Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< April 2024 Deletion review archives June 2024 >

31 May 2024

edit
  • Tamil genocide – Endorsed. Clear consensus is that Liz closed this AfD correctly and convincingly as "keep". As she noted, neither the AfD nor this DRV are about the question of whether a Tamil genocide occurred (that should be a subject of the article instead, if reliable sources question it). Instead. the AfD was about whether the topic has sufficient coverage in reliable sources for us to be able to write an article about it. And this DRV is about whether the closer correctly assessed consensus to that effect. Many people here and at the AfD misunderstand this. Sandstein 15:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tamil genocide (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First of all, the closing admin has failed to address the problem with their closure and told me that they already expected a DRV.[1] This is contrary to the fact that admins should be so confident about their closure that they should not expect a DRV with regards to their closure.

A major argument that was made on this article was that there has been no genocide against the Tamils, thus the article is spreading disinformation. It also makes sense because there is not a single country that recognizes any genocide against the Tamils. However, this argument has been admittedly rejected by the closing admin.

Another major argument was that this article provided nothing that hasn't been already covered at War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War and List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces. This was ignored by the closing admin. Similarly, the quality of sourcing was also disputed[2][3] but this has been also rejected by the closing admin.

Article was created by a sock. It attracted many participants this article was already being discussed on WP:ANI before it was nominated for deletion. However, many of the "keep" supporters were totally canvassed given their suspicious editing history and that they edited Wikipedia, after staying for more than 1 year - 3 years, for the sake of making a "Keep" vote on this AfD.[4][5][6]

The AfD result could be in favor of deletion or draftification, but there was no consensus for "keep". Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn (involved). My jaw dropped when I read the closing comments. Since when is the closing statement allowed to be a WP:SUPERVOTE? The closing statement – by the otherwise respected admin Liz – even failed to provide such an elementary item as the summary of the points raised by the respective camps. For the Keep camp, the statement fails to present the key argument of the (limited) existence of the term in literature. For the Delete position, it does not mention the red flags being raised about sourcing quality and quantity, the apparent violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY, and the fact that much of the content overlaps, and indeed has been copied from, another, more aptly titled article.
Instead, the SUPERVOTE reads: "The first 2/3 of this discussion isn't very helpful at all in terms of determining a closure but in the latter 1/3 editors brought forward actual, accepted reliable sources that can verify that this subject, which might be in dispute, is indeed notable." However, the sources brought up in "the latter 1/3" were mostly the same as those mentioned in the earlier part, and met with an identical challenge. Interestingly, the closer failed to name the source(s) that convinced her to cast this supervote or explain what was so unhelpful in the most of the discussion.
Not very helpfully, the closer suggests to "start a talk page discussion on a possible article page title change", apparently failing to notice that such a discussion was closed barely 7 days ago.
Finally, the closer takes an issue with tagging certain accounts as SPAs or canvassed. Regretfully, that's what we have these tags for, and El_C explicitly confirmed this.[7] If the closer is unable or unwilling to consider participation patterns at AfDs, perhaps they should reconsider closing discussions? — kashmīrī TALK 06:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What remains certain to me is that there was anything but consensus in that discussion. If anything, the close should have been that of "no consensus". Calling the heated debate "consensus" is a blatant misuse of the term. — kashmīrī TALK 14:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved and it would be nice if other involved editors would mark their comments likewise). El_C made an excellent close and gave clear reasons why a large number of delete votes weren't policy based and therefore do not form part of any considerations on what consensus was. TarnishedPathtalk 06:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) In reply to Abhishek: \\Another major argument was that this article provided nothing that hasn't been already covered at War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War and List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces.\\
This is patently false. The latter page is a simple list of attacks and does not cover the topic of genocide at all, whereas the former focuses on the topic of war crimes (and that too only for the final stages of the war). The topic of Tamil genocide spans several decades, and includes the 1983 Black July pogrom which was described as genocidal. Oz346 (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) - the closing admin made valid points that the article can be reworked than be deleted. The claim that no country recognizes Tamil genocide (does the head of the Canadian state commemorating "Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day" not count?) is immaterial since as the closer noted there's enough RS literature discussing the topic. The claim that this article provided nothing that hasn't been already covered in other hyperlinked articles is baseless, since the scope of this article is much broader than 2009 and a list of government attacks targeting all Sri Lankan citizens cannot really include analyses of Tamil genocide. Keep-supporters being "totally canvassed" is just an accusation that can also be levelled against many Delete-supporters who were just repeating each other's non-policy based reasons without possibly even having read the article. WP:POVDELETION states: "there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time." The closing admin's decision is in keeping with the policies and as an uninvolved party is qualified to deliver neutral judgement unlike users with a conflict of interest as amply demonstrated by their lack of due diligence as per WP:BEFORE.---Petextrodon (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). The appellant hasn't brought forth any valid argument for this appeal.
    • Their claim that This is contrary to the fact that admins should be so confident about their closure that they should not expect a DRV with regards to their closure is baseless. "Confident"? I think a better adjective would be naïve. Anyone who has been closing AfDs for over a month knows that this type of politically-charged AfD invariably ends up at DRV, no matter how you close it. We hate closing such discussions, but someone has to do it, and I'm glad it was Liz who took care of this one. I would have closed it exactly the same way, albeit with a somewhat harsher closing rationale.
    • The question of whether the referenced events in Sri Lanka qualify as genocide is not one that Wikipedia needs to--or even may--answer. We may only go by what secondary, reliable sources tell us. Whether or not sources call it a "genocide" could be relevant in a move review, but not in an AfD. For an article to meet our inclusion criteria, it suffices that the topic is notable. Neither a bad title nor poorly written content are valid reasons to delete an article. If no country recognizes any genocide against the Tamils, that should be mentioned in the article, with appropriate sourcing. "Misinformation", if such really exists in the article, should be fixed editorially.
    • As for the claim that the article provided nothing that hasn't been already covered at War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War, I observe that none of those who brought this up !voted for Merge or Redirect. If their concern was truly one of a POV fork, then a redirect or selective merge would have been the obvious remedy. The fact that they all opted for "Delete" tells me their vote was motivated by politics, not by encyclopedic interest.
    • Yes, there is clear evidence of canvassing in this AfD - on both sides. Once you discard those votes, you are left with a clear consensus to keep the article.
I don't see any "supervote" here. I see a meticulous analysis of over 40 views expressed there, judicious categorization of each view into legitimate, relevant one or one that falls under WP:DISCARD, and a detailed closing rationale that provides transparency well beyond our usual standards. I also see an attempt here to relitigate the case by rehashing every argument already brought up at that AfD and hoping something sticks. Owen× ☎ 11:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved): Like OwenX, I believe this is just an attempt to relitigate the AfD, that Liz proffered an indepth analysis of her closing decision, and that the proponents of Deletion belabored irrelevancies such as "There wasn't a genocide." The nom's assertion that no country recognizes a Tamil genocide is equally irrelevant as well as blatantly false, and one could be forgiven for thinking that the nom is hellbent on ignoring facts they don't like. Yes, we get that the editors fervently trying to get this article deleted dispute its sourcing. Perhaps, however, we could mend the nom's accusations of canvassing by making sure that no one is acting under nationlist/ethnic motives of some fashion, and automatically discount the views of any participant with a history of editing South Asian articles; would the nom prefer that? Ravenswing 13:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). Close absolutely within reason and with such a charged topic, there was no question about DRV. That's not a lack of confidence, that's understanding the reality of this project and human editors. There's a reason it's covered by CT. Star Mississippi 13:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: There's strong evidence of off-wiki canvassing to the deletion discussion: www.reddit.com/r/Eelam/comments/1bzd8bg/an_english_wikipedia_page_for_tamil_genocide_has/ The sheer number of newly established or unused accounts that commented "Keep" in the discussion is very likely to have influenced the outcome, given that the closer refused to consider off-wiki teaming. — kashmīrī TALK 14:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri, I can't see the deletion discussion referenced once in that Reddit discussion. Perhaps my eyesight is going on me. Can you please provide specific evidence for your allegation against these Reddit users. Secondly I believe this topic as been addressed by Owen×, who stated that they saw canvassing on both sides. Can you please address their comments if you think that there was only canvassing on one side. TarnishedPathtalk 15:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The very first thing in the post is a link to the article, which had the afd tag at the top. —Cryptic 16:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic, firstly it's a link to the article, not the AfD. The specific allegation is that people have been canvassed to the AfD. Secondly that Reddit thread was from two months ago, well before the AfD started. At the time when the Reddit user started that thread there was no AfD tag on the article and wouldn't be for some time. TarnishedPathtalk 16:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a more recent post that had more inflammatory wording. Here was the text before it was deleted:
"Tamil Genocide is nominated for deletion by Indians
Indians and an Indian Muslim along with the Sinhalese are trying to delete this page:.
Here is a discussion on this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tamil_genocide"
There were also comments on the post before it was deleted, one of which was asking how they could address the issue. SinhalaLion (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SinhalaLion, thankyou for that. Above another editor has stated that there was clear canvassing on both sides. They stated that if they were closing and disregarded the clearly canvassed votes on both sides, along with any votes that didn't address policy, that they would have come to the same close decision. TarnishedPathtalk 16:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the last post:
I reached out to some keyboard warriors on insta who usually comment on insta pages about Eelam and their responses are as follows:
::::"Bro my english is not Good"
::::"Not good bro, msg this guy: @@@@@ . he may help you"
::::"I work 9-5 and I don't have time to concentrate in this. But still look into it"
::::"I would not be able to personally write due to time insufficiency"
::::"It's most likely get deleted. So I don't wanna waste my time"
::::"I’m kinda busy now, but let me get back to you on it" (been a week since this reply. lol)
::::So this is the capability of these keyboard warriors. Useless people. Just fit to type random comments and curse at other ethnic people rather than doing something useful for their own community!
From this post it's apparent that the OP there tried to canvass others. — kashmīrī TALK 16:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, that post wasn't asking people to opine in the discussion but to develop the page. However, that post was very canvas-like and the users could have turned into WP:MEATPUPPET very quickly if needed. SinhalaLion (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one then? https://www.reddit.com/r/Eelam/comments/1d3tenm/tamil_genocide_is_nominated_for_deletion_by/ — kashmīrī TALK 16:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the one I brought up already. SinhalaLion (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you have either wrongly accused or insinuated without explicit evidence that particular individuals outside Wikipedia have attempted canvassing to shape the AfD consensus here, one of you going so far as to quote their statements out of context. Is this even allowed on Wikipedia, considering the legal consequences? As for @Kashmiri's claim of "sheer number of newly established or unused accounts" voting Keep, this is baseless as there's literally only one (an IP) account that potentially fits the former while your definition of "unused accounts" is highly questionable. You marked pro-Keep Anonymouseditor2k19 who made last edit on 21 May 2024 as possibly canvassed but not pro-Delete JohnWiki159 who made last edit on 14 April 2024. It would have been preferable for an uninvolved editor to have done this task. All other newly created accounts voted in the wrong sections or even page and unlikely to have been counted at all. All of this is beside the point anyway since it's the quality of the arguments that admins look at and not the number of votes. There simply isn't a good case for complete deletion and the admin correctly treated non-responses like "it didn't happen" or "no one recognized" for what they were.---Petextrodon (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might have missed one or two accounts, but I tried to tag all the suspicious accounts irrespective of whether they voted Keep or Delete. — kashmīrī TALK 21:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the legal consequences? Is it illegal to canvas people for Wikipedia arguments? Have I revealed any PII of the user? Have I called for harassment of the user? No, I'm calling a spade a spade. Go around saying that "Indians and an Indian Muslim along with the Sinhalese are trying to delete this page" on a strongly ideological forum and, yes, I think there are reasonable grounds to think that there was implicit canvassing, and there could have been meatpuppeting. Note that I haven't accused a single Wikipedia user of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. SinhalaLion (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SinhalaLion As far as I know, you aren't allowed to throw around unproven accusations against individuals outside Wikipedia either, although user Kashmiri is more openly guilty of this than you are. What reasonable grounds are there when that Reddit post is 2 days old and most of the Keep votes were cast before that? The implication is that one of the Keep-voters in that timeframe could have been canvassed although they are all old Wikipedians who had been active before that Reddit post.---Petextrodon (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s nothing “unproven” here — the user employed such inflammatory language that implicit canvassing is not an unwarranted accusation.
FYI, this wasn’t the only one. Beastmastah had done another round of posts on Tamil-dominated or left wing subreddits, using the term “Sinhalese fascists” when the rename discussion was taking place. Though that wasn’t directly related to the AfD, it certainly attracts a lot of attention from users of a certain ideological leaning — attention that could prove quite useful when other discussions arise.
Even if it turned out that no one was canvassed or meatpuppeting, this behaviour can and should be called out. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. SinhalaLion (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SinhalaLion We aren't discussing "Beastmastah". You also wrote: "There were also comments on the post before it was deleted, one of which was asking how they could address the issue."
It's obvious which user you were referring to and they made that comment on May 30 at 9:54:55 AM UTC . The likelihood that this user voted Keep and they even had any Wikipedia editing experience at all is very low to nil. That line didn't serve any good faith purpose and again the issue of lack of due diligence. I believe even banned users here are given the benefit of the doubt and individuals outside Wikipedia more so.---Petextrodon (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, we should be careful about linking to external social media profiles and connecting them to Wikipedia users whether explicitly or implicitly. User Kashmiri was warned about WP:OUTING attempt which is a serious crime.---Petextrodon (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that the user asking for instructions on what to do (on May 30 at 9:54:55 AM UTC) contributed to the AfD discussion. I brought their comment up to show that there had been interest in contributing by at least one person in the post, hence it's reasonable to see the original post as a canvassing attempt. Whether this particular user or someone else ended up joining the discussion is irrelevant - if it was because of the post, then it's canvassing at the very least and possibly meatpuppeting (if the OP has an account on Wikipedia).
I would give the benefit of the doubt to the OP, but that all went down the toilet the moment they said "Indians and an Indian Muslim along with the Sinhalese are trying to delete this page." Sorry, one doesn't get to use such ethnically charged language and then ask for "benefit of the doubt" (not that they've asked anyways). SinhalaLion (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstood me. Ethnically charged Reddit posts are none of our concern here. I'm saying Wikipedia should not be a place to level unproven accusations against particular individuals outside it as it's forbidden. There's no reasonable grounds to suspect a 2 day old deleted Reddit post affected the final outcome in any way. It has just cast unnecessary aspersions on Keep voters.---Petextrodon (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s the extreme inflammatory language, lack of good faith and lack of civility in conversations is possibly why the closing admin said what he said. Sometimes you have to let the evidence speak for itself, any neutral observer can see clearly see the un-encyclopedic behavior.Kanatonian (talk) Kanatonian (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Keep was a reasonable close for this discussion. No consensus would have also been a reasonable close, and possibly a better close, but that has no impact on the end result. Many of the delete votes focused on the the article having an inappropriate title or a non-neutral point of view. Those are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems that can be addressed via editing. Merging may be an appropriate outcome as well, and a merge discussion is already in progress. Frank Anchor 18:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) as the right close to what the closer acknowledged was a messy AFD. By my count, the headcount was 18 Keep and 13 Delete. AFD is not a headcount, but the headcount cannot be ignored, and, as the closer noted, the later contributions were stronger and were trending Keep:
  • Endorse and commend Liz for an excellent close. Liz has accurately discarded irrelevant arguments, and--despite not being required to--identified potential fixes for the things many !voters find objectionable but are fixable by editing and hence not deletion criteria. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Activity on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tamil genocide strongly suggests it's being actively canvassed right now. —Cryptic 21:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The appellant, User: Abhishek0831996, should get some sort of low-quality prize for one of the sillier arguments that I have seen in years at Deletion Review. They said: This is contrary to the fact that admins should be so confident about their closure that they should not expect a DRV with regards to their closure. That makes no sense with regard to contentious topics. I think that a closer should be sufficiently confident of their closure that they should be reasonably sure that their close will be endorsed by DRV. But that isn't what the appellant said. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agree. The closer is so experienced that they know any close they would have made on this topic would likely have wound up here at DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 07:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 ... quite aside from that no closure is proof against rejectionists who refuse to accept a decision that goes against their preference, as we've seen many times at DRV, or indeed on Wikipedia generally. (Never mind contrary to what "fact?" I don't myself phrase my own suppositions or wishlists as inerrant fact. They've ignored me before when I asked this question, but User: Abhishek0831996, how about you show us a link stating your phrasing as official guidance to closers?) Ravenswing 09:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agree with your sentiments. Kanatonian (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon, SportingFlyer, Ravenswing — FYI I requested the applicant return to DRV to justify that statement, see User talk:Abhishek0831996#DRV_follow-up, Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And judging from the reaction on their talk page, they've no plans to do so. Not that I blame them: there's not a lot to gain by "Okay, so I made it up / I was just airily tossing up any charge I figured people would swallow." Ravenswing 20:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Daniel, User:Ravenswing - I have given them the low-quality prize that I said they should get. I have added their argument to Arguments to Avoid at Deletion Reviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) I spent some time on this difficult discussion as if I were closing it on my own and came to basically the same conclusion as Liz: as flawed as this article's creation process was, considering that it was close to a WP:G5, those wanting to keep the article made it pretty clear the topic passed WP:GNG, and no specific version of WP:NOT to override the GNG argument was really argued anywhere in the discussion. I also wound up conservatively completely discarding a lot of keep !votes and came to the same conclusion. Good close. SportingFlyer T·C 07:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (involved in Afd) There is enough evidence provided above that a lot of off-wiki canvassing happened to keep the sock's creation.[8][9] Closing it as keep is totally over the top. Azuredivay (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do delete voters think mentioning it was created by a sock is of any relevance, given that a lot of other editors who aren't socks have worked on it since its creation? TarnishedPathtalk 10:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the same reason they're shouting Canvassing! Canvassing! and ignore the many Keep proponents who are veteran, neutral editors. If you have facts on your side, argue the facts. If you don't, hammer on any point you can grasp. Ravenswing 07:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There were very few established editors who argued for keeping. The majority was a canvassed mass. — kashmīrī TALK 10:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're joking, right? Sportsfan1234 has been around ten years and has over 88,000 edits. Oz346 has been here four years and has over 6000 edits. Pharoah of the Wizards has been here 18 years and has over a hundred thousand edits. Kanatonian's been around 18 years and has over 26,000 edits. Obi2canibe's been here since 2008 and has over 56,000 edits. Simonm223 the same, with over 13,000 edits. TarnishedPath? 2007, with over 11,000 edits. Parakanyaa has over 20,000 edits. Me? This is my twentieth year on Wikipedia, and I have over 59,000 edits. Perhaps you might want to retract that absurd assertion.

