvy, it's genuinely unclear from your statements both here and at the RFD whether you're primarily disputing whether this title should be a redirect, or merely where it should redirect to. In the latter case, the AFD doesn't preclude either a retargeting RFD or merging some of its content to its target, just that it shouldn't exist as a stand-alone article; and while some griping at an RFD might be tolerated, Thryduulf's closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 15#Green Gully Reserve was reasonable because it looked like you were primarily arguing for the article's restoration. —Cryptic 16:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse:
- The closing of the AFD as Redirect as reflecting consensus.
- The procedural closing of the RFD.
  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the appellant wants Green Gully Reserve directs to somewhere else, they should say where, and file a new RFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Robert McClenon: I said to redirect to Keilor Downs, Victoria I really can't understand why people can't see the wood through the trees, and I am not even being cryptic! :/ Govvy (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see that User:Govvy did specify the target. I didn't see it earlier because it was hidden in plain sight in a small wall of text. My Endorse is unchanged. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, there is a DRV tag at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Gully Reserve, which I closed, so even though your explanation here is about a RFD discussion are you contesting the AFD closure as well? If not, then the DRV tag should be put on the RFD discussion instead. Sorry to be so bureaucratic, I just want to know if I'm involved in this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Liz: I simply wanted to redirect to Keilor Downs, Victoria. That's what I tried to explain on the RfD page before Thryduulf closed it. I still don't get wikipedia at times! :/ Govvy (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you've been here as long as I have you'll understand it even less! Thincat (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD close as consensus was for a redirect. We don't need seven days here and a minimum of seven days at RfD so let's see if we can go on a bureaucracy diet. If nom is satisfied despite disagreeing with the close as redirect, let the RfD run to determine best target. If nom prefers a standalone article, let this run to establish whether the AfD was closed incorrectly. Star Mississippi 00:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments It's clear to me, those that endorse have not even bothered to read the original article, my reconstructed article, nor the AfD. If all those that endorse this, then I suggest to do an RfD to repoint Central Park to New York Yankees. Because that is what everyone has just an equivalent of. Govvy (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbole isn't going to help your cause here @Govvy. That analogy is absurd. Please stop assuming bad faith just because you disagree with the outcome. Star Mississippi 12:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: lol, you make me laugh, I am not assuming bad faith, I am assuming incompetence. Govvy (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Okay let me try and keep this simple, what are people endorsing?? So the article should be about a park, but I was looking at WP:GEOLAND, I would assume the article should be covered by that. I am still confused, why GEOLAND and WP:GEONATURAL is ignored. The geography is ignored by other editors, the only one that posted such information was the nominator of the article, geography should be redirected to geography, not a football club. The closer shouldn't have followed consensus to be redirected to the football club. That is plan and simple. If you look at one source [15], you can see on the map provided on the source, what they call the dog area! That whole land is the upper part of Green Gully Reserve, that, they haven't put the lower part or all of the Green Gully Reserve area in the map. How large is the Green Gully Reserve area, well, again, what are people endorsing? This GEOFEAT be redirected too a football club???? Govvy (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two separate questions here:
1. Should Green Gully Reserve be an article or a redirect?
2. If it is a redirect, what should the target be?
In pretty much every single one of your statements you have not made it clear to anybody else which question you are addressing.
- If you want to address the first question then you need to state that clearly here and explain here why you think the AfD process was flawed. Leave out all the comments about the target of the redirect as that is not relevant.
- If you want to address the second question then you should state that clearly here. After this discussion is closed you should start a new discussion at RfD that address only what you think the target of the redirect should be and why, leave out everything to do with the AfD as that's irrelevant to the discussion.
Unless you do one of these things then people are going to continue not understanding you and you (and likely others) will just get more frustrated. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Govvy in case you missed my comment immediately above. You need to take one of the above actions to clarify your intent if you want any kind of resolution. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 24 October 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 October 2023