    (And whaddaya know. I just thought I'd take a peek at how many veteran editors advocated deletion. There were exactly four, other than yourself, with more than three thousand edits. It might have begged the question how many delete proponents were canvassed, were this not a close overwhelmingly endorsed by numerous veteran editors with the better part of a century of Wikipedia experience and several hundred thousand edits among them.) Ravenswing 12:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Now do the DRV participants for good measure? Jclemens (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens: as requested. I only did the "uninvolved" DRV participants, as the "involved" ones will be duplicates of Ravenswing's work above:
    • (endorse) OwenX - 19 years, 29,000 edits, administrator
    • (comment) Cryptic - 19 years, 40,000 edits, administrator
    • (endorse) Frank Anchor - 17 years, 24,000 edits, DRV regular
    • (endorse) Robert McClenon - 19 years, 192,000 edits, DRV regular
    • (endorse) Jclemens - 18+ years*, 45,000 edits, DRV regular and former administrator (* could not find an account creation date)
      Yeah, I don't actually remember when I created my account. It was some time before my first edit, may have been a year or two, so I've just been using the first edit date to measure my longevity, because I didn't participate before then, even if I said "Oh, cool, I should sign up now before my username is taken" at some earlier point. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      27 February 2005, best I can reconstruct. —Cryptic 21:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nice! I now know my Wiki-Birthday, that has been lost to me for almost two decades! Seriously, it's totally off topic, but thank you very much. That's been low-grade bugging me for years. Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (endorse) SportingFlyer - 18 years, 30,000 edits, DRV regular
    • (comment) Daniel - 18 years, 74,000 edits, administrator
    I think it's fair to say the statements around "very few established editors" arguing to keep and/or endorse at the various stages of this deletion process, have been categorically debunked to the point that the individual(s) making them should really come back and consider striking and retracting them. Daniel (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. When I see some of the same names I've been seeing for the better part of twenty years at AfD, various noticeboards, ANI and too many talk pages to count, such accusations are absurd on their face. Ravenswing 18:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in the mix too. I'm not sure my creation date is right due to the rename and went inactive for a while, but I've been around a few years (2008?) and a few thousand edits.Guess I'm canvassed though. :shrug: Star Mississippi 01:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Must have been. We're disagreeing with the partisan take on the issue. Therefore there must be some chicanery involved. Obviously it's impossible for neutral, experienced editors (or DRV regulars, or those who went to the AfD after the ANI thread) to judge an issue solely with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in mind. Ravenswing 07:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Compared to the 16–18 spas or canvassed users, the 9 established users preferring 'keep' were a minority. Besides, I don't like your trick with the threshold of 3000 edits. Why not e.g. 1500 edits, which would already exclude SPAs and resurrected accounts? Is ir because that would show that the majority (12 to 10) of such editors have preferred deleting/draftifying? — kashmīrī TALK 18:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some advice here: quit while you're behind. The vast majority of editors here, several some of the longest standing veterans and admins Wikipedia has, think that Liz -- herself an admin, a veteran of eleven years and with over fifteen times your edit count -- delivered a good and valid close. You are not yourself a rookie. You cannot be unaware that you are doing yourself no favors here, and that we're unmoved by arguing for the sake of arguing. Ravenswing 19:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit count of some editors does not absolve mass canvassing and it does not hide the fact that the article was created by a sock. In fact, your obsession over edit count is rather useless. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this has anything to do with creating encyclopedic content, which is our main focus. We are here to determine if the article uses reliable sources, is written in neutral language, and maintains a balanced format. These are the criteria for deciding whether to keep or delete articles. Everything else is simply deprecation.Kanatonian (talk) Kanatonian (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) clear and fair close. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) That is one of the clearest, most precise, and accurate closing statements I have ever encountered.Kanatonian (talk)
  • Endorse (uninvolved) as a reasonable summation of the discussion. There has definitely been brigading of the discussion and article in general, this can be seen elsewhere online. But the discussion comes down to the content of reliable sources, and this was correctly identified in the close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What the user analysis by User:Ravenswing and User:Daniel, as well as the comments from the peanut gallery show is:
    • 1. Established editors have both voted to Keep and to Delete. There appear to be more Keep than Delete votes. In any case, the claim that no or few established editors voted to Keep is sufficiently nonsensical that it should be viewed as disruptive editing.
    • 2. There was canvassing, apparently on both sides. The deleters have not made a case as to how the canvassing should affect the outcome, which, as we saw, had substantial Keep participation by established editors. Investigating the canvassing might be in order, but as a separate action, not tied to this DRV.
    • 3. The uninvolved DRV participants have ALL either made comments or made Endorse statements, and are all established editors. No uninvolved DRV participant has supported any sort of an Overturn.
    • 4. User:Liz was sufficiently justified in closing this AFD as Keep that some of the Overturn arguments are disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No evidence of canvassing regarding the "delete" supporters has been provided while significant evidence exists for the "keep" supporters including the fact that the article itself was created by sock as POVFORK of War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War. You need to read WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS, and stop falsely accusing valid arguments as "disruptive" only because you disagree with them. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You arguing that it was created by a sock has exactly no basis in policy for this discussion given that plenty of none sock editors have edited on the article since its creation. The argument of a WP:POVFORK is also lacking, as this appears to be a valid WP:SPINOFF. TarnishedPathtalk 05:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User Obi2canibe has provided compelling evidence of delete supporters being canvassed, which is now in the "Hidden wall of text unsuccessful unblock request" section:
    User talk:Obi2canibe#Block And there is evidence of delete users calling on each other in the past: [10] Oz346 (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Close was correct. Decline to consider whether no consensus was also an option. Decline to reconsider POVFORK issue raised during the AfD at this forum, I don't see consensus there that any such issues were unresolvable. If there are user conduct issues preventing resolution, WP:AE is thataway. Feel free to renominate in 6 months. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri I came to this article directly from a Google search because I wanted to become more informed on the subject, and saw that there was a deletion discussion. I had never even seen this Reddit thread you're referencing. I did more research on the topic outside of wikipedia, read the discussion, and decided that it makes sense for the article to stay up but get heavily edited and potentially renamed, and yet you left a note saying that I have been "canvassed to this discussion". It's reasonable to be concerned about potential canvassing, but making baseless accusations against other editors makes you look bad and undermines your claims. Also, my suggestion to potentially rename it and heavily edit would be reasonable to someone who has a neutral point of view on the subject. Rayanblaq14 (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved). Deletion discussions on politically charged topics tend to generate disputes on DRV regardless of the close, and the best that the closer can be expected to do is provide a policy based rationale. Liz's made an excellent summary of the discussion in her closing rationale, based on the available sourcing and the content of the arguments made. OwenX has provided a convincing defense of her closure further up in the discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (uninvolved) The closure's argument that the subject is notable only because it has been covered by the sources is not sensible. With that logic we can have pages about Hindu genocide, Muslim genocide, Sikh genocide (a disambiguation), Baloch genocide and more because these subjects have veen also covered by many reliable sources. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes. That's the fundamental premise of WP:BASIC: that a subject is notable enough for an article if it has received "significant coverage" in multiple independent, published, reliable sources. There are hundreds of thousands of articles on terribly obscure sportsfolk, places, animals, battles, and so on and so on and so on, extant because they meet the GNG. I note that you're another editor with a history of editing South Asian articles suddenly showing up to overturn, but at DRV, outcomes aren't judged on WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning, but on whether the close was in accordance with settled Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you'd like to argue that the GNG itself is not sensible and ought to be abolished, starting at the WP:N talk page is a start. Ravenswing 15:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BASIC is not a part of the GNG, it's in the WP:NBIO SNG and only applies to biographies. Doesn't apply to roads, schools, battles, genocides. Furthermore, BASIC is explicitly a waiver of SIGCOV. A source can be more than a trivial mention but not amount to a source with significant coverage according to most people, and while such a source could not be used to demonstrate notability if the topic had been a darts tournament, it can, potentially (if there are multiple other such sources, and it's possible to write an article based on them) be used to demonstrate notability of a biographical subject. Maybe it's a single paragraph—and many people in an AfD would find that not to be SIGCOV—but maybe it's three highly condensed sentences highly packed with meaning about someone's life and works, so it's not trivial coverage either. BASIC allows multiple such sources to be used to substitute for a lack of sources that would relatively uncontroversially be considered SIGCOV for the purposes of determining notability. And this applies to biographies only, and is a more relaxed path to notability, more permissive than GNG, like a GNG-lite. —Alalch E. 15:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. After a tendentious merge proposal, a hopeless RM,[see thoughts] a desperate AfD, the only thing left is a ridiculous DRV. That exhausts all the tools in the "get rid of bad topic" arsenal. Hopefully.
    Thoughts:
    Try an RM again in the future to move to "Tamil genocide accusation" or similar if the coverage supports that formulation of the topic (a notable viewpoint as opposed to a notable event or series thereof).
    The RM wasn't that bad (too much of an emphasis on legal definitions which does not work, but the comparison with "Palestinian genocide accusation" seems possibly appropriate) and should, maybe, be tried again, but before it is tried again the content must speak strongly in favor of applying this definition of the topic.
    "Genocide" is an inherently WP:CONTENTIOUS term and it is not enough that some reliable sources speak of Tamil genocide. The majority of reliable academic sources that describe the events discussed in the article should be describing them as a genocide or constituent parts of a genocide.
    The only way forward is a future RM. An RM on this topic should be closed by an administrator. It's alo possible that any RM about involving contentious terminology in a contentious area that has seen canvassing should be allowed to last more than seven days as "other reasonable measure" on a discretionary basis under WP:CTOP.
    WP:ECR should apply to articles about genocides within any contentious topic.—Alalch E. 13:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 May 2024

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

A footballer deleted for failing two guidelines, GNG and NFOOTBALL. The second is depecrated and now irrelevant, and regarding the first one, there was little participation and no WP:BEFORE was performed whatsoever. An actual search yields lots of GNG.

Above all, Isaksen is remembered for scoring a crucial goal that altered the relegation battle in the 1996 Eliteserien. This received significant coverage, both regarding him as a player and also venturing into his personal life (full pages or double spreads in all major newspapers). Moreover, this event has gained coverage several decades later, fulfilling WP:SUSTAINED. Furthermore, there are other key moments in his career, such as scoring a goal in a cup semi-final that sent his club to the cup final. There is also significant coverage in newspapers from the places he grew up, Øst-Finnmark and Kongsberg, many years after he moved from those areas.

Of course, this should be restored to draft space and worked on there. Geschichte (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse original close but allow recreation. Firstly, this is a flawed appeal, as the appellant skipped step #2 of WP:DELREVD - notifying the AfD closer. Secondly, whether this footballer is "remembered for scoring a crucial goal" or not is immaterial. NFOOTBALL was the SNG in force at the time of this AfD. NSPORTS2022 was only codified the following year. I do note, however, that one of the three participants in that AfD - Rondolinda - was indef-blocked from projectspace a few months later due to their conduct on AfDs. If there now are sources satisfying GNG, WP:REFUND would be the right venue for this request. Owen× ☎ 10:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to draftspace per request. Let's not let bureaucracy get in the way of improving the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Encourage draftification, and follow advice at WP:THREE on establishing that the subject is notable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but restore to draft, this is an old AfD and current standards do not mean a prior one was wrong. Was your request for the draft declined? Unclear why we're here. Star Mississippi 13:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to draftspace. The close was correct based on information known at the time. However, with delete voter Rondolinda sanctioned for rush-copy-and-pasting votes, their vote can not be taken seriously and therefore can retroactively be removed. This is no longer a WP:QUORUM and recreation must be allowed based on any good-faith request (including this DRV). Restoring to draftspace will allow Geschichte or any other interested user the time to incorporate appropriate sources into the draft version before a return to mainspace. Frank Anchor 13:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and Restore draft as per discussion here. I think (but don't know) that the answer to User:Star Mississippi's question is that some editors know about Deletion Review and don't know about Requests for Undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore draft I can't see the current version of the page, but if it doesn't pass WP:GNG it should be draftified. SportingFlyer T·C 16:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but restore to draft, agree with the above comment that we should not let bureaucracy stand in the way of improving the encyclopedia, but I'm also concerned that this still won't be enough. Aside from the fact that it is a shame sources are not being presented here to show WP:SIGCOV, I am concerned that:
  1. the crucial goal is a case of WP:BLP1E regardless of whether people are still talking about it.
  2. other events such as him scoring a goal here or there will be passing mentions and we need to be careful of WP:SYNTH by taking a lot of small mentions as being wider significant coverage
  3. other mentions may well be too local, or just routine transfer talk.
  4. although not essential, it is disappointing that no online sources are provided for this player. This makes coverage difficult to assess, so I would like to see that if possible

Overall, if this is recreated, I would like this to go through a proper articles for creation process to get more independent eyes on the depth of coverage, especially given that he is now retired. For example, if this important goal is still being discussed, to justify an article on the scorer we would not only neede to see evidence of continued discussion, but that the discussion is in depth, i.e. part of a wider reflection on his career or something like that where he is the main subject, not his club or the match or that season. Fenix down (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most AfC reviewers wouldn't put it through the rigourous process you're suggesting, though. If I saw it at AfC and it hadn't already been sent to AfD I'd probably pass it as "likely to pass an AfD." SportingFlyer T·C 06:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 May 2024

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
No te mueras sin decirme adónde vas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
No te mueras sin decirme adonde vas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Mariposa china (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Historia del cine argentino (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Noches aticas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Noches áticas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Ninos envueltos (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
La Nave de los locos (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted with the rationale "redirect to a list with no other useful information beyond a repetition of the name" which is clearly not a WP:CSD; Template:R to list entry are fairly common in fact many of which offer minimal information. Of course sometimes these are deleted at WP:RFD, but they should receive a discussion where the community has an opportunity to review before being deleted. Deleting admin has not responded to the request for undeletion, as such I am bringing this here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:FD37:E902:E246:5D16 (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILM has an established consensus that film titles should not be mere redirects to "list of films of YYYY lists". For various reasons, the titles in Category:Argentine film redirects are not helpful; sometimes the title is not actually present in the list it's been redirected to at all; sometimes it is present and linked as a recursive redirect right back to the same page you're on; sometimes it's present in the list but links a different spelling or capitalization of the same title so it redlinks out from the page; sometimes it's been linked to the wrong list and the film was actually released in a different year; and there's been more than one case identified where the primary topic for a title wasn't actually a film at all, such as Malevo, a dance troupe who you've seen on Got Talent, but whose name was being coopted as a "film-redirected-to-list" whose existence was unverifiable (well, there was a film of that title, but not in the year the title was redirecting to or even a year in the same decade, and certainly not a film that would have held primary topic status over the dancers.)
The helpfulness of such redirects has already been discussed by NFILM, where a consensus was established that they are not valuable, and no further input from new participants (especially anonymous IPs) is either needed or desired, as all the relevant issues have already been hashed out. And RFD has already indicated that they don't want to see every last one of these for days and days of discussion, and has directed me that I am justified in acting boldly on a case-by-case basis after assessing the value and utility and "is there another place this could be redirected to instead of this bad target" reuseability of these redirects.
So no, I'm not taking any clapback from any anons about it, because this has all already been hashed out by active editors. Bearcat (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The community hasn't authorized you, or whoever "they" at NFILM are, to delete these pages by fiat. You can bring them to RFD like anybody else. —Cryptic 01:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I brought a batch of them to RFD, I most certainly was explicitly told to just be bold with them instead of bringing them to RFD over and over again. And where else would one discuss such an issue as the utility of content, besides the WikiProject for that subject area? Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an administrator you are expected to know deletion policy, if you think a handful of people saying you should be bold in a single RFD overrides the strong global consensus the community has embodied at WP:CSD then you should seriously consider refraining from use of the deletion tool until you have refamiliarized yourself with community expectations. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:FD37:E902:E246:5D16 (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a phrase for administrators who "are bold" with deletion, with ample precedent. That phrase is "desysopped for cause". —Cryptic 01:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProjects have no special power over content, and any user whether registered or unregistered explicitly has a right to request an explanation for administrative actions. If you believe the pages should be speediable then go to WT:CSD and get a consensus for it, but neither you, me, nor anyone else is above deletion policy. Furthermore speedy deletion is fundamentally not the place for boldness, and I would seriously reconsider recalibrating your approach to use of the deletion tool. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:FD37:E902:E246:5D16 (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProjects most certainly do have the authority to establish a consensus around how to deal with the issues that crop up in their domains of expertise, such as "no, film titles that do not have articles should not be summarily redirected to mere lists of films" and/or "no, we do not need to individually rediscuss each separate reiteration of the same thing we've already gone over 200 times, and already established a clear consensus against, before". Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They in fact do not, and you have no policy basis for that claim. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override policy. Go to WT:CSD and get policy changed, but you are not allowed to ignore deletion policy. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:FD37:E902:E246:5D16 (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no reason to doubt Bearcat's claim that such deletions were debated and follow consensus reached at a WikiProject. But then why not enshrine this consensus as a new CSD:R5? I'm not a fan of policy-by-oral-tradition or unwritten rules, and having this one documented would allow other admins to apply it consistently. Personally, I see no value in having redirects to a list that contains nothing beyond the titles, but I don't want the fate of such a redirect to depend on whether the admin looking at it knows about some debate that took place on NFILM at some point in the past.
I also find the dismissive tone when dealing with anon appellants to be in poor taste at best, and harmful in this case. This particular anon - I think of them as the Vigilant Virginian - has a history here at DRV. They are well versed in our policy, guidelines and common practices. The cases they bring here are never tendentious or vexatious. Most end in overturning an admin's out-of-process action, and more importantly, in fostering discussion about such practices. Dismissing this anon's cases out of hand will deprive us of the services of a diligent watchdog. Owen× ☎ 11:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and take to RfD, which exists for this purpose. Just because one group has an opinion you're following, doesn't mean it's policy. Valid question by an established IP and to be honest, where a consensus was established that they are not valuable, and no further input from new participants (especially anonymous IPs) is either needed or desired, is a surprising comment from you, Bearcat. Star Mississippi 12:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn out-of-process speedy deletion that does not fall under the criteria. It probably should be criteria for speedy deletion and I would support a discussion to add this, per OwenX above (such a discussion could highlight any potential setbacks to adding a blanket statement like redirect to a list with no other useful information beyond a repetition of the name). However, this was not in CSD at the time of deletion therefore the only remedy for deletion of these articles is through RFD (and I would strongly recommend these titles NOT be bundled in the same RFD so each can be decided on its own merits). Frank Anchor 14:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the out-of-process speedy deletions that don't even have a speedy deletion code, and optionally send to RFD:
      • Speedy deletions are and should be limited to reasons that have guidelines for speedy deletion. They should not be based on undocumented or informally documented vague waves.
      • The editors at RFD were out of line if they told any admin to act boldly to make these deletions without discussion. They didn't even really make maintaining the encyclopedia easier, because the discussion that they tried to avoid at RFD is being discussed instead at DRV.
      • The editors at the film project were sloppy. If they didn't want these redirects, they could have and should have implemented a guideline, and the guideline could be approved by RFC, and then it wouldn't be a local consensus but a consensus.
      • Alternatively, as noted, there can be a new CSD code R5, "redirect to a list with no other useful information beyond a repetition of the name". That also wouldn't be a local consensus but a consensus.
      • I disagree about deleting the redirects, anyway. Redirects are cheap, and I don't think that redirects to lists should be deleted. But we can discuss that in the RFC at the CSD talk page.
      • I mostly agree with User:Bearcat about not wanting clapback from unregistered editors. But User:Cryptic and User:OwenX and User:Star Mississippi and User:Frank Anchor are not unregistered editors.
      • The unregistered editor should register an account. But that is not the issue. Out-of-process deletions are the issue.
      • If the editors at RFD don't want to waste their time on diddly deletions of redirects, they don't need to take part in RFD. There are many other sorts of gnome tasks.
      • Bearcat acted in good faith but was given sloppy instructions. Restore the out-of-process deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unclear on how the identity of the appellant or their status vis-à-vis registration comes into play here. If their appeal has merit, it's not "clapback", and if it doesn't, I don't care if they're an Arbcom member. The problem with most anon DRV appeals is that they fail WP:DRVPURPOSE, but so do many appeals from registered editors, and this one clearly does not. What if the four registered users hadn't !voted here - would you then dismiss the case as "clapback"? I think the anon should keep doing what they're doing, which is bring improper deletions to our attention, and that it's none of our business whether they register an account or not. Owen× ☎ 17:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to RfD If there's local consensus to delete these, which I'm not aware of (outside of my editing area) and hasn't been linked to in this discussion, then I would actually endorse this deletion. I think threatening a desysop here is ridiculous. However, given these specific titles have generated controversy, the best thing to do here is to send them to RfD, where if Bearcat's deletion rationale was correct, then they'll remain deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Very clearly out of process per above - the deleting admin needs to reacquaint themselves with the speedy deletion policy. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Violation of WP:CSD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per the excellent arguments by the IP Mach61 17:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 May 2024

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:WBBL05 Cap Logo Heat.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I supported its deletion formerly. However, when I'm back with the articles that it was used (like 2020–21 Brisbane Heat WBBL season, 2022–23 Brisbane Heat WBBL season), I feel something is missing, especially the logo. I'm not sure that contents described in these articles can make readers understand without the logo. Kys5g talk! 03:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse: DR isn't really a place to try to re-argue an FFD per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, and it's not clear how the closer's close might've been incorrect given the "delete" !votes (based on items 14 and 17 of WP:NFC#UUI) posted in the FFD. Perhaps the closer should've been asked about this and given a chance to respond before bringing this up for discussion here since it probably would have saved some time and effort. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Nonsensical nomination which fails to explain why the close at FfD was allegedly incorrect. As Marchjuly correctly noted above, DRV is not FfD redux. Also noting for the record that Kys5g failed to consult Explicit before jumping straight to DRV. -Fastily 09:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The appellant fails to identify any error by the closer. If the appellant is saying, "I changed my mind", that isn't one of the reasons for deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No valid reason given for opposing deletion. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ed Winters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Withdrawing my request based on the advice of editors below. I will request undeletion/draftification at WP:REFUND shortly. Gottagotospace (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Since the deletion discussion in 2020, the subject has become more notable and received more media coverage, and I believe he now meets notability guidelines. Even from a three-minute Google search, I found plenty: [reply]