M43 (Durban) – Closure endorsed. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Despite the consensus that WP:GEOROAD applies, the AfD was closed as delete. The reasoning to delete was incredibly flawed, as SNGs trump GNG. Also, the closer said that the article was unsourced, which is simply untrue. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The appellant is simply mistaken in saying that SNGs trump GNG. The SNG to which she refers is worded to say that numbered roads are usually notable, which subordinates the SNG to general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears that the closer overrode the consensus based on policy. A temporary undeletion is requested to review whether Keep would have been inconsistent with policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last edit before deletion removed almost all of the article, because it was, indeed, unsourced. I'll go further and say that nothing in the infobox or remaining sentence is sourced, either, except for the single factoid that Ushukela (which isn't even sourced to be the same as M43!) used to be called Watson Drive. Endorse. —Cryptic 18:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're gonna be so bold as to throw GEOROAD out of the window, then at least bold your endorsement. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GEOROAD says this subject "cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG". In so many words. —Cryptic 18:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With respect please don't police the contributions of editors. Discussions are not a vote any many of us don't bold recommendations as we prefer the closer to read our comment in its entirety rather than just count bold comments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse as a case where consensus and policy conflicted, which should not happen, and the closer chose to follow policy rather than consensus, which is the almost right thing to do, because there is no right thing. ~~I am basing this on the word of both User:Spartaz and User:Cryptic that the~~The article was unsourced, and so deletion was indicated by the verifiability policy, which is non-negotiable. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to take our word, since it's been temp-undeleted. That's less obvious since the title had been recreated as a redirect, rather than brought to DRV as a redlink. The last pre-deletion version is linked in the header as "article", an esoteric feature of {{DRV links}} that had apparently been used only once before I stumbled across it last week; maybe it could do with a more explicit label like "revision". —Cryptic 19:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Spartaz and Cryptic are not throwing WP:GEOROAD out the window. They are throwing an unsourced article out the window. WP:GEOROAD, like most notability guides, has to do with what is reported by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation of Draft with proper sources. This is not what the appellant is requesting, but is what she may request. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I participated in the AfD. The closer made a policy based close. The appellant made up their mind very early and even questioned the admin who granted the AfD nominator's perm. Kudos to the closer for weighing policy and SNG. I think we could likely throw out the last keep as a flawed rationale and we might have a no consensus anyway. Lightburst (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Leaving Weak Endorse standing. It is weak not because I hadn't seen the deleted article but because I will only give a weak endorse to a closer who overrides consensus because consensus was wrong. User:Spartaz was in a no-win situation and didn't lose. The one reference was completely useless, and therefore the article failed verifiability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (AfD nominator) The closer came to a decision based on policy which was the right move. Further, to address the appellant's arguemnts– The reasoning to delete was incredibly flawed, as SNGs trump GNG. Also, the closer said that the article was unsourced, which is simply untrue.: GEOROAD states that roads "are presumed to be notable IF they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject." Which means that in this case, GEOROAD and GNG essentially have the same notability requirements. For an article with only one source, that doesn't provide SIGCOV, rather one passing mention in a list, and doesn't even mention the author on the website, it cannot be considered a reliable source, and doesn't verify anything in article (apart from 5 words). It doesn't even make mention of "M43". ––– GMH MELBOURNE 01:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - delete was a viable close as the delete votes appeared to be based more in policy than the keep votes, which were based more in guidelines. No consensus would have been a viable close as well. No prejudice against recreation of a properly sourced article. Frank Anchor 02:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never* endorse my own closes but I'd like to note that the nominator didn't have the courtesy of engaging with me before raising the DRV. *=Hardly ever Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was an oversight on my part, sorry. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOROAD states that a national, state, or provincial highway is "typically notable" which creates a presumption of notability, which can be rebutted. It states that a "county road" would need to be covered in multiple sources. The presumption would be rebutted if an AFD came to a consensus that the article should be deleted. That means that in the absence of such as consensus, the article should be kept – because there is a presumption of notability. (This contrasts with, for example, the football player wars of the last two years, where policy was eventually amended to state that there is no presumption that a footballer who has played at $whatever level is notable. In other areas, meeting either GNG or a relevant SNG suffices to prove notability.)
Assessing the debate, LilianaUWU and Necrothesp's contributions are bare assertions. Geko72290's is little better, an argument that it just needs to be expanded and there are other articles like this, neither of which go to the level of asserting, much less proving, notability. Dough4872 only states that the road "isn't a county road". On the delete side, again we have thin gruel. Ritchie333's argument stands out by stating there are no material sources, but the other arguments add little beyond asserting opinions of what type of road it is.
All in all, the debate fails to reach a consensus on whether the road is a "national, state, or provincial highway" or a "county road", and fails to reach a consensus on whether to delete it. The proper outcome of the debate was no consensus, not delete, and therefore it should be overturned. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline that GEOROAD redirects into the middle of, Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), states unequivocally that features can't be notable unless they have non-map significant coverage. "Typically notable" means they'll typically have coverage, not that they'll be typically kept regardless of coverage. Further, the page this now redirects to, Metropolitan Routes in Durban, has sources substantiating its statement that numbered M roads are at a level below regional roads (which GEOROAD puts in the same category as the "county roads" oft-repeated in the afd). —Cryptic 15:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not what "typically notable" means. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (note: I !voted "delete" at the AfD) Spartaz' close was well thought out and was based on policies. A redirect (where the page currently stands) is a reasonable compromise, but not one that was asked for by anyone, so that can't realistically be a result. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a handful of passing mentions in this source from Metropolitan Routes in Durban, though it's primary amd I don't think they add up to significant coverage even when taken together. —Cryptic 01:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The OP and one other participant from the AfD have been blocked by a checkuser so they may be unresponsive to pings here. Lightburst (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the block suggested canvassing may have taken place during the AfD, meaning the AfD's consensus may be unreliable. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That can't be an issue, though, because the AfD was closed against the numerical consensus anyway.—S Marshall T/C 18:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. WP:GEOROAD says this type of road is generally notable. I don't see a pertinent reason to WP:IGNORE this rule. No comment on the canvassing or Liliana's block. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 18:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Meeting GEOROADS != establishing notability, it is merely a rebuttable presumption that N will be met. Spartaz correctly down-weighted the !votes that merely asserted the topic met an SNG (something that doesn't seem be a consensus, either) without engaging with the apparent total lack of sourcing to support N (not to mention V).

JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (involved). WP:GEOROAD creates a presumption of notability. An SNG cannot specify a higher standard for notability than GNG, but it can certainly allow for a lower standard. Given this, there was no good reason to go against the majority view at AfD. Citing WP:V is a complete red herring, as its existence can certainly be verified and, as everyone should know, sourcing is about what's available, not what's currently in the article. Keep at best, no consensus at worst. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse WP:V takes precedence over all notability guidelines. The article and the AfD don't include sourcing to support the statement that the subject exists, the one source cited in either says only that somebody proposed renaming a street called "Watson Highway" in Durban to "Ushukela", and doesn't mention M43 at all. Even if it is true that metropolitan roads in South Africa are considered notable under WP:GEOROAD (which seems to be at least debatable), no source was provided to support the assertion that it's a metropolitan road. AfD closers are required to ensure that their closes are consistent with core policies, including verifiability. Hut 8.5 11:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 October 2023