I do admit I'm a little biased because I am a vegan myself, but I'm unbiased enough to know not every animal rights activist is notable enough to have their own article. Ed isn't even my favorite vegan activist (my favorite is someone who is not notable enough to get her own article yet), but I recognize that Ed is one of the most prominent modern vegan activists. I can provide more information if requested, but I think this is enough to at least start the discussion. Gottagotospace (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just notified all editors involved in the 2020 deletion discussion that I opened this deletion review, except those who have been blocked or those who seem to no longer be active on Wikipedia (based on me checking contributions history). Gottagotospace (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see only about three of these are even RS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I can't recall what the problems may have been, but the RS are not about him, they just quote him. Thus I am unsure we can write an article about him based on them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia articles about other animal rights activists could be a rough template here, or examples of things that can be covered. For example, see David Olivier, Karen Dawn, Joey Carbstrong, Jack Norris (activist), and other activists in Template:Animal rights. Gottagotospace (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Ed has become more notable ever since the deletion of his article a couple of years ago. If my memory serves right, for the most part I was arguing for the retention of the article based on the available sources back then. If we have more reliable sources (I'm sure we could glean more as in the above list) and if other editors agree with those, I think we can have Ed's article updated and moved to the main space. Cheers. Rasnaboy (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found some more coverage:
Yes, I know that not all of the places I have posted links from count as "reliable sources", but some do, and also the other sources are here to show additional coverage of the subject and his activities since the last AfD. Gottagotospace (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, even if his book is notable, he may not be. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note from closer it's been 4 years since the 2nd AfD (which I closed) and so the sourcing available may very well have changed to establish notability now. This doesn't seem to be about whether or not the consensus of the AfD was correct so I won't say anything further other than to say I will watch this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. There was nothing wrong with the 2020 close, but the appellant doesn't need our permission to work on a new draft. WP:REFUND would have been a better venue if they want to start work where the deleted version left off. Of course, this source list needs to be trimmed down to meet SIRS. Owen× ☎ 16:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like your suggestion. Thank you! Do I need to wait for this deletion review to be officially closed first, or can I go over to WP:REFUND right now without waiting? Gottagotospace (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gottagotospace, you can withdraw your appeal here any time, which will trigger it to be speedily closed with no action. Then you can ask for draftification at WP:REFUND, linking to this DRV to speed things up. With any luck, by this time tomorrow you'll be working on the draft. Owen× ☎ 17:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I will go ahead and withdraw it (I'll post something above) and then head over to WP:REFUND. Thanks! Gottagotospace (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you can withdraw here, skip REFUND and start work on a fresh draft right away, if you don't need the old text. Owen× ☎ 17:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is not clear whether the appellant is saying that the 2020 close should be overturned, or whether the appellant wants to submit a new article, but apparently the latter. This is mostly a URL Dump, and is about as useful as most URL dumps, and is insulting to the reviewers, because it implies that the appellant is too busy or too important to put the URLs into a real draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for any perceived insult. I certainly did not intend it that way. So what happened was I was about to make a draft article about Ed Winters, and then Wikipedia was like "HOLD UP STOP RIGHT THERE, an article with this title has been deleted before!!!" (obviously paraphrased haha). That's what led me here. I am happy to make a draft, and that was my original intention. This is my first time drafting an article that has previously been deleted, so I opened this deletion review under DRV Purpose 3 to seek consultation. I figured it would be better to seek consultation from other editors (who might spend like 15 minutes participating in this discussion) first, versus me spending 3-4 hours on an article without seeking consultation first and then having it end up immediately deleted or rejected. Gottagotospace (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have long disliked DRV Purpose 3, because most of the DRV Purpose 3 cases that we get are where the title has not been salted, and the appellant can simply either submit a draft for review, or create an article subject to AFD, and these appeals ask DRV to give permission to submit a draft for review, when permission is not needed. But I have already lost that battle, and DRV Purpose 3 is still there. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have long agreed with you on this. At some point the right answer to an AfD that closed with delete (or an equivalent outcome like redirect) is to just write a new article with the new information. That shouldn't be the day after it closes (where it really should come here) but is also, in my opinion, sooner than 4 years after the most recent AfD discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Submission of Draft subject to Articles for Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored this to a draft Draft:Ed Winters, so I guess this can be closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 May 2024

edit

26 May 2024

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

1. no consensus was reached so it should have defaulted to keep. 2. arguments for deletion quoted Wikipedia rules that upon examination did not appear to apply to the article. 3. one primary argument suggested that the article contained original research when it in fact didn't. Travelling nomad1 (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Involved as AfD 4 closer, AfD5 nom). Endorse well reasoned read of the discussion although I can also see a N/C. Potentially support draftification per commitment to improve per my comment here and Jonovitch's ideas. Travelling nomad1, the sources you kept adding do not help with notability (and more isn't better) nor do they make the article more useful to the reader. There's a difference between an article about and an index of. An A-Z list of IMAXs linking to their own sites isn't going to work and if that's what you want to create, it would be better offsite. Star Mississippi 13:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize this has been litigated like mad, but I'd still appreciate seeing the article via a temp undelete. List articles can have a lot of reasons for being kept and a lot for being deleted. If the article is a bunch of bluelinks, it probably meets WP:CSC as a navigational aid and the keep !votes would actually have some valid arguments. If not, NOTDIR arguments are probably in the right. My intutition is that a there most certainly can be a reasonable list article under this title. Basically there is a split !vote and judging the strength of those arguments requires seeing the article... Hobit (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion That's a darn impressive bit of work and I might have !voted to keep, but I think the delete arguments are stronger. This really does run into WP:NOTDIR issues. But the work to create it is darn impressive and it will be a shame to have it go. Hopefully someone can copy it over to some other wiki or some other publicly accessible storage location. A link to such a resource from the IMAX article would seem reasonable to me. Hobit (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. After reading the DRVs and discussions I don't think there is any other way this could have been closed, especially considering the blatant canvassing and lack of understanding of our P&Gs by sleeper accounts. JoelleJay (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, concurring with the closing statement of User:OwenX, that the strength of arguments for Delete was far stronger than the strength of arguments for Keep:
      • I thank User:Hobit for requesting temp undeletion, and User:Cryptic for temp undeleting.
      • I concur with User:Hobit that this is a useful list, although it is not an encyclopedic list. It should be hosted somewhere, but not in Wikipedia. It may be kept in draft space, but there should be no guarantee that it can be promoted back to article space via AFC or otherwise.
      • DRV is not a conduct forum. That is, DRV is not ANI round 0. However, there are conduct violations going on, including in these lists, in AFD, and in DRV. The creation of this article with this disambiguated title was disruptive, an intentional attempt to game the system, and the rule against gaming the system identifies it as disruptive editing. Any future conduct violations should be taken to ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I concur with above endorse !votes but would prefer this list to be draftified as opposed to deleted; I think with considerable work this article could become a reasonable dab or list page. Happily888 (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The policy-based arguements citing WP:NOTDIR were not successfully refuted. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Reasonable finding of a consensus to delete.—Alalch E. 17:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not particularly sympathetic to the request for draftification, given that its proponents have been taking advantage of the temporary undeletion to recreate redirects (which I've just speedied) and readd links (which I've just rolled back) to it in mainspace. Even money both will need to be done again by the time this closes. —Cryptic 03:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 May 2024

edit

24 May 2024

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

(Note, this refers to the 4th nomination from April 28, 2024.) The nomination for deleting the article made a claim of WP:NOTDIRECTORY but didn't include any explanations to back up the claim (and multiple previous nominations already rejected that claim). This goes against WP:AFDFORMAT: "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." In addition, most of the comments were a combination of WP:PERNOM and/or WP:JUSTAPOLICY. This also goes against WP:AFDFORMAT: "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments." Of the few arguments that were made, most referred erroneously to digital IMAX theaters, which weren't even part of the list and were actually called out in the intro paragraph as being excluded from the article (making it clear the commenters didn't even know what was in it). Therefore, the deletion was based on a flawed nomination, flawed votes, no real debate, and arguments against something that wasn't even in the article. Which means per Wikipedia's own guidelines, there was no solid basis for deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonovitch (talk • contribs) 00:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry I forgot to sign -- thanks for adding that. Jonovitch (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There was a very clear consensus to delete there, and this couldn't have been closed any other way. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus was entirely WP:PERNOM and/or WP:JUSTAPOLICY, which clearly go against Wikipedia's guidelines. Should those votes not be discarded? And if they are discarded, what's left? I'm sincerely asking; I don't understand why a decision can be made based on those votes. Jonovitch (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own close, which was essentially also endorsed again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors when the article was re-created. cc @OwenX: as closer there. I understand Jonovitch and others would like this article to exist, but they have provided no policy based reason it meets Wikipedia requirements and guidelines. Star Mississippi 03:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @OwenX: backed up that decision with this one, and now this decision is being backed up with that one -- circular logic. And both of those decisions ignored the multiple previous "keep" decisions where the same arguments were repeatedly considered and rejected. Why were the many previous "keep" decisions ignored while the single "delete" decision gets reinforced (even though it's full of problematic WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY votes)?
    I understand some people don't want this article to exist, but I and others did provide several policy-based reasons why it meets Wikipedia requirements and guidelines. Here are a few of them again:
    1. WP:NOTDATABASE says, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." The article's intro paragraphs provided context for the data in the list, plus explanations and definitions, with references to independent sources.
    2. WP:N says, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." IMAX 15/70 film theaters have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources for decades (also the new laser variants more recently). In the last year they have become even more notable, due to Oppenheimer and Dune 2. Countless news stories across the globe pointed out how these theaters are notable because of their technical superiority to regular theaters, immense size, unique aspect ratio, and rarity. The many citations in the article were from verifiable sources -- some from news articles, some from theater websites (for raw data purposes, not editorializing), and only a very small handful from the IMAX corporate website (again for data, not editorializing).
    3. WP:USEFUL says, "a cogent argument must be more specific: who is the content useful for, and why?" The different types of "IMAX" theaters (and the IMAX Corporation's lack of clarity) leads to a lot of confusion among moviegoers. The article was useful because it helped confused moviegoers understand the differences between the types of IMAX-branded theaters, it showed them the technical specifications of why one type of IMAX is superior (or inferior) than another, and it included this information in a list sorted by geography, so moviegoers could find which (if any) of the superior theater formats was near them.
    4. WP:LISTPURP says, "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list." Point 3 above explained why/how the structured list was a valuable source of information for moviegoers.
    5. WP:NLIST says, "a list topic is considered notable ... if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." The topic of IMAX 15/70 film theaters (and the newer laser formats) have been discussed in many independent news articles; a couple of specific examples were linked to in the other discussion (but apparently were ignored). Because the group is notable, the list of items in that group is valid.
    6. Whenever WP:NOTDIRECTORY came up, commenters asked the person who made the claim to explain how the article fit that guideline. Nobody was able to do so. But commenters repeatedly explained how the article isn't a directory. The arguments for deletion based on this point (which are most of them) seem to be a case of proof by assertion.
    (Note, none of the above falls under WP:MUSTBESOURCES -- there are independent sources. The article cited many of them, and more could have been added if it hadn't been deleted. Because there are plenty in existence to choose from, this falls under WP:NEXIST.)
    Sincere question: The votes to delete were WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY, which go against the policies and guidelines. The article itself did meet the policies and guidelines. So what else is needed? Or what am I missing? Jonovitch (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's needed is for this DRV to be closed as out of process because you have erroneously nominated the wrong deletion for discussion, when you should have nominated the deletion from the last AfD (which is not the AfD here discussed), as it is the only close which can actionably be challeged. Nothing can happen out of this DRV, it's a big nothing. —Alalch E. 19:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be partially to blame for this – at the most recent AfD, I suggested that DRV was more appropriate than recreating the article under a new title. Sorry if that led to confusion over which AfD should be the basis of a deletion review. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The close was correct and reflected consensus. I haven't seen the article, but I do think the deletion rationale is potentially wrong - I think it meets WP:LISTN after a very cursory before search, and I'm not sure WP:NOTDIRECTORY actually applies if it could be fixed with contextual editing - but I can't fault the deletion discussion here. SportingFlyer T·C 04:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would normally temp undelete, but it had so many revisions it needed a steward to delete, so I'm not sure it's possible. If someone else knows that it is, please do so. Star Mississippi 12:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't need a steward to undelete, but you do need to repeatedly partial undelete it in chunks of only a couple hundred revisions at once or it times out. The real problem is that it would need a steward to delete again once it exceeded 5000 undeleted revisions. It's a significant hassle on both ends. —Cryptic 14:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The correct close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the only possible outcome. (involved as the closing admin of the subsequent AfD for essentially the same article.) A closing admin may discard a !vote when a participant relies on an irrelevant policy or guideline, e.g., "Delete per IDONTLIKEIT". The closer may not discard an otherwise valid !vote when they disagree on a factual assessment, which is what the appellant is asking us to do here. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is, prima facie, a relevant policy. Whether the article falls under this category or not is a question of fact, where the closing admin may not overrule a unanimous consensus with a supervote.
I also see no merit in appealing an AfD that was already relitigated the very next day, under a slightly different title, in a failed attempt to game the system. The appellant, who participated in the subsequent AfD ("AfD5"), is a "sleeper account", created in 2008 but with a total of nine edits before being awakened by a Reddit call to arms.
Contrary to the appellant's claim, I did not "back up" AfD5 based on the closing of AfD4. I mentioned AfD4 in my lengthy closing rationale, but AfD5 was closed on its own merits. Similarly, Star Mississippi isn't backing up her decision with the result of the subsequent AfD, but merely pointing out the futility of appealing a decision that has already been relitigated. There is no "circular logic" here, just a clear, consistent, correct application of AfD policy. Owen× ☎ 11:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the back and forth, I know this has gotten messy. I'm trying to raise the right questions in the right place.
1. Here and in the other discussion, I showed how the votes of WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY clearly violated the guidelines in WP:AFDFORMAT, and how the votes introduced arguments that were irrelevant to the article being debated. Because of this, per your explanation above, shouldn't those votes have been discarded by the closing admin? I have yet to hear an explanation why those votes were valid. So I ask again sincerely, if they went against policy, why were they not discarded?
2. Additionally, I and others asked many times how the article fails under WP:NOTDIRECTORY, the primary claim in both discussions. That question was never answered; the claims were only repeated (which goes against WP:JUSTAPOLICY). I and others rebutted those (and other) claims using Wikipedia's own guidelines to back up the rebuttals. Further, we used the policies and guidelines to positively show how the article did meet requirements (see the direct quotes from the policies above). So how was the article just a directory? And why were the rebuttals and evidences ignored, even though they were based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Both of the above issues appear to be proof by assertion, "in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction and refutation" and asserted as fact "solely due to a lack of challengers." But the claims were challenged and refuted using Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. What more is needed?
Lastly, attempts to dismiss arguments from a "sleeper account" (or other people making arguments, regardless of where they came from) goes against WP:ATTP. Please speak to the arguments and questions regarding the policies and guidelines, not to the people making the arguments. Thank you! Jonovitch (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you did not show those !votes were irrelevant to the article being debated". You are asserting that they are incorrect. The two are very different. As I explained above, one is a question of policy, while the other is a question of fact. It is perfectly valid to argue whether or not the article met WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Both for- and against- arguments are relevant to a discussion about an article that at least at first blush looks like little more than a directory. Neither argument may be discarded in such a discussion. The WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY arguments you keep bringing up are a part of an essay, not a policy. They provide excellent advice on how to conduct oneself in an AfD, but you cannot use this essay to demand an otherwise valid !vote be discarded. You have yet to present a policy-based justification for discarding all !votes in that AfD.
I join you in lamenting that no one made the effort to educate you and others on why the article fails under WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but that is not the purpose of AfD. Had you and your fellow Keep voters been here for the bona fide purpose of writing an encyclopedia, I'm sure you would have found the answer by now. Alas, it is very clear from your contribution history that you are not here to write an encyclopedia, which is why I brought up your record as a dormant, now-single-purpose account. Wikipedia has a low tolerance for people trying to use it as a free web hosting service, not to mention for people engaging in off-wiki canvassing to sway the result of discussions. If you have a legal background, I'm sure you're familiar with the unclean hands doctrine. This type of behaviour will make it very difficult to find a sympathetic ear here. At this point, you are not only wasting everyone's time in an appeal that has already been identified as moot, but you are also squandering the little goodwill we may have had towards your cause. Owen× ☎ 19:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're mixing up my words, and making up a few others. To clarify, I showed how most of the votes were WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY. In addition to that, I pointed out that three of the nine votes referred to digital IMAX venues (which were never part of the list!) -- those were the irrelevant arguments I referred to. I then asked (not demanded) why the votes weren't discarded, because you stated above that a closing admin may discard votes that don't align with policies and guidelines.
It's true, I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia (though I have been registered for a long time and I use the site frequently). The few edits I've made were mostly to practice how to do it, and I've been trying to follow the directions I've been given and go through the correct processes here. So while I might not get everything right, you're completely wrong about me not being here to write an encyclopedia. WP:NOTNOTHERE
I learned about this article's deletion by chance. I'm not a regular contributor to Reddit and only a sporadic visitor there. When I happened to see the post, I ignored it at first and didn't read it until a few days later. Then I took the time to understand the situation here before finally joining the discussion, doing my best to follow the rules, and pointing out where it appeared others failed to do so.
My motivation is simply this: I've used the information in this article in the past, I found it very helpful to research the technical differences and geographic locations of the different types of IMAX venues, and I'd like to help others who have the same questions and confusion that I did.
As a side note, I've been critical of IMAX as often as I have praised it. I'm not a fanboy, and I don't get anything out of this. I ask you again to refrain from speculating about my (and others') intentions. I'm trying to play by the rules here, and your hostility isn't helping. WP:AGF Jonovitch (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close as moot. The challenged deletion is not from the last AfD. The last AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors. When there has been a later AfD for a given topic, DRV can not produce any outcome other than a declaratory outcome. For this reason, there is no chance of success, as overturning the close of the here challenged DRV can not result in undeletion of the page—being that the outcome of the later AfD is determinative and can not be bypassed—and therefore, the DRV should be closed.—Alalch E. 17:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, when viewing both AfDs together, there's not really a consensus to delete. Simply endorsing the close here is going to lead to an awkward result, as even though it looks like the community has definitively said we shouldn't have an article on this topic in the second-to-last AfD, the most recent AfD is a clear "no consensus," even with the canvassing, as clearly non-canvassed participants have noted the NOTDIR reason doesn't necessarily apply (and I could make a valid LISTN argument had I cared enough to participate, as was done in the second discussion). I'd argue there needs to be some sort of path to allow something on this topic to get back to mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think part of the issue is the group that came from Reddit - no judgement, just stating the origin - wants this to be in index of either kind of IMAX and seem to be under the impression that more "X Theatre has an Imax" helps, when we know that coverage of the kind of IMAX and maybe why they're predominant would be better to make the case. Aside from WP:ITSUSEFUL, I'm not actually sure this list as constructed is useful to anyone because neither the article under discussion at AfD4 nor 5 wasn navigable nor well organized. It probably needs to be chunked and re scoped. I think this could be incubated in draft space if @Jonovitch or others are willing to. That unfortunately does not seem clear right now. Star Mississippi 02:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm totally willing to rework the list, since I agree it was a bit unwieldy in it's most recent format. I also agree that adding more IMAX types/venues doesn't necessarily improve the list, and can actually reduce its value. Here are my thoughts, if I were to rebuild it (whether from scratch or from a restored article):
    • I'd definitely include the Grand Theater format venues (15/70 film and dual 4K laser, in 1.43:1 aspect ratio on massive screens, often standalone locations). These are the rarest and most notable.
    • I lean toward including IMAX Dome theaters, since those are also rare and unique.
    • I'd of course exclude the crappy digital "LieIMAX" venues (dual 2K digital xenon projectors in multiplexes).
    • If only to avoid the arguments that the list is just a directory, I kind of lean toward excluding the "IMAX with Laser" venues (single 4K laser projectors in multiplexes). I might experiment with putting these in a separate section, so as to more easily distinguish between the types of venues.
    • I'd of course include an intro with definitions and an explanation of which types of venues are included and excluded.
    • I'd experiment with listing the venues first by type (15/70 film, dual 4K laser, dome, maybe single laser?) and then by geography.
    I'm not sure what the next step for this would be, and I might need some help with Wikipedia's editing syntax (I'm learning as I go), but I'm definitely willing to try this route.
    For what it's worth, as I stated elsewhere I'm not an IMAX fanboy (and I only sporadically visit Reddit), I just found this article to be very helpful and I'd like to help others.
    What are your recommendations? What's the next step? What pitfalls should I avoid and what concerns should I address? Jonovitch (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think all of that makes sense @Jonovitch. I'm sure there are sources that explain why Grand are the most notable and preferred as they sound like something that would be covered in a journal. The journal may or may not have independence issues, but would be 100% better than endless links to XYZ's imax location. Re I might experiment with putting these in a separate section, is essentially what I thought re:scoping & chunking it. Because if it's not manageable, it's not going to be particularly useful. Now that DRVs are open on both AfD4 & 5, I'd wait for them to close and would support draftification. How that happens with the large revisions is another story Star Mississippi 13:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the nom on AfD4 and a delete voter on 5, I also support this plan and would support draftification once the DRVs close. Let'srun (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, from my research when I !voted at AfD 5, I think only the 15/70 theaters are clearly covered as a group (thanks mainly to their coverage in the wake of Oppenheimer's release). I don't see enough coverage of 4K laser locations (single or double) to justify inclusion – there is basic coverage about the systems that could go in a different article, but not coverage of the group of locations that would form a list. From a quick look for IMAX Dome info, I think it's in the same boat as the 4K laser locations ("rare and unique" ≠ inherently notable). I would prefer to see any stricter list started as a new draft as opposed to undeleting the old list and cutting it down; this would solidify the distinction between the old, overly broad list and the new list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Editors !voting "PERNOM" etc. is not a policy-based reason to reject those !votes. The canvassing and SPA activity, on the other hand, are valid reasons to reject certain !votes. JoelleJay (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, although I can’t find a reason why it wasn’t redirected to IMAX#Theatres. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, concurring with the closing statement of User:OwenX, that the strength of arguments for Delete was far stronger than the strength of arguments for Keep:
      • I thank User:Hobit for requesting temp undeletion, and User:Cryptic for temp undeleting.
      • I concur with User:Hobit that this is a useful list, although it is not an encyclopedic list. It should be hosted somewhere, but not in Wikipedia. It may be kept in draft space, but there should be no guarantee that it can be promoted back to article space via AFC or otherwise.
      • DRV is not a conduct forum. That is, DRV is not ANI round 0. However, there are conduct violations going on, including in these lists, in AFD, and in DRV. The creation of this article with this disambiguated title was disruptive, an intentional attempt to game the system, and the rule against gaming the system identifies it as disruptive editing. Any future conduct violations should be taken to ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sangerpedia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Initially deleted as an WP:R3, despite clearly not being eligible under that criterion, subsequently undeleted and redeleted under WP:G6 which it likewise does not qualify for, a rather clear WP:!G6 actually. As an Template:R without mention its retention at RFD is highly questionable, but the community should have the chance to weigh in on this one. Deleting admin has not responded to the request for undeletion in some time, as such I am bringing this here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete all the history and send to RfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Caroline Tran – Closure endorsed. A draft (prepared by Cunard, who is described by Hobit below as "a Wikipedia treasure" - a sentiment it is hard to disagree with) was proposed late in the piece, and didn't receive explicit support to move to articlespace as a DRV action. However, there is no explicit opposition to it being moved to articlespace either, so any editor is free to move it to articlespace editorially at their own discretion. From there, if any other editor still thinks it doesn't meet GNG, they are welcome to nominate at AfD. (CD G4 is highly unlikely to apply given the dramatic changes to the article in the drafting stage.) Daniel (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Caroline Tran (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

afds are not popularity contests, they are not headcounts. they are based on the strength of policy based arguments. Yes the headcount here is very clearly on the delete side but a small local call does override long term wider policies. The first three delete comments here were based on the fact that this was an unreferenced blp. Once references were provided these three become moot. they are no longer valid and closers should dismiss them. After sources were provided we saw two delete comments. The first was a boilerplate comment from Tim the made a vague wave at wp:sirs which is a policy related to companies which is clearly irrelevant here. The next from Bearian was a vague wave at common outcomes where common outcomes do not actually mention nationally broadcast radio hosts. Neither is a valid policy based call for deletion and neither make any relevant comments on the sources provided. Since no one was made a relevant counter to the presentation of relevant sources claiming GNG pass there is no way this should have been closed delete. Uncomfortable based on headcount then relist asking for discussion of sources or close no consensus. Instead we have a close based on guessing what the previous voters may have thought if they had come back for another look [[11]]. Sorry but afds are not decided on what someone might have had in mind but did not say. They are not decided by guesses by closers. Lets actually look at evidence provided during discussions instead of ignoring the fundamental idea of afDs were the D stands for discussion not for dismissing sources without analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffbeerforme (talk • contribs) t12:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close per essentially User_talk:OwenX#Caroline_Tran_afd. The earlier comments don't become moot just because Duff declares them so. Editors could have returned to revise them following Duff's !vote, but they didn't. If you think you have a case, request the draft and improve it with the sources. It wouldn't be a G4 and you could bring it back to mainspace Star Mississippi 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse largely per StarMississipi. Adding that not only did any of the “delete” voters not change their mind after sources were presented, but two additional “delete” votes came in after the fact with one referencing the sources as not meeting WP:SIRS. Allow restoration as draft if Duff or any other user wants to improve upon it. Frank Anchor 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse discussion was clearly to delete, and the sources presented don't make me think an obvious mistake was made. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as clearly the best closure even based on the case made by the appellant:
      • Of the five Delete voters, two did their own searches, and two voted after the appellant provided their sources. Even if the one who said that it was an unsourced BLP (presumably because it was an unsourced BLP) is discounted, that leaves four. There was no need to Relist. There was a consensus to delete either after the appellant's sources or after searching for sources.
      • Temporary undeletion is not necessary, but I would be interested in seeing a temporary undeletion. I might want to do a source analysis, but it isn't necessary.
      • I am sure that occasionally, maybe very occasionally, when an appellant says that AFD is not a vote count, the appellant really has the stronger case than the majority of participants. However, when I see an appellant say that AFD is not a vote count, it usually means that they are saying that they wanted the closer to supervote.
      • There was no need to Relist, and we would be overturning a Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request temp undeletion. Was the nom misleading with “completely unsourced”? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Y Done. Owen× ☎ 23:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse. Allow userfication/draftification and recommend attempts to overcome the deletion reasons follow advice at WP:THREE. The sources listed in the AfD are worth looking at.
    The discussion could have been relisted for detailed examination of new sources, but deletion was well within admin discretion.
    I note that the article began as a 2004 stub, with a source. I also not that the article content did not contain information from the new sources listed at AfD, that the article never had good sources, and that WP:TNT applies in my opinion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:SmokeyJoe - Good question. The nominator was correct in saying that the article was completely unsourced. The external link to the subject's web site was removed at the end of December 2023 as a dead link. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to appellant - The references that you have added are malformed, and cannot be viewed by reviewers. So the version that you had updated still did not satisfy BLP guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Get real Robert. They are not malformed. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am trying unsuccessfully to have discussion at the DRV talk page about Speedy Closes for troublesome nominations. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:G4 excludes "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". Guidelines on the notability of companies and organisations (WP:SIRS) are not relevant, user essays (WP:THREE) are not guidelines, and there is no requirement for sources to be linked or available online. Without access to the sources I don't know if they are enough, but the positions of the inline citations within the text suggests they don't verify much, and would not be enough for an article; when the article was deleted it still had no source cited for most of the content. Peter James (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Peter James is quite correct. Even so, I did attempt to find these sources online without success. I know that DRV is not a second pass at AFD, but even so I did cast a wider net and went looking for other sources. Searches are complicated by the fact there is a Caroline Tran (born ~1986) in Australia involved in the fashion industry. What I did find are primary sources such as this. Maybe there is enough material out there on which to base a BLP, but I'm not finding it. Duffbeerforme, I think your best bet is to have this draftified, and work on it over time, trying to establish better sourcing to support this BLP. The article being deleted at AFD doesn't mean it's never going to exist. There's no deadline here. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Star Mississippi.—Alalch E. 17:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources listed appear to not be online (or at least I can't find them). That makes it difficult to evaluate the arguments. I'm good with this moving to draft and if the nom can get copies of the sources online (imgur, whatever) and link to them so we can evaluate the sources, I can imagine this being over the GNG bar. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This, https://www.aftrs.edu.au/alumni/alumni-showcase/caroline-tran/, would be her. I agree, draftspace is suitable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thee of the four sources Duffbeerforme provided in the AfD were available on Newspapers.com, which is available through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Posting the sources on Imgur would violate WP:COPYLINK so would be inadvisable. Cunard (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defective AfD discussion. The AfD discussion was defective. Two of the "delete" participants wrote "this article has ZERO sources" and "unreferenced BLP". Once Duffbeerforme provided sources and added them to the article, these two comments became obsolete. It became clearly false that the article had zero sources and was an unreferenced BLP. For those editors' opinions to be taken into account, they must revisit the discussion to say why the sources are insufficient.