16 October 2023

Diaspora (video game) – Deletion overwhelmingly endorsed, with article restored to draftspace for further work. Daniel (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This page was kept following an earlier prod because it satisified significant coverage, notability, etc, the previous prod was not discussed in the most recent prod, I have evidence of significant coverage, somebody in the prod also linked to eurogamer which is significant coverage but for some reason it was disregarded Mikesc86 (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article passed prod in 2007. In 2011 administrator Marasmusine was previously involved and kept the page following this evidence, a review in PC Gamer (see my talk page) https://image.bayimg.com/eadbkaaba.jpg. This Wikipedia article should be restored on the basis it satisfied WP:SIGCOV from PC Gamer and Eurogamer which are both WP:RS. Mikesc86 (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines state "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" but as this article previously passed a PROD, this was an abuse of process. If objection to a previous PROD kept an article, objection to a new PROD should be expected on the game grounds. Guidelines also state "PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD" - so again, processes were not followed. This newest PROD is invalid. Mikesc86 (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn~~ - significant evidence provided, Wikipedia processes asbued/not followed correctly regarding previous PROD Mikesc86 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking !vote as you are the nominator. Daniel (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It was deleted at AfD, not PROD. Consensus can and does change as reflected by the 2022 discussion. Please note your nomination is considered a request to overturn the closure, so please don't repeat your vote. You're welcome to create a new draft if there is improved sourcing. Star Mississippi 12:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you endorse when I've provided notable sources that have previously been acknowledged by a Wikipedia admin who kept the article? Mikesc86 (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said "if there is improved sourcing" but the sourcing remains the same, the AfD discussion just didn't take it in to account and it previously satisfied a Wikipedia admin Mikesc86 (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the 2011 assessment does not necessarily apply to a 2022 discussion. WP:CCC] Star Mississippi 01:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - procedure was followed correctly based on AFD nom. An incorrect PROD was made in good faith, then was procedurally removed and the article was sent to AFD. Relisting would also have been a viable option considering the low attendance and agreement among the delete voters that there was at least one GNG-passing source. However, I see little value in relisting this discussion a year later. No objection to restoring article (and history) to draftspace. Frank Anchor 13:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason for its deletion seems to have been WP:SIGCOV. The discussion did not take not of previous attempts to delete this article. If you look at my talk page you'll see I engaged with a Wikipedia admin and provided a significant source (PC Gamer magazine), and somebody in the AfD discussion provided Eurogamer which is a significant source of coverage. My argument isn't just that correct procedures weren't followed, it's that the article satisfied WP:SIGCOV and the sources are WP:RS, which means it shouldn't have been deleted on those grounds. Mikesc86 (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is not the place to relitigate the AFD discussion. There was unanimous consensus among the involved participants that there was not sufficient coverage. As I already stated, I have no objection to restoring the article to draft space so a new article, with sufficient sourcing, can be produced. Frank Anchor 13:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As nobody has linked to the AfD discussion, here it is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diaspora (video game). Based on that discussion it's a good close (and yes, the previous PRODs are indeed mentioned there). WaggersTALK 15:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the "XfD" in the list of links immediately after the header. —Cryptic 16:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Liz made the correct decision based on comments at the AfD and sources provided. I'm ok with restoring to draft space if new sources are available that weren't't mentioned in the AfD.

@Mikesc86, it would have been helpful had you participated in the AfD. It looks like you took a long wikibreak and missed it. That's OK - you're not required to check in every day or even every year. I took an even longer wikibreak. I recommend that you enable "email this user" in your Wikipedia settings. That way, if someone leaves a message on your talk page, you'll hear about it.

Thanks for editing and welcome back.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as procedure was followed appropriately. Concur with A. B. on restoring to draft. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. Relist would also have been correct, but delete was correct. DRV is not AFD round 2 (or 3). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation of Draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, uncontroversial close. No objection to restoring to draft. —siro χ o 18:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) but restore to draftspace. (Note I am involved as I voted in this AfD a year ago). The close was uncontroversial and a valid conclusion. However, with two sources that likely contribute towards GNG, there is a plausible case for notability. As such, this should be restored to draftspace with the new sourcing incorporated, which can then be moved to mainspace subject to a new AfD if needed. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion review assesses whether deletion process has been properly followed. It is not for cases where you simply disagree with the consensus arrived at. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse an uncontroversial close with the correct determination. Lightburst (talk) 19:04, 19 October 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 October 2023

Chris Bell (British Army officer) – Closure endorsed as within administrator's discretion. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This is a really tricky case. There appear to be very limited (probably two) reliable independent sources about the subject. Most of the keep !votes were about a (significant) award won (CBE) or significant rank held, and were not about sources. Neither a CBE nor being a general meets our inclusion guidelines. Most of the delete !votes focused on this being a biographical article of a relatively unknown, non-public figure, who requested deletion. And I think this was leaning toward deletion until a Linkedin page was found indicating he was doing consulting based on his old job. I don't think such a thing matters for purposes of our deletion policy (I don't think it makes him a public figure for example).

So given A) the !vote was slightly leaning toward deletion even after some folks struck their !vote after the Linkedin page was found, and that I believe the arguments for deletion were a lot stronger than the arguments to keep, I believe the outcome should have been to delete. But even beyond that, our policy specifically allows a no consensus outcome to result in delete in this case. The closer chose to not do that because they read policy to allow for such an outcome "when the material in the BLP presents the subject inaccurately." As far as I can tell, that isn't a part of our guidelines or policies. The closer, when questioned, didn't provide a justification I could understand for why they feel that's the bar here. Discussion with the closer is at User talk:Seraphimblade#Chris Bell AfD query.

In summary, I think that this discussion probably should have been closed as "delete" and even if NC was the right close it should have been deleted in line with WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Hobit (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC) ~[reply]

Endorse closure as no-consensus. The BLP deletion request was made in bad faith. The article’s subject painted himself as a sickly broken man suffering distress from the article. His request was pitiful to read.

Among other things (all very positive), the article reported Bell been forced out of the Royal Army over a personal scandal. This was properly referenced.

Late in the AfD, it came out that Bell was hardly a broken man but actually quite robust and actively marketing himself and his consulting practice.

Multiple editors like myself had !voted “delete” on BLPREQUESTDELETE grounds. Some of us subsequently changed from “delete” to “keep” after learning General Bell had made his rapid physical recovery and return to affluence. The man was clearly notable, starting with his CBE among other things.

The WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE request was made under false pretenses.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why a person can't have serious mental issues and have a job. Even be affluent. I'll admit to feeling like I was played, but I don't think there is enough evidence to conclude that. But even if he was playing us, I don't think that's relevant to the decision. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's very relevant. Many of the deletes were based on the OP's pleadings, giving the preception that their mental health, (and actual life!), was at risk, becuase of our article, when that was not likely the case at all. As was pointed out in the discussion, this subject led an information warfare unit, they knew what they were doing with that post. (Plus people with "serious mental issues" don't have the kind of jobs he had, with the background checks, mental health screenings and security clearences that go with it.) Many of the delete !votes were due to that perception, and though some deletes were changed as more information came to light (his website, Linkdin, etc.), try to imagine the !vote tally if there wasn't any manipulation to begin with. - wolf 04:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think second guessing the subject's mental state either from the initial request or from his LinkedIn page is a mugs game. But BLPREQUESTDELETE doesn't require that we know the subject is suicidal for it to apply, and neither should it. That is not a thing crowds judge well. The fact is the page was requested to be removed. The question was whether it should be, and that rests on the level of notability. No significant sources were discussed in the AfD although there was evidence there of some notability. One very good source was added to the article - good enough that in most cases arguments that sources should be multiple would be hushed. The subject crosses the line, but what is the level of notability here? Does it reach a threshold that over-rides BLPREQUESTDELETE? I am not sure that was adequately discussed in the close summary, but neither am I convinced that it fell outside closer's discretion. But, again, the LinkedIn "evidence" is irrelevant. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed there was no consensus, but the subject requested deletion. It is not our job to interpret their rationale. They aren't super notable, they requested deletion, and there was no consensus. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 04:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me get this straight, if someone, even a convicted criminal (which this man is not), requests deletion of their article because it embarrasses them, then we should just comply, even if the information is fully sourced? Are we an encyclopaedia or not? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. If there's a clear consensus to keep despite subject request, it should be kept. But there wasn't. (please

mention me on reply) Clyde _{[trout needed]} 14:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure The subject is notable and was a public figure, the commander of the British Army's unit for dealing with online content like Wikipedia. The information is not criminal (as opposed to, say this guy), just embarrassing. The invocation of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to override our WP:NOTCENSORED policy was in search of a whitewash. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per my previous comments. - wolf 05:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure proposer is merely rehashing previous points Lyndaship (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per Hawkeye7. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus delete. Reads funny, but that's what I mean. Closer correctly concluded that there was no consensus in the discussion. However, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE that means if the subject is "relatively unknown, non-public", then the BLP "may" be deleted if the subject requests it. The closer here, doubtless with best possible intentions, decided the word "may" afforded them discretion whether it should be a no-consesus keep or delete outcome, and applied an additional, by my recollection policy-unsupported, requirement that the material in the article be inaccurate for this courtesy deletion to be granted. I believe the intent of the unusual wording "may be deleted" at BLPREQUESTDELETE is meant to reflect that there is no obstacle to deleting it if the subject wishes, not that there is such wide closer discretion. [Caveats: I !voted and reaffirmed a Delete opinion in the discussion, and my reading of the discussion is there was no consensus whether to delete, consensus that the subject passes our notability bar, but unrebutted claims by myself and others the notability was indeed marginal. I also think what the subject's reasons for wishing deletion, and whether they are being 100% forthright and consistent in them, is immaterial; if the criteria apply then we owe them a courtesy delete even if their rationate were that the world is flat.] Martinp (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (or overturn to keep). The article is neutral; it is well sourced; it is fully adherent to our policy on living people, and the article subject was not, as some keep pushing "nearly notable". He was notable—in several ways (high rank, OBE etc)—and no one has fully refuted that, merely asserted otherwise. As to the good faith of the nomination: something to be considered is that they said I won't be monitoring this. If it was that important, I think one would fully monitor it. As opposed to the mere barking of an order and expecting it to be carried out by juniors. Serial 11:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Simply put, a no consensus close was a valid interpretation of the discussion and none of the five suggested reasons in WP:DRVPURPOSE for changing this outcome seem to apply. If the nominator of this DRV feels strongly the page ought to be deleted, I suggest waiting awhile and opening a new AfD. Rupples (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation is that the wording used in the AfD nomination and COI aspect did not help in assessing the merit of the article in a detached way. To my mind, the AfD nomination is flawed. It would, however, be acceptable for Hobit or Martinp or another neutral editor to advocate for deletion by way of a second AfD nomination that incorporates their reasoning in Wikipedia-like neutral wording. Rupples (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus was the correct close because there was no consensus. The keep voters showed that the subject was notable. More so, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does not in any way require that this type of article be deleted upon the subject's request. Per the policy, Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. (emphasis included in policy), and there were sufficient arguments against using BLPREQUESTDELETE that its non-use in this closure was correct. Frank Anchor 17:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. This isn't the place to re-plead the AfD, but rather, to evaluate whether or not the closure correctly reflected the discussion. And it did. The closing statement found no consensus, which is an accurate assessment of the discussion that occurred. It then found that editors arguing for deletion on the basis of no consensus had not established that the criteria for doing so had been met. This was also a reasonable reading of the discussion, and of applicable policy. Although it wasn't mentioned in the closing statement, I'll also note that multiple participating editors who initially favored deletion reversed their opinions after further discussion; no opinions were changed in the opposite direction. There is no valid argument that the close should be overturned to deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tryptofish: I guess I had two points here. First, the reason folks changed their !votes were not policy-based--the existence of the subject's Linkedin account should have no relevance to the deletion discussion. And while I had a very similar reaction to those that changed their !votes, I really do think those changes should be ignored for that reason. Secondly, the deleting admin's reason for not deleting with an NC close here also had no basis in policy or guidelines as they claim such an option is (only?) applicable when "when the material in the BLP presents the subject inaccurately". They can provide no basis for that claim. So believe I'm 100% focusing on issues with the AfD !votes and the closure--exactly what DRV is for. And I think that, for those reasons, the close was mistaken. Hobit (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  You are correct in that the subject's reasons for asking for deletion, even if trivial (and there is no shortage of those), is not strictly relevant according to our policy. However, as Frank Anchor notes, may be closed as delete implies extenuating circumstances. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Hobit, thanks for explaining further. As for the editors who changed their positions, it seems to me that their original position in favor of deletion was based entirely upon the request by the apparent page subject, and their change of view was based on their subsequent persuasion that policy did not favor their original position. As for "presents the subject inaccurately", I actually think that you are technically correct, in that the policies are indeed not worded that way. But I don't think that correcting that choice of words in the closing statement would lead to a different finding with regard to no consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I sincerely appreciate the feedback especially wrt the "inaccurately" part. I think that makes sense. Hobit (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse sadly this DRV encapsulates why for barely notable individuals our inclusion criteria are really broken. On one had we have a clear preference to keep the article to punish the subject because their delete claim has been impeached and on the other hand we have a closing admin who does not appreciate that policy gives them discretion to delete per subject's wishes. Hobit is bang on that the subject does not have to give a reason and I personally feel that we should default to delete in all barely notable BLPs as the over riding argument should always be DONOHARM. Everyone fucked up here but the deletion point has passed and the admin missed the only window to do the right thing. Sad. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete per WP:IAR. Very rarely, policy, procedures, etc. need to take a back seat to common sense and compassion. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The close was within admin discretion. It wasn’t wrong. However, given the many words here, let’s review that discretion and flip it the other way. I am influenced by my judgement that this person only crosses the Wikipedia-notability threshold due to newspaper coverage of a personal indiscretion; newspapers are poor sources that in time devolve to primary sources; and the biography is virtually/meaningfully an orphan and will forever be. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I did not participate in the AfD but the closer was correct. Lightburst (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, somewhat reluctantly. This was a "no consensus" call where there was no consensus to find. That's sort of what "the !vote was slightly leaning" really means. It is within the right of editors to question the motivations of a notable person who nonetheless wants their page taken down. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 05:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure tinged with sadness. I !voted 'strong delete' in the AfD and stand by that view. However, I agree with the closing administrator that there was probably no consensus in that discussion. It would have been my preference for the 'no consensus' to default to delete per BLP in this situation as being the best outcome, but ultimately that's a judgement call from the administrator. Daniel (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure I !voted delete, but the close was within admin discretion. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:24, 23 October 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 October 2023