    The closing admin wrote, "I know for a fact that several of the participants there follow AfDs in which they !voted, and will respond or change their !vote if they see compelling evidence to do so. So your assumption that the four participants before your !vote didn't see it is likely baseless." I disagree with this statement. It is possible that the "delete" editors forgot to watchlist the AfD so never saw the new sources (I sometimes make this mistake in AfDs I participate in). It is also possible that they did see the new sources but did not have time to evaluate them. If they saw the sources and considered them insufficient, for their opinion to not be considered obsolete, they must respond in the AfD to explain why. This is basic courtesy to a good faith established editor who spend substantial time looking for sources.

    The last two "delete" comments are not policy-based:

    1. The first comment cites the guideline on the notability of companies and organisations (WP:SIRS), which is irrelevant to a biography. More importantly, the editor did not explain why Duffbeerforme's sources are not independent, reliable, or significant. This comment should be given very little weight.
    2. The second comment said "Besides no allegation of notability, we routinely delete articles about non-drive time radio DJs". This is just the editor's personal opinion about how similar subjects have been treated. This is not a policy-based rationale as it does not discuss why Duffbeerforme's sources are insufficient. This opinion should be given very little weight.
    None of the AfD participants explained why Duffbeerforme's sources were not independent, reliable, or significant, making this a defective AfD discussion. The best course of action would have to been to relist the discussion and ask the four previous "delete" participants to review the new sources. Cunard (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Draft:Caroline Tran to Caroline Tran. I created a draft about Caroline Tran that incorporates Duffbeerforme's four sources and adds additional sources I found. The subject meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • endorse deletion and move draft to article space Close was okay, though NC or a relist might have also been good choices. That said, Cunard's draft looks much much better. Sources 1, 3, and 4 meet WP:THREE quite nicely and the others I looked at are good. Cunard is a Wikipedia treasure. Hobit (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Endorse deletion, and mainspace the new draft that is very different to the deleted page. WP:TNT has been done. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Closers are meant to evaluate the quality of the arguments presented in the afd. Arguments that they guess !voters may have thought or considered are not presented in the afd so should not be part of the evaluation process. Adding their own imaginations (as the closer has told us they did) is essentially a supervote.
AFDs are meant to be discussions. How are we meant to make counter discussion to points that have not been put. How are we meant to know what others are thinking if they don't put it in the discussion. Going by what is not presented in a discussion goes against the whole Idea of a discussion.
Given most of the sources I presented are in also newspapers.com doesn't that really put a huge question mark next to the quality of any claimed and imagined searches that were or were not presented in the afd.
To Quote Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators "If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, that argument is no longer relevant." The closer and multiple commentators are ignoring this obviousness and continuing to count those arguments as relevant.
Many of the above talk about the current state of the article. Notability is a property of the subject, not of the current state of the article.
Lesson learned, In future don't bother trying to find sources or improve articles because people routinely ignore sources found during afds and will push for deletion regardless. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with a lot of that. I always hate people asking me "why didn't you improve the article with the sources you found at AfD?". Any my answer is A) per policy what's in the article isn't relevant and B) you are asking me to fix something you want deleted? Really? That said, links (to newspapers.com or the Internet Archive or something) to sources are important to provide in an AfD. I, in good faith, looked for some of these sources via Google and found nothing. And it's not just "reliable"--"in depth" plays a huge role. If I actually have a link to a source discussed in an AfD I always provide that. I think in this case it would have been enough to avoid this whole thing (or at least I'd hope and expect so). But yes, per IAR and some other things raw counts can sometimes overcome stronger arguments. And that's often a feature--sometimes the rules are wrong. But here it was, IMO, a lot of lazy !voting. Hobit (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 May 2024

edit

22 May 2024

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Baseball players from Monterrey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This category was deleted for reasons I can't understand (and with no debate discussion at all) because dividing occupations up - particularly athletes - by populated is something normal. Request recreation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 May 2024

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

I didn't particularly want to bring this here, since procedurally the close is sound. The AFD was left listed for the full 168 hours (and 9 minutes), and I'm sure, were I inclined to speculate, I could come up with a way a reasonable admin closer could have closed the discussion the same way. There were some last minute comments, but not being a stale discussion ordinarily would certainly not be grounds for an overturn or relist. My mistake for not nomming it on a weekend.

That said, I believe the discussion I had with the closer patently does not meet the standards set out by WP:ADMINACCT, which non-administrator closers are also expected to adhere to. I won't tell you more than that I followed the rules and used the arguments raised in the discussion. is clearly not in any way, shape or form a justification, in my admittedly biased opinion. Additionally, while it is not the role of the closer (nor this review) to remedy a defective discussion, I believe (again, admitting my strong bias) any administrator exercising reasonable judgement would at least note the fact that a self-published book, as added by 扱. し. 侍. would not be considered a reliable source, and state whether they relied on that accordingly, if not instead relisted or left their own comment. That one of the others added a source that prominently displayed "Marketing Content" (תוכן שיווקי) at the top near the byline, is perhaps beyond the scope of a reasonable closer, applying an ordinary degree of scrutiny.

In my opinion, at minimum, even if the result is endorsed, this should be re-closed by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, and the closer advised not to do so in future. I am instead seeking a relist, or leave for an immediate renomination. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are. My closure was not based on the book or the Marker source, as the nominator might think, but on a deep coverage provided by other reliable sources (including VentureBeat, Forbes staff, Globes, etc.) which were added during the discussion. I don't see a big issue in closing the discussion by the administrator as the nominator is biased and for some reason always mentions the weakest sources on the page. WP:BEFORE is a good rule and it must be followed. Not long ago, I nominated a page without a thorough review of sources and I was ashamed by the community. So, I was super attentive and skeptical in evaluating the sources of the page. BoraVoro (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
removed from the page the self-published book and the Marker paid placement source (I didn't count on them while closing the discussion anyway). BoraVoro (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not required to analyse the sources, as the closer. You are, however, required to furnish an explanation of your process, as requested, and as you have done so now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. As I mentioned before, I followed the discussion and based my decision on it. The arguments seemed valid, but I did look at and analyze the sources to determine if they are reliable, though I was not required to do so. BoraVoro (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'm happy to withdraw at this point, and have this closed per Owen's suggestion, provided you take to heart the feedback provided (which it appears you have) I think the explanation you provided here is meets the required standard, and if you chose to close XfDs again after a bit more experience, would be the type of thing we would look for, with a bit more back and forth to hash out the details, for example, on the appropriate level of scrutiny. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031 thank you so much! I completely agree with you and please accept my apologies for my unprofessional response on my talk page. BoraVoro (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow early renomination. The Keep !votes carry very little weight, which isn't surprising, seeing as they come from inexperienced users. One Keep was made by an account now used primarily for voting on AfDs, with a grand total of 52 edits to their name. The lone "per nom if not A7" Delete was also weak. A competent admin could have discarded all but the nom, and relisted to get more meaningful participation. As it stands, this is essentially little more than a contested PROD. Both the closing rationale and the closer's response above reads very much like a supervote. The closer's job is to weigh consensus among legitimate participants, not carry out their own source analysis.
Conduct aside, I can't fault the NAC for being duped by what superficially appears to be a clear consensus, so I don't think an outright overturn is called for. I also don't want to relist the same AfD, already tainted by weak !votes. A fresh AfD in a month, closed by an admin (or by an experienced, competent NAC, if applicable), is the way to go here. BoraVoro would be well advised to stay away from closing XfDs until they gain more experience, and perhaps just as importantly, learn how to interact with fellow editors. This type of dismissive tone in response to a legitimate query is incompatible with administrative actions. Owen× ☎ 13:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX thanks! BoraVoro (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow early/speedy renomination per OwenX. Relisting this is not going to give the best chance of achieving consensus so a new nomination in a few weeks would absolutely be a better choice, to start afresh so to speak. I also agree with Owen's comments that it was an inappropriate response to the talk page query about XfD by the closer, and support his advice regarding the closer staying away from XfD closes for a while. (While DRV is not a conduct forum, the nature of a response by a closer on a talk page is something that definitely falls within its purview.) Daniel (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your feedback. I have already admitted and apologized for my inappropriate response on my talk page. I hope my actions won't disrupt the Wikipedia community and guidelines anymore, and I will stay away from XfD for a while. It was a good lesson for me. BoraVoro (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow early renomination. This looks like a UPE spam infested AFD. The article itself has hallmarks of UPE and the keep voters have similarities in behavior too. The same happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whiteshield with basically the same users. I ended up blocking the users concerned as UPE sock/meatpuppets. MER-C 17:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies I renominated this before noticing this DRV! Please feel free to close and bash me over the head with a wet sponge. HighKing++ 15:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Y Done, although since you alerted us before anyone noticed, I'll skip the requested TROUTing. :) Owen× ☎ 16:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early/Speedy renomination candidate. As part of the AfD I'd looked at the sourcing, in case I miss it next time at AfD, I hope the following will be able to assist or be helpful.
notes on sourcing in article

This is a breakdown of the sourcing in the article. Note, this is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. Not reviews of a product. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In other words and in plain English, this means that references that rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified, fail the criteria.

  • There are 25 references in the article which can be broken up into 4 categories as follows:
  • Interviews/quotations with sources connected to the topic company or "profiles" that repeat/regurgitate information with zero independent content. This from Globes and this from Globes are "puff" profiles that rely entirely on interviews with the founder and execs. This is another profile this time in a "Top 50" list, also relying entirely on repeating company-provided information.
  • Announcments that rely entirely on information provided by the company/execs. This from Calcalistech, this from Venturebeat, this from Unleash, this from Techcrunch, this from Jerusalem Post and this from Globes were all published either on the same date, 2 March 2022, or within a few days after and all rely entirely on a funding announcement (either by the company or by one of their investors) and regurgitate the exact same comments/info from the company about their $120m funding round. This from Forbes, this from calcalistech, this from Globes were all published on 28 April 2021 or within a couple of days after concerning an earlier funding round and also fail for the same reasons as the other funding announcement-related references above. This from calcalist is an early article from 2016 and is based entirely on a company announcement and comments from the founder and an early investor. None of these article contain an "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND and fail WP:NCORP criteria.
  • Self Published material. This from walla relies entirely on a survey by the topic company and has no independent content, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. This is the pricing page from the topic company's website, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • Review of a product. The topic is the company and we first need to establish notability of the company. Once that has been established, no problem including details about their product(s). But reviews like this in Business.com, USA news, Techradar, timeero, usnews, jibble.io, peoplemanagingpeople, Forbes, and fitsmallbusiness are of no use for establishing in-depth Independent Content about the company, which they don't.
None of the references in the article meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 May 2024