13 October 2023

Mohan S. Gundeti – G11 endorsed, but editors agreed to draftify the article so others may improve on it. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

A G11 speedy deletion (which are not allowed to be raised at Refund). I saw the page before it was deleted, and disagree that it was a G11 candidate. Admin stands behind their deletion and has no time to undelete the page but doesn't object if someone else does ("If you disagree, feel free to reinstate")[16]. Fram (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've temporarily undeleted it for review as in my opinion, it's not sufficiently problematic not to do so. Star Mississippi 13:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore it's copy/pasta, but I think he's notable and there's sourcing on which to build an article. It can go to ~~DRV~~AFD if folks think it's borderline, but I wouldn't have deleted this as speedy. I see more leeway for academics and those in medicine than youtubers trying to promote themselves. Star Mississippi 13:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to agree with Deb. This is plainly promotional and needs far, far more than a {{copy edit}} to become remotely neutral - simply removing the praise would leave the article unreadable, which counts as needing a "fundamental rewrite" so far as I'm concerned. Also should've gone through AFC given the blindingly obvious COI. —Cryptic 13:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moving it to draft might be a good middle ground? Clearly notable person, needs a rewrite, but would be a waste to lose all the good bits (like the sources and many of the basic facts). Fram (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to that. —Cryptic 14:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This would make sense and less waste of time for unconflicted editors. Star Mississippi 15:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further reading @Deb's note, since she would have been fine with @Fram restorinig if they were able to do so, it's unlikely she'd object to a draftification. So speedy restore to draft and save six days here so folks can edit the article? Star Mississippi 15:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Sorry I wasn't here for the rest of the discussion - dealing with difficult family matters. Deb (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, hope everything is OK. This DRV was about the article, no issue with your actions. Fram (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion was entirely appropriate and I endorse it. No objection to moving to draft. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - There is format errors everywhere, a little copy editing whilst a draft could work in the main namespace. Happy editing! SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 16:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the deletion as G11. I agree that the subject is biographically notable, but the article wasn't deleted for A7 or even at AFD. It was deleted as G11, because a fundamental rewrite would be required to make it neutral. Why shouldn't it have been tagged for tone and for cleanup? The article is far too long, because it is full of promotion. For that reason, more volunteer work would be required to create an acceptable article from this bloated thing than to write a new article. Recommend against draftification for the same reason, because more time will be used in fixing the draft than in creating a new article. Do not waste time on a rewrite, but write a new Start-class article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you in general @Robert McClenon, but if I'm reading @Fram correctly, they are requesting it so they can work on it ergo don't see it as a waste. Star Mississippi 13:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support speedy draftify. The existence of one draft does not obligate anyone to work on that specific one, so there is limited harm in my view. Endorse otherwise. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to draft space per above. If the sole reason for deletion was the content being promotional in nature, that is WP:SURMOUNTABLE. If there are users who want to use the history as the basis for a good-faith rewrite, then it should be made available. Frank Anchor 14:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that one could potentially have all the promotion removed by turning this into a stub along the lines of Gundeti is a professor at The University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. and thus would escape G11 deletion ... but being an unsourced claim on what seems to be a BLP is really testing the boundaries of WP:CSD#A7 and BLP policy. I wouldn't consider it an useful starting point for a draft, though; it seems like you'd have to throw out most of the current text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: (and all others here), I have created a quick and dirty version of what the article could look like based on what is there now (not looking for any other text or sources) here. Would this be a G11 candidate (or otherwise speedyable) or an acceptable start of an article (not claiming any perfection here!). Fram (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not speedy that and would consider it a more than viable start. If challenged at AfD I'd !vote keep assuming the citation counts, etc. hold up. Needs some work, but that's true of essentially all of our articles. Star Mississippi 00:47, 19 October 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 October 2023

樂天 – Restored. This should not reflect negatively on the closer. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

We often disambiguate topics with the same name in Chinese characters (i.e. {{Chinese title disambiguation}}) because there is not a one-to-one correspondence between romanized and Chinese-character names. No explanation was given as to why the contents failed this criterion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bunch of precedents for keeping such pages listed at quarry:query/77233. (The first is a joke afd, and this is my amused sig. →Cryptic 05:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]
- Actually, I'm going to go for a straight overturn here. This title, or the spelling variants also disambiguated here, would have been perfectly fine redirects to any of the disambiguated pages, so a disambig is the natural solution; and while WP:DABNAME says to prefer English spelling in the title, the romanizations aren't ambiguous. The guidelines cited by the afd participants were misrepresented, and - since this doesn't come up at all often - I wouldn't expect the afd closer to have realized that. This isn't a case of mere disagreement with an outcome - the outcome was clearly wrong, and inconsistent with both policy and prior practice. —Cryptic 18:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion review is a venue for handling failures to follow deletion process. It's not for where you simply disagree with the AFD outcome. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse - The close is the right close for the AFD. Temp-undeleting it probably wouldn't do any good, at least for those of us who do not read Chinese. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost the entire dab is visible in the creation log comment; only the last entry and typical dabbish boilerplate are cut off. Last entry was "Rakuten (楽天), Japanese technology conglomerate". —Cryptic 02:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I'm not familiar with Chinese disambiguation pages but Cryptic's explanation seems plausible to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Cryptic. It appears the outcome was incorrect with no fault of the closer. Star Mississippi 15:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore close was right, but deletion reasons completely bogus. We should keep this page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. I agree with Cryptic. If the characters were unambigouous, a redirect would be appropriate, so when they are ambiguous, keeping a disambiguation page is compliant with policy. While DRV should not be used due to mere disagreements, it can correct good-faith errors. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 October 2023

Christopher Schläffer – AfD endorsed. Since no participant opposed a refund to draft, and the AfD saw little participation, I'm refunding the article to draft space. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This article was wrongly deleted in a speedy deletion outside of the criteria and without looking thoroughly into the facts. Opposite to the claims made during the deletion process, the article clearly passes the test of notability as well as the test of extensive reliable sources. Christopher Schläffer has launched the world’s most popular operating system for computing platforms, Android, been awarded with many globally relevant awards (e.g. Young Global Leader/ World Economic Forum, Top50 Innovators to Watch, Manager of the Year) and contributed in leading roles in some of the world’s largest corporations and NGOs. The article was deleted despite 23 relevant and reliable sources and the addition of 4 more sources for areas where during the deletion discussion additional evidence was requested. The deletion decision should therefore be overturned. Overturn Verify.now (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article was deleted, I can’t see the citations. Can you share reliable sources that establish Schläffer’s notability per our notability rules?

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)}, A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few selected reliable sources which also were cited in the article amongst many others and establish notability:

Young Global Leader/ World Economic Forum: https://www.weforum.org/people/christopher-schlaffer

Manager of the Year: https://www.wu.ac.at/en/the-university/news-and-events/events/detail/wu-manager-of-the-year-2022-christopher-schlaeffer/

Amnesty International: https://www.amnesty.org/en/about-us/international-board/

iamthecode Foundation: https://www.iamthecode.org/our-team/

Verify.now (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've tempundeleted. There was nothing on the talk page but WikiProject templates marking their territory. —Cryptic 20:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse When a DRV starts out by claiming This article was wrongly deleted in a speedy deletion when the article was in fact deleted through an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Schläffer), then the appeal is so clearly wrong as to not deserve further consideration. And anyway this is an appeal arguing that the !voters were wrong as opposed to the closer, which only rarely works at the best of times. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm far from convinced this should be overturned (even if there's enough sourcing that I'm a bit uneasy about that, hence my temp-undelete), I can't agree with either of those reasons to endorse. Inexperienced users wrongly intuit the meaning of our jargon all the time - witness how often people are upset by the apparent value-judgement of "you're not notable", when what we mean is they "haven't received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - and it's not like Verify.now fooled anybody with the word "speedy", or made any effort to hide the afd in their listing here. And sometimes DRV does relist discussions if we come to the conclusion that it was the discussion, not the closure, that was wrong. Certainly the final delete in that discussion was a "just not notable" opinion that deserved hardly any weight. —Cryptic 01:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per Pppery. Appellant is trying to open AFD round 2, except that they don't know the difference between AFD and speedy deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a comment that is not really relevant to this review, but this review illustrates how Deletion Review handles close reviews better than WP:AN handles RFC close reviews. See the current discussion at WP:AN that RFC close reviews are too often RFC round 2. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Explicit made the right decision to delete. The subject is not quite notable. 3 editors evaluated the article and all agreed it should be deleted in accordance with our notability guidelines.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I've never really liked how non-obvious it was that Notability is specifically a term of art on Wikipedia that generally focuses on the basic criteria of signficant coverage (more jargon, kinda). The new sources dont add anything to that. Sometimes I think we should rename WP:N "tunist" and WP:SIGCOV "woanol", or some other completely made up words, which would surely make things more confusing at first glance , but would also prevent incorrect assumptions based on the non-jargon meaning of those terms. Best we can offer is restore to draft. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Alpha3031, thank you for this comment. I am new to these types of discussion and learning a lot from the debate. Despite all the procedural aspects which seem to be rightfully highlighted, I would hope that at the end the notability of the article (and I hope editors do first and foremost look at the article itself and not process) as well as the breath of reliable sources are decisive to either overturn or restore to draft. Verify.now (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scotched English – Speedy overturn to delete with consensus here coupled with closer's OK. Star Mississippi 20:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Article was subjected to a Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_22#Scotched_English which decided to restore and AfD. This is now all pointless because 1 person said to redirect to Scots Wikipedia (the original target) while pretty much everybody else said to delete and that the redirect was inappropriate. Or should I redirect Shitty English to Scots Wikipedia as well? CiphriusKane (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse~~ there was consensus to not keep at the AFD, and there was not consensus to delete in the earlier RFD which created the AFD. Of the four delete votes (not including the nom which was procedural), none stated opposition to a redirect and one even supported a merge as a suitable alternative. WP:ATDs do not need consensus to be implemented in place of deletion. Frank Anchor 15:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they do. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, they do not. An ATD can be implemented as long as there is not consensus specifically against it, such "anti-consensus" was not present at the AFD. However, I overlooked that this particular target was deemed inappropriate at the separate RFD, with no suitable alternative target. Considering this, I will change my vote to neutral.
    - Feel free to gather a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy if you think policy should be changed to exempt ATDs from requiring consensus, but until you do, they do. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - It appears that you have gotten off the topic of this discussion (reviewing the closure of the subject RFD/AFD) and are beating an unrelated WP:DEADHORSE regarding our different interpretations of ATD guidelines. Lets just get back to the subject at hand. As already explained, I previously overlooked the RFD's rejection of this particular redirect target with no suitible alternative, hence why I struck my previous endorse vote. Frank Anchor 18:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One opinion to redirect to an inappropriate target does not overrule two positive consensuses not to do so. WP:ATD is an editorial action subject to editorial consensus; because something can be done does not mean it is an improvement when everyone else says it is not. Overturn to delete. —Cryptic 20:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Involved as original nom - I agree that overturning to delete is a more sensible outcome of the two discussions taken together. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete (uninvolved) The RfD established a consensus that Scots Wikipedia was not a good target, the AfD established that it couldn't be kept as an article, between them there's no other option. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. Another blatant supervote. ✗plicit 00:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse this if I felt it was a reasonable redirect target. One !vote for a redirect can make for a fine redirect as long as no one specifically opposes it. But the admin needs to use good judgement that the target is reasonable. I don't think it is here. overturn to delete. Hobit (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. There was clear consensus for deletion at both the RFD and AFD. HappyWith (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. The RfD did not come to a consensus about the appropriateness of the redirect, just that the former article should be discussed at AfD. The AfD did come to a clear consensus, and that consensus was to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. My general opinion is that if an ATD merge/redirect target is reasonable, described in a policy based vote, and is not rebutted, closing merge/redirect is reasonable (though many respectfully disagree with my interpretation, which is understandable). However, in this case irrespective of the interpretation with ATDs in general, there is consensus that the redirect target is inappropriate when the RfD and AfD are accounted for together. As such delete is the only reasonable close. VickKiang (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete the RfD concluded that the redirect wasn't appropriate but that the previous article at that title should be listed at AfD. While it's reasonable for the closer of an AfD to close as redirect if it wasn't mentioned by the participants if that's an obvious possible outcome, here there was a prior consensus that the redirect was inappropriate. Hut 8.5 07:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the closer, I can not deny that there was a consensus to Delete. But closers are allowed some leeway and often ATDs are taken even if not suggested by the majority of participants. I did look over the RFD mentioned but there wasn't a consensus there to Delete. I don't believe it was a "supervote", I see other closers veer towards ATDs on occasion like Merge, Redirect or Draftify. I didn't expect there to be an objection (except for the editor who shows up at every DRV involving me to bash me). But since there is a general agreement that I made a bad call on this one, I'm fine with overturning to Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 October 2023