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

This podcast page definitely deserves to be restored. It was one of the biggest podcasts of the 2010s. How could it possible not meet notability standards? Nokia621 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy endorse - no policy and guideline based argument has been provided. You could try to make an actual argument based on the availability of coverage in reliable sources.
signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Strike bolded !vote by nominator First of all, the original deletion had this argument: "Barely found anything about the podcast. Search results return only passing mentions." If you want to talk about baseless arguments, start there. The podcast was deleted from all major platforms due to a major controversial comments made by Dawson in several episodes. This was discussed by Business Insider, The Evening Standard, The New Zealand Herald and many more. When the podcast did air from 2013 to 2017, it was incredibly popular. USA Today credited him for partially reviving the podcasting genre in 2013. In 2015, iTunes featured the show in their "Best of 2015" podcast list. It is definitely notable enough to be restored and the original deletion (with 3 people deciding) had completely baseless arguments. Nokia621 (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That all appears to be coverage of Dawson himself primarily. Meanwhile, you seem to be misconstruing a Medium blog with 907 followers [12] for iTunes itself (and we generally don't report on single-vendor listings, WP:SINGLEVENDOR) signed, Rosguill talk 19:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Medium blog was copying what iTunes Podcasts put on their page. I'm not misconstruing. Nokia621 (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) then why link the Medium source 2) moot per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the 2015 Best of iTunes list was in their iTunes app, never on a site. Nokia621 (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to single vendor, Spotify didn't even have podcasts until 2015, so there's few lists available. iTunes was one of the only providers and Soundcloud doesn't have lists. It was however on the Fullscreen app which is another platform, which he had an exclusive video deal with. Nokia621 (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse. The minimally-attended AfD was closed as Redirect in July 2021. Since then, the appellant has been edit-warring, trying to restore the version prior to the AfD. The only reason they finally came here to DRV is that Rosguill correctly indef page-blocked them from that battle zone. Had they come here earlier, or presented new sources on the Talk page, I would have gladly considered a new discussion. But under the unclean hands legal doctrine, I refuse to entertain any petition coming from this disruptive editor relating to this or related pages. Not that they seem capable of mounting an argument better than, "But how can it not be notable?". Owen× ☎ 19:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're factually incorrect. I had started this deletion review before he indefinitely page-blocked me. You can literally check the UTC timing. Also, you left this comment 1 minute after I gave a long explanation of why it is notable. So instead of insulting by calling me incapable of mounting arguments, why don't you fact-check your own lies? Nokia621 (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Owen is correct about the timing. As you should know, and can be seen from your block log, you were blocked at 09:56, 20 May 2024 EDT. You opened this DRV at 15:02, 20 May 2024 EDT. I later corrected the block, which I had initially intended to be indefinite but was instead implemented as 24-hours (which would be silly, for an edit war spanning over 3 years). Arguing that the block post-dates your actions here is pretty transparent wikilawyering. signed, Rosguill talk 19:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for admitting you did a temporary ban at first. Once again confirming that Owen was lying about this debate starting after being "indef page-blocked" (his words). How am I supposed to read your mind and know the 24 hour ban was an initial "mistake"? No offense, but you're gaslighting me to the max. And considering I don't read your mind, please don't read my mind saying my actions are "transparent", because you are way off-base. Nokia621 (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another DRV appellant who did not even bother discussing with the closer (me) before rushing to file here. I'm also going to speedy endorse (as closer) per Owen and Rosguill. Daniel (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Good close. No deletion has occurred, so unless you are challenging the close, this is out of scope of DRV. If you want to revisit the matter, essentially wanting to re-WP:SPINOUT the podcast, propose it and seek consensus on the talk page of the redirect target. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse OP hasn't said anything policy-based and seems unlikely to do so. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, except that this doesn't allege any error by the closer. Either Redirect or Relist would have been valid closes, and in 2021 a case could be made for overturning the Redirect to Relist. But, as per OwenX, the appellant has been edit-warring since then, and has passed up any chance to ask for a Relist.
      • DRV is not AFD Round 2, but the sources are garbage, so that the article should not have been Kept.
      • The redirect has not been locked. An editor in good standing may submit a draft with good sources for review to Articles for Creation. The appellant is not an editor in good standing with respect to this title.
      • DRV is a content forum, but the appellant is engaging in personal attacks, for which a real block may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Robert McClenon, regarding your 2nd dot point, it is irresponsible to advocate for any editor to create content forks in draftspace. This is not productive, much more likely will be a waste of time for all involved, and as with all content forking, it creates attribution hazards.
    Content on the Shane and Friends podcast is located at Shane Dawson, and per consensus evident in the AfD, that’s where it belongs. If new good sources are found, they should be added to Shane Dawson, and then, if a WP:SPINOUT is warranted, it should be proposed at Talk:Shane Dawson. Only then fork to draftspace if that’s the unlikely consensus on Talk:Shane Dawson. Do not just fork to draftspace alone and in silence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:SmokeyJoe - I have reread the guideline on content forks, and I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. I have requested opinions at Village Pump (policy). I don't think that a draft and content that has been replaced by a redirect are pages of the same type, but we shall see what other editors think. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Draft Content Fork Question SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No deletion to review, and spinning a page back out after a redirect does not need to come here; it can just be taken forward by building a consensus at the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Estonian numismatists (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as "merge all" but there was no actual consensus to merge all (as opposed to merging only the ones that still have one member). Discussion with the closer at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working has failed to resolve matters. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Roman villas in Germany (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as "merge" but there was no actual consensus to merge. Neither side provided any clear guidelines to back up their position, and the numbers were equal. This should have been a "no consensus" * Pppery * it has begun... 16:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery, for this one, the keep !votes referred (implicitly) to the deprecated WP:SMALLCAT guideline. The nom referred to Wikipedia:Categorization by saying it's not useful for navigation, which I felt was reasonable enough. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Useful for navigation" seems like a wholly subjective term to me, not a basis in which one can declare one side or the other right. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pppery, yes. This matter comes up fairly frequently at CfD; it would be nice to have some community consensus. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would indeed be nice to have such community consensus. But until that happens, would you be willing to revert your close and relist the CfD, so we can speedily close this DRV? Owen× ☎ 18:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OwenX, I don't see how relisting will help here, that's just kicking the can down the road. A no consensus closure, I could agree to. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A different can down a different road. Reverting your own close will allow an admin to close it in a way that better reflects consensus, or let it run for more views. You're not compelled to self-revert, of course. But it looks like this DRV is headed that way anyway, so the dignified thing to do would be to allow an early close. Owen× ☎ 13:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, bad close. Consensus was to Keep. Insufficient rational, with User:Smasongarrison’s “for now” and “can be recreated” rendering his her !vote very weak, begging the question of why is she creating this busywork. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misgender me. Mason (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I originally misidentified you, and became befuddled. My advice for nominators is that they should make a strong case in starting an XfD discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing SmokeyJoe, this would have been a total accident, and I'm sure it will be fixed once seen (ping @SmokeyJoe:) so we can focus on the review itself. Daniel (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I don't see the point of calling me out for this argument. There is an entire essay on this WP:Merge for now.Mason (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to the essay. I had never seen it before. I participated in many CfDs long ago, and I think that it suffers from excessive fiddling, busywork, and that “for now” fits that impression. I suggest that you change “for now” to “until when”. Give your audience something objective to respond to. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, it's until there's enough articles to populate the category, which may well be never. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Pppery. I will note that there's absolutely no reason to call out the nominator for this one, there just wasn't consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it proper to call out weak nominations. Weak nominations often lead to trainwrecks, even if there’s a good underlying case. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination was fine at the time it was made. The problem was the closure that didn't reflect consensus, not the nomination itself. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I'm clearly biased as the one called out, @SmokeyJoe, I think there were more constructive ways to say that the nomination could have been more compelling. However, I think that you made your argument less compelling by conflating two issues and implying that my efforts were pointless busywork. None of which was related to the closing itself.Mason (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think “for now” conveys confidence. I feel it conveys hesitation. I had no idea that it was a term-of-art. I have raised my thought at Wikipedia talk:Merge for now#For now. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. Your perspective is one that I hadn't considered. So I appreciate it. I was not aware that perceptions of confidence or hesitation were things to be considered in a CFD. Or that acknowledging that the facts may change is a bad thing. I think it merely acknowledges that this situation for the category could change and that the the nominator is not opposed to revisiting the facts. Mason (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer, @SmokeyJoe, @Pppery, @OwenX, @Smasongarrison, @Daniel, would you all be okay with me changing my closure to no consensus, and then starting an RfC on the matter? — Qwerfjkltalk 13:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's at least one valid opinion in this DRV to overturn to Keep, so we can't just short-circuit the process unless SmokeyJoe changes their mind or this turns into a WP:SNOW situation. I appreciate you trying to build consensus here and close this sooner, but the best way to do that would be to revert your own close, and let an admin re-close or relist. There's no loss of face in taking your name off that CfD. On the contrary: the ability to admit one's mistake and promptly correct it is highly valued, and often comes up on the "Support" side at RfAs. As for an RfC, you are welcome to start one at any time. Owen× ☎ 14:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“No consensus” is certainly defensible. An immediate RfC, no. SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm fine with non consensus, and agree with Owen that this reverting the close might be easier. I'm not sure what an RfC would do because we had one relatively recently one that ended in a snow for not reinstating small cat. Mason (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Smasongarrison, can you link to the RfC? I must have missed it. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to dig it up; my recollection was that @Thinker78 made it. Mason (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted my closure, per all the comments above. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Owen× ☎ 14:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason I shouldn't close this as no consensus now? Or have I become too heavily WP:INVOLVED to do so? The problem with CfD is that for a very long time there have been very few active admin closers so most discussions are closed by non-admins, and the discussion is now in limbo since the bot that processes old discussions doesn't deal with new discussions from months in the past being reopened. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me. Owen× ☎ 17:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pppery, I don't think expressing an opinion on my closure should disqualify you from closing it yourself; I, at least, have no problems with it. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 May 2024

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
1996 Abakan Ilyushin Il-76 crash (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Whilst not a contentious topic, I believe that the the non-admin closer closed the discussion with insufficient evidence and rationale. At first, the closer did not provide a rationale and upon asking for one [13], they stated "The noms contention that this was a "run of the mill event" is not accepted" [14]. Upon inquiring even further pointing out that I had cited multiple policy-based guidelines, they simply stated that they had nothing to else add. Whilst there were no votes supporting a delete, I believe that, either, at the very least, the discussion be relisted to provide a clearer consensus and be closed by a more experienced editor or admin, or the result be overturned as I believe that the closer did not correctly interpret the results. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse There is unanimous consensus to keep. Skyshiftertalk 10:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:CLOSEAFD, Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. The strength of the arguments given depends more than the number of votes cast on either side. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I closed this. There were no delete votes in this second AfD nor the first AfD which can be found here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RA-78804. Desertarun (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is slightly misleading. Although there weren't any delete votes in the first AfD, there were merge votes. [1] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you ignored the first AfD result and renominated it for deletion again...The first AfD closed less than a month ago. Desertarun (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that that was my fault for renominating it as I didn't know that a renomination should normally take place after six months.
    At the same time, you closing the first discussion as keep with four in favour (including a sock) vs three favouring a merge is contentious as both sides provided strong arguments. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This AFD was not properly closed and the rationale for closing is not valid. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse. Firstly, renominating within a month of the previous Keep AfD puts the appellant on weak footing here. I believe them when they say it was an honest mistake, but in cases of rapid renomination of a substantially identical page, I think a closer may look at the views in the previous XfD, and determine consensus based on both (or all, if more than two) AfDs combined. This is the natural and most effective way to discourage the type of tendentious litigation we see in some perennially nominated pages. In our case, this would lead to a clear consensus to keep.
Secondly, while no policy forbids it, I find it in poor taste for the same closer, admin or not, to close two subsequent XfDs for the same page, especially in such rapid succession. I'm not saying Desertarun has any bias here, but the appearance of impartiality, and the opportunity to give another closer a chance to examine consensus, are also important. Looking at the second, appealed AfD by itself, I agree with the appellant that the Keep views are exceptionally weak, and do little to refute the nominator's P&G-based concern. I would advise the non-admin closer to either relist such marginal cases, or to leave them for an admin to close. Owen× ☎ 12:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having closed a discussion, there will be a bias to close the same discussion repeated, the same way, especially if there is no substantial new information or arguments that make the second close a reevaluation of the first. This makes the closer INVOLVED forever, or at least for a long time, on similar questions on that topic. If WP:INVOLVED doesn’t say this, it should. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree, hence the weakness of my endorsement. Owen× ☎ 13:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nigh on impossible for the admins that close many AfDs per week/month to remember everything they'd previously closed. So changing WP:Involved as mooted would be giving a stick to disgruntled users. Desertarun (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd remember if I closed an AfD about the same page three weeks earlier. And I do check the prior AfD links to make sure I haven't been involved in any recent ones about that page. Are you claiming you forgot you closed the the previous AfD? If so, admitting your mistake would be the honourable thing to do. "Giving a stick" to editors who find a flaw with the AfD process is exactly what DRV is all about. Owen× ☎ 20:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was a clear consensus to keep. Everything was done correctly. The closer stated that the nominator's rationale was "not accepted" (by consensus), which is fine. This is not a BADNAC, as the non-admin closer has not demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, the outcome was not a close call or likely to be controversial, the non-admin has a lot of experience editing Wikipedia generally and has had much previous participation in deletion discussions, and the result did not require action by an administrator. Maybe something about this close could have been better but NACs don't have to be absolutely fabulous to stand, discussions don't have to be fabulous for NAC to be applicable when they're entirely one-sided and can't be closed any other way, and DRV is not about technicalities and not about through-expermentally workshopping could-have-been optimal closing statements and sharing thoughts about what ideal closes by which preferred closers would lead to our satisfaction.—Alalch E. 13:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand how the given rationale is fine. Saying that the result depended on one of my arguments not being accepted doesn't exactly make sense. In the discussion, I provided multiple policy based guidelines demonstrating why the article should be deleted. But because one of my arguments which was that the event was a run-of-the-mill was not accepted means that my entire argument is now baseless? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An AfD is not a formal debate. As consensus, not merely being right is needed to delete, your initiative to delete the article failed through a lack of consensus to do so. Since no one even !voted delete, but multiple people !voted keep, the outcome can not be "no consensus" and can only be "keep". Relisting would have been inappropriate as there was a normal level of participation and the comments were not "lacking arguments based on policy". An argument that the page is not WP:NOT, for example, is not an argument not based in policy in an AfD. An editor can ignore complaints that notability isn't met and say that the page is suitable for inclusion as being within scope, citing NOT, and that is a perfectly policy-based argument to keep. If you cite a guideline that says that events about "common, everyday, ordinary items" may not be notable, and someone says "no, this is not a common, everyday, ordinary item", that's a policy-based argument. Try with a more complete nomination next time that in addition to WP:LASTING also includes WP:INDEPTH and WP:GEOSCOPE, and explain why some sources may be unreliable and why those that are reliable lack in-depth coverage etc., and also explain how WP:GNG isn't met. —Alalch E. 14:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus isn't determined based on the tally votes and by counting heads, but by looking at the strength of arguments and cited recorded consensus and on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments.
    I too can also ignore the fact that the article was not WP:NOT and cite guidelines that it fails. That too is a policy-based argument against a keep.
    And just saying that the article should be kept because of the number of deaths is not a policy-based argument, nor is saying that an article should be kept because another one has less deaths. Arguing against someone saying that the article is not run-of-the-mill and demonstrating why it is run-of-the-mill is also a policy-based argument. If users do little to refute issues cited regarding policies and guidelines, where does that leave the result? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You said, I too can also ignore the fact that the article was not WP:NOT and cite guidelines that it fails. That too is a policy-based argument against a keep. That is correct, and indeed, no one here is claiming that your arguments are not based on policy or guidelines. The fact that no one refuted your argument does not, by itself, automatically turn your legitimate view into a supervote. Here at DRV, we often get appeals that essentially boil down to, "Everyone except me was wrong!". The problem with that is that even if true, that still leaves your opinion alone. We do not delete an article based on a single, contested opinion, except in the clear cases spelled out in WP:CSD. Owen× ☎ 14:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to make my views equal to a supervote but the problem that I have is with the closing rationale since it is implying that the discussion was closed as keep because one of my arguments was not accepted even though there were plenty other of arguments. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD was closed as a Keep because no one other than you suggested it not be kept. The fact that you're still arguing about it tells me you aren't clear on our basic principle of WP:CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 16:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Alalch E. Perfectly fine NAC, entirely obvious consensus. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Alalch E. No error in the close - also not a bad NAC. The nomination was based on WP:EVENT and Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. While WP:EVENT is a guideline, it is not, by itself an exclusion criteria - as a subject can still pass GNG and merit an article. WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay. In this case, as GNG was not questioned. While passing GNG does not mean an article must be created, the question in an AFD is whether a stand-alone page should exist. Since the other participants all said that the subject was not an ordinary event (a policy-based argument), keep was the only appropriate outcome. --Enos733 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse completely normal AfD here, with complete consensus to keep. Furthermore I do not see any particular reason to delete which was ignored by the participants. SportingFlyer T·C 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the correct reading of consensus to Keep. I would have !voted Keep on account of significant coverage of 23 lives lost, but DRV is not AFD round 3. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. WP:SLAP User:Aviationwikiflight for renominating too soon after an AfD consensus to not delete, and doing so without a better nomination that last time, noting that they !voted in the first AfD and therefore were aware of it. Desertarun (talk · contribs) should not be closing an AfD on the same topic twice, after closing once you are forever WP:INVOLVED in that topic. I would have requested speedy closure at WP:ANRFC, and !voted “speedy close as too soon after the AfD1 consensus to keep”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but per One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. if an admin would not have been INVOLVED based on a closure, a non-administrator cannot be presumed to be involved based on performing a NAC as a pseudo-administrative action which should, by virtue of what a NAC is, require less evaluation and opinion formation. Thus, not INVOLVED. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NAC-ers are especially prone to unconscious bias. They should not repeatedly close AfDs on the same article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a reasonable opinion to hold. I don't think it's addressed, let alone required, by current policy. Have I missed something? If not, I'd certainly be up for saying INVOLVED should be construed exceptionally broadly for NACs, and would support that. I just don't think it's current P&G. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Jclemens on this. "Forever INVOLVED" seems a bit extreme. Involvement is a function of the depth and nature of interaction, and the time elapsed. We'd be running out of admins very quickly if closing one of the many WP:NSKATE AfDs would instantly and forever disqualify you from touching any of the others. Owen× ☎ 21:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Forever, is extreme. Three weeks is short. I would have done as I said. If it remains unclosed after a week at ANRFC, and you address the notion of possible repeat bias, that would be ok. I reckon. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action I can not go as far as endorsing an WP:INVOLVED NAC, but this is the correct result. There was unanimous consensus (outside the nominator) to keep this article. Frank Anchor 10:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The appellant has acknowledged their error in renominating so quickly; the next step should be to drop the matter and move on. Also, whether or not it is prohibited by policy, I'm not comfortable with two NACs by the same editor on the same article in such rapid succession. But the close was technically correct. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it’s rather odd they’re still fighting to have it deleted even though vast majority have voted to keep it. Alex Hoe (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still stand by my opinion but I accept the result of the AfD. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse My opinion has not changed since the last two attempted deletion attempts, the value of the cargo plus the high number of fatalities due to accident. Alex Hoe (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. When there are similar numbers of valid merge !votes and keep !votes, it's pretty safe to assume the AfD is not appropriate for a NAC, let alone an involved NAC. The close was improper, and the weakness of the keep !votes makes it especially important that the AfD be evaluated by a neutral admin. JoelleJay (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 May 2024