Battle of Byshek (1467) – Deletion endorsed. Regarding the draft, considering the doubt over its veracity, I have deleted it also. I am happy to provide the sources to someone who wishes to create an article at this or another title (see Hut 8.5's comment below), but it needs to be a new article to avoid G4. Daniel (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

In this war article published in the past, a page without sources, unreliable and infrastructure was opened. I reopened this same page with new information, new regulations and academic resources. I used a total of 9 sources, giving 8 visible sources. But since the page was opened in the past, it was deemed appropriate to delete it, and I object to this. Because the page was opened in a much more orderly and academic manner than before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keremmaarda (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the admin who most recently deleted the article, I won't join in with my opinion on any possible outcome here. However, I do need to share that the article's previous version was under a different title, with that article's AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Burshek. In addition, that earlier article was also created by Keremmaarda and had 9 citations in it, including some of the same citations that appeared in the new version I deleted on October 5.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the previous article had no visible source and contained sporadic references. I edited the page and added more, using visible sources, so it meets all the requirements for a war article. I find it unnecessary to delete the page just because it has been opened in the past. After all, this is a big encyclopedia. If someone else opens it instead of me one day, will it be deleted? Keremmaarda (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by no visible sources. As an admin, I'm able to view deleted pages. I did this when I compared the original article to the new one before speedy deleting it. The original article did indeed have citations that could be seen. Anyway, I'll leave the decision here to others. SouthernNights (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I mentioned as visible sources are the sources in which the text is readable in PDF format. There were only book titles on the old page, but what they wrote in the book was not visible, so there were problems with the source in the old discussion site. But this time, you can see the events written in the books I gave you when you click on the link. Keremmaarda (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closing of the AFD as Delete. It could not have been closed any other way. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the G4 deletion, relying on the judgment of admin User:SouthernNights that the article deleted by the AFD and the recreation were substantially the same. If the appellant and the deleting admin disagree as to whether the article deleted by AFD had sources, one of the two editors is trusted by the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Creation of Draft with the provision that another admin may compare the draft against the article that was deleted by AFD to determine whether to pass the draft on to AFC for review by a reviewer who does not have admin glasses. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a draft of the article at Draft:Battle of Byshek (1467) as the article existed at 5 October 2023, at 11:37 right before I deleted it. This will allow everyone to examine the article and determine if it should be kept. As a note, I checked the citations and have concerns they don't back up the article's information. For example, citation #3 "Gibb, Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen. THE ENCYCLOPAEDİA OF ISLAM" mentions Buzurshek in passing but not a battle. Citation #4, which supposedly supports the statement "The toughest battle for the Ottoman army in this campaign was in the Buzurshek valley." doesn't appear to mention the battle or a valley at all (but please double check that b/c I'm using Google Translate). SouthernNights (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd need to see the article originally deleted at AfD to judge if the G4 is proper. For something like this (a historical battle), I'd inclined to suggest that the matter make it (back) to AfD. But instead I'll ask the nom: can you please list the 3 best sources for this topic? I'll take a look and if they seem decent, I'll push for a new AfD. Hobit (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to evaluate this but I'm not sure it's a good idea to restore this. The text was significantly different from the AfDed version and some of the sources are different. It's hard to evaluate the sources, as lots of them are Turkish books which don't have text in Google Books, and lots of them are cited for background or aftermath rather than about the battle itself. I'm also not sure if they're all reliable. They don't necessarily provide significant coverage either, for example reference 2, cited in the lead to confirm a statement that the battle happened, just says "Winning a bloody battle at Buzurshek...". Given that there have been concerns raised about whether this battle happened, or whether it's appropriate to refer it as a battle like this, I'd expect to see crystal clear confirmation that it did in fact happen. Since the sources seem to be talking about this engagement in the context of a wider military campaign, of which it was a fairly small part, I'd suggest trying to write an article about the wider campaign instead. Hut 8.5 18:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Honeycomb.io – Restored to draft Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Requesting restoration of content as invited by then-admin Tamzin who deleted; I was the one who requested G5 deletion in first place due to its creation by a "good hand" sock of an LTA in order to harass me, but circumstances have changed and the harassment that the page was a magnet for has dissipated somewhat. lizthegrey (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly as deleting (ex-)admin I don't see an issue with restoring the version I deleted, and I'm not sure why there was pushback to that at WP:REFUND. That said, @Lizthegrey, you would be taking full responsibility for every word in this article, and since you have a financial COI, if this is to be restored, it should be restored as an AfC draft. In which case I honestly think you'd be better off writing this from the ground up at AfC, free from the risk of subtle vandalism or errors introduced by the LTA who wrote it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes fine sense to me, there are a number of changes I wanted to make anyways that I'd otherwise need to put through the COI edit request process if it came straight to mainspace. Restoring as an AfC draft will let me make those changes directly to the draft, then, it can go through a regular AfC process. lizthegrey (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its in draft and this can be closed by anyone who is interested in grappling with the stupid DRV closing protocols that are stupidly difficult on mobile. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 October 2023

8 October 2023

Miss Grand International 2014 and others – Downgrade protection to ECP and allow AFC review of drafts Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The 2014 and 2015 articles were previously deleted due to not having enough sources to prove their notability and were then salted due to repeatedly being recreated. Also, the 2020 and 2021 contests was protected against creation due to the fact that the main article, Miss Grand International, was deleted and salted. Since its main article was about reduced protection to ECP, per this this DRV, and was already recreated, as well as a bunch of info in Thai about its old 2014-2015 contests is available online, I already created the completed versions of each, with more sources provided that would justify recreating the deleted pages, as listed below.

Sandbox 4 for Miss Grand International 2014
Sandbox 3 for Miss Grand International 2015
Draft:Miss Grand International 2020 for Miss Grand International 2020 (Protected redirect); the draft was previously rejected due to the non-existence of the main article before Feb 2022.
Sandbox 6 for Miss Grand International 2021

Apologize for my English. Best regards. Thomson Walt (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce protection to ECP and allow review of draft per the rationale on the main article's DRV. There are a lot of seemingly okay references in the linked sandbox versions. While DRV is not the place to review sources, these drafts should be sent to AFC where the references can be thoroughly reviewed.Frank Anchor 18:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Downgrade protection to ECP of all four titles, as per Frank Anchor. DRV is not the best forum to review sandbox drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Review of Drafts at AFC. (The reviewers have ECP.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 10 October 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 October 2023

6 October 2023

5 October 2023

User:Steel Chambers – Speedy close/endorse. Disruptive nomination by now-blocked user. Star Mississippi 17:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Unwarranted instant deletion, new user, seeking help [17] - Wikipedia:DELETEOTHER Figbiscuits (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Textbook U5, user using Wikipedia to host a short-story or other miscellaneous fiction. The "help" the user was seeking was not about the deletion, but how to upload photos. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The U5 is entirely justified as noted by Stifle. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close as having been filed by a now-blocked not here account. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above, textbook case for U5. Also noting for the record that I was not consulted before OP jumped straight to DRV -FASTILY 00:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and speedy close per above. Clear case of U5. Frank Anchor 01:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 October 2023

This Is Not A Theatre Company (closed)

This Is Not A Theatre Company – Restored as a contested soft deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Dear Editors,

I see you have deleted This Is Not A Theatre Company. In a soft delete.

From the discussion, it seems that it was deleted because a) you think there are not substantial sources that prove its existence and b) that perhaps you think, because of the title of the company, that it is a joke or a scam?

I am writing to request that the page be reinstated. Let me start with the second point first: The name of our theatre company is a reference to Magritte's painting of a pipe which is titled Ceci n'est pas une pipe (this is not a pipe) - the joke being that it's not an actual pipe, it's a painting of a pipe. We do theatre, but we don't do theatre in traditional theatre spaces, so we thought this name would be an appropriate homage. We can state that in the entry if it would be helpful.

Since our inception in 2013 we have produced Pool Play, A Serious Banquet, Readymade Cabaret, Ferry Play, Subway Plays, Festival de la Vie for the Avignon Festival, Versailles, Pool Play 2.0 for the International Theatre Festival of Kerala, Theatre In The Dark: Carpe Diem, Play!, Readymade Cabaret 2.0, Play…In Your Bathtub 2.0 (also translated into Russian and performed by WOWWOWWOW in Moscow), Guru of Touch for the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, Tree Confessions (starring Kathleen Chalfant) for the Edinburgh, Brighton, Camden, Melbourne, Greater Manchester, Hamilton, Sydney, and Philadelphia Fringe festivals and the Nepal International Theatre Festival, and Adentros y Afueras, Confesiones de un Árbol, y Una Obra en tu Bañera for the International Theatre Festival of Buenos Aires (FIBA). Our productions have been experienced in over 36 countries, including Argentina, Australia, China, England, France, India, Italy, Nepal, Russia, Scotland, and Singapore.

Our work has been reviewed in The New York Times (at least 3 times), Wall Street Journal, papers in Buenos Aires and Kochi, and elsewhere. We have also been mentioned in numerous scholarly articles in journals such as TDR. Those were all listed in our entry - at least the last time I checked. It is possible that some of those citations were deleted and it therefore seemed as though we weren't real.

If possible, I would like the opportunity to update the page with all the recent newspaper reviews, recent productions, mentions in scholarly journals such as TDR, and full chapters devoted to our work in such books as Experiential Theatres published by Routledge (amazon link here: https://www.amazon.com/Experiential-Theatres-Praxis-Based-Approaches-Training-ebook/dp/B0BKNTDGGP/ref=sr_1_7?crid=HFAXBYBQEJZD&keywords=Experiential+Performance&qid=1696456701&s=books&sprefix=experiential+performance%2Cstripbooks%2C56&sr=1-7).

Would you consider reinstating our page and giving us a chance to fix it? If we don't fix it satisfactorily in 2 months, then you can delete it again.

How does that sound?

Many thanks for all that you do, Erin Mee Artistic Director This Is Not A Theatre Company - also a wikipedia editor but I can't find my login and PW info at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4041:5D10:A000:2518:772B:EB79:C34F (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.