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

I don't believe this closure was appropriate. I provided legitimate points to clarify the raised issues to keep the page, there are as many "Keep" same as "Delete". None of the votes for "delete" replied to the comments. I recommend this AFD be reopened. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy endorse as a bad-faith appeal. The appellant says, there are as many "Keep" same as "Delete". That is an outright lie. Even going by nose count alone, there are two Keeps and four Deletes. We could go into the weakness of those two Keep arguments, but I don't think DRV should entertain dishonest appeals even if they have merit, which this one doesn't. Owen× ☎ 10:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Couldn’t have been closed any other way. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse clear consensus to delete. However I do not believe this DRV was made in bad faith. Frank Anchor 17:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you believe the appellant got mixed up when counting "Keep" and "Delete" !votes? It strains credulity to think this is anything but their attempt to misrepresent facts. Owen× ☎ 17:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it is most likely the appellant discounted some delete votes for unstated reasons. I don’t agree with that assessment if that is the case. Frank Anchor 17:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The only possible closure. There is a strange question about how and whether to Assume Good Faith. Is the appellant misstating the numbers of Keeps and Deletes, or is the appellant unable to count, which is only a competency issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I think we've completely missed here. The close was absolutely correct based on the discussion, but I'm convinced we've deleted an article on a notable topic. I can't see the deleted article, so it's possible it was written promotionally, and some very experienced editors participated at this AfD, so I understand I'm arguing up hill here. Still, I did my own WP:BEFORE search and not only do I not see any promotional sources (the Nigerian ones I've found so far wouldn't count because they're interviews, but he's clearly being interviewed as an expert - and he worked in Nigeria, so it's not surprising that he'd be discussed there), I think he pretty clearly satisfies WP:NPROF with many published articles, many references to those articles in books, and international press coverage (probably routine). AfD is getting a lot more difficult as fewer people participate and we've always had issues with notability outside specific areas, especially with African topics. Perhaps the deleted article's not worth restoring, but I think he's absolutely notable enough to write an article on, so even if this is endorsed I have no problem if someone wants to write a new draft here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone thinks he is notable, request draftication and follow to advice at WP:THREE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NPROF requires substantially more citations--by academics in academic RS--of the subject than would be seen for the average professor in their subfield, and for Dr Basinga I believe it is TOOSOON. He had one quite well-cited first-author paper, but NPROF C1 needs several extremely highly-cited papers. FWIW, I ran my Scopus metrics test on ~100 of his senior-research-position coauthors who had 15+ papers (to exclude those who are not in senior researcher/professor positions and thus not comparable for "average professor" purposes):
Total citations: average: 5183, median: 2459, Basinga: 1385; Total papers: 125, 88, 36; h-index: 32, 28, 20; Top papers: #1: 766, 308, 372; #2: 380, 198, 158; #3: 280, 158, 68; #4: 205, 128, 62; #5: 174, 108, 54.
As you can see, Dr Basinga is not well above the average professor in this high-citation-rate field (he publishes alongside the likes of Agnes Binagwaho, Megan B. Murray, and John Owusu Gyapong), so his notability needed to be assessed via GNG and that was also found lacking. In the course of running my test I did come across a few red-linked researchers whom I believe do qualify for pages through C1: Françoise Portaels (19364 citations, h-index 73), Susheela Singh (14609, 60), Janneke van de Wijgert (8715, 50), Sodiomon Sirima (7649, 50), Ayola Akim Adegnika (6833, 44), and Joanna Schellenberg (12180, 62), among others. JoelleJay (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The one time I think WP:NPROF might be satisfied... SportingFlyer T·C 07:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you JoelleJay, I am now satisfied. I apologize for being too desperate for not deleting the page, I am happy to learn about NPROF test I did not know much on it. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 May 2024

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

This was speedy deleted out of process. The admin who performed the deletion has defended it at User talk:Pppery#Elephant population with their opinion on the merits of the redirect, and while I disagree with their opinion admins don't have the right to push the delete button because of their opinions but instead by must follow standard deletion procedures. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn clear mis-application of G6. Not a “technical deletion” in any way, shape, or form. It can be taken to RFD if anyone desires. Frank Anchor 23:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background - This page was created with the text;

    It was recently confirmed by reliable source(s) that the elephant population has increased dramatically. This source says that the elephant population in Africa has tripled in the last six months and that if the population continues at this rate of increase, in two to five years the earth will be overrun by these giganic mamels. in that case, the source believes that elephant hunting will be legal soon. "it is only a matter of time," says source," Until congress will pass the law for elephant hunting and even promote this dangerous sport. Looks like my stash of ivory wont be illegal for long!" source exclaims with the sparkle of triumph in his eyes.

    The Kato institute reports elephant populations have indeed increased despite liberal allegations. In a study by renowned palientologist Howard Berkman it was revealed that in the last 6 months there has been a 600% increase in the rural West African Great White Tusk elephant. For more see http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html

As this was clearly nonsense, it was tagged for speedy deletion. The proper procedure at the time would have been to just delete the page. However, there was instead a common (though very much 'out of process') practice of making indefinitely protected redirects, since these had the added 'benefit' of preventing recreation. As such, the page was redirected to Elephant and indefinitely protected "for now". That was clearly always meant to be a temporary solution, but got lost in the shuffle. Eighteen years later I removed the protection and deleted the page. To me, this seems like a standard G6 maintenance issue... finally implementing the proper / intended solution. Further, in the 18 years of its existence, no article on the site ever incorporated this redirect. It simply doesn't make sense to type 'Elephant population' to get to 'Elephant'. Thus, I feel the page should remain deleted... based on both 'benefit' to the encyclopedia AND process. --CBD 00:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like your earlier claim that "we don't have redirects from <title> <word> to <title>", your implication that "no incoming links from articles" is a reason to delete is simply untrue. Close to two thirds of mainspace redirects have no incoming links, and this argument is explicitly called out at WP:RFD#KEEP #2. —Cryptic 00:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, and optionally List - Even if this had been done six months after the redirection, it would not have been a non-controversial maintenance deletion. The existence of a concept of non-controversial maintenance implies that there is also controversial maintenance, and this is controversial maintenance, and can be debated at RFD if there is a nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy undelete and list at XfD, which should be immediately done on any reasonable request by and user in good standing. If there is anything to debate, the forum for the debate is XfD. If the allegation is that an admin is repeatedly misusing speedy deletion, that’s another matter. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The cited text is fictitious and ludicrous, but because it can clearly be understood by a reasonable person to be exactly that... it's not nonsense. But nor does G6 apply. Great candidate for a non-speedy process. Jclemens (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close with no action. What exactly is the remedy sought by the appellant here? I agree that G6 was incorrectly applied. But what do we gain by overturning it? A wiki search for "Elephant population" gives Elephant as the sixth result. This isn't a plausible typo, although after 18 years, it's clearly not a recently created one to fall under R3. Yes, it shouldn't have been summarily deleted out of process, and no, we don't need that redirect back just to be re-deleted at RfD. At most, I'd go for a half-hearted TROUTing of the deleting admin, along with a quiet Thank you for trying to save us the trouble of a pointless XfD, and get back to more important matters. Owen× ☎ 16:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The remedy sought is it to overturn the deletion, undelete the page, and allow anyone who wishes it nominate it at RfD to do so. I would have thought that was obvious. And I am not convinced this would have been deleted at RfD in the first place. This ends-justify-the-means reasoning is contrary to deletion policy, and you can't IAR around it either per WP:IARUNCOMMON since this logic appears to apply just as well to anything any admin personally thinks would likely be deleted at a deletion discussion, which is a common scenario. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Undelete and list at XfD puts the situation back on the track it should have been on, and provides a clear example to observers, and gives re-education to the admin misapplying G6. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In Victor Hugo's last novel, Ninety-Three, a sailor risks his life to secure a loose cannon on deck, the cannon that he himself failed to secure earlier. The captain awards him a medal for his bravery, and then proceeds to execute him for dereliction of duty. My question is, must we revive this redirect just to kill it again? The G6 was wrong, and IAR doesn't apply here, but DRV is a content forum, not a disciplinary one. It seems pointless to retrace our steps just to end up where we started, and we're not here to educate anyone. We don't know what a future RfD would decide, but we don't need to leave this for RfD. Policy gives DRV the authority to adjudicate the matter, not just to relist it. Just because a useless redirect has been in place for 18 years is no reason to keep it, and certainly no reason to resurrect it. Owen× ☎ 02:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DRV is not XfD. The merits of the redirect are out of scope for DRV. The automatic links, tools, logging, etc, are set up to work from XfD. We are only still here because an admin is obstinately sticking by their bad G6. The purpose of this DRV is to establish consensus that the G6 was wrong and the redirect if it must be deleted must go through xfd. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The authority to delete is spelled out by our deletion policy, not by Twinkle or some template. DRV may overturn an XfD or a speedy to any other outcome. Specifically, it may overturn an incorrect speedy deletion to a consensus Delete. RfD doesn't provide any automatic links; we have all the information we need to decide this here and now, without listing it, and we don't need XFD Participation tool to voice our opinion, nor XFDcloser to carry out the result. I agree with you that CBDunkerson could have--and by this point should have--saved us from continuing this debate by undoing his G6. But he didn't, and now we have the choice between undoing it here and keeping the redir, undoing and sending to RfD, or leaving the page deleted while acknowledging G6 was a mistake. If you don't wish to adjudicate on the redir itself, it's certainly your prerogative to !vote "Overturn and list", but it's also the prerogative of those who don't see the need for the extra wonkery to !vote "Overturn to delete", which is basically no action beyond an implied finger wag at the out-of-process speedy. Owen× ☎ 06:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t wish to adjudicate on the redir itself, not here and now.
    I am curious to see the history behind the redirect. I recall the Stephen Colbert call to edit elephant from around the time, and it might be funny or interesting to read. I considered requesting a temp undeletion, but haven’t because that information has no bearing on my opinion that the G6 was improper and must be reversed. If this goes to RfD, undeleted, I will examine the history before expressing an opinion on whether it is better kept available or hidden from nonadmins.
    I am not sure that is can be justifiably asserted that there is a consensus to delete the history. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; I, too, see no consensus to delete, sadly. It seems some here are more concerned with Righting Great Wrongs, in this case, teaching that admin a lesson, than they are in giving that page the disposition I believe it deserves. I doubt any participant here would have created Elephant population as a redirect had it not existed, which means that the only reason they're now opting to restore it is that it already existed, and was deleted out of process. I don't believe that's a valid reason to keep--or restore--a page, but it seems I'm in the minority here. Owen× ☎ 13:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Let’s not say “Righting Great Wrongs”. I see this as filing rough edges in the cogs of deletion policy, in a place and a way that doesn’t stop anything else. G6 misuse diminishes the respect of WP:CSD, and disenfranchises the ordinary community in favour of an admin class in some aspects of the management of the community. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like this analogy and agree with the post. I don't know what the heck benefit there is of this pointless bureaucratic exercise... jp×g🗯️ 12:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The "intended solution" was exactly what was done: removing inappropriate content and turning the page into a redirect, and that was done because it's at least a somewhat plausible redirect; someone thinking that this redirect makes some sense is the precondition to this solution. If it hadn't made at least some sense to someone, the page wouldn't have been redirected but deleted. This is a common reason redirects are created and protection isn't important; current protection practices differing from those xx years ago have nothing to do with the deletion/retention of the redirect. Today this same redirect could be created under the same circumstances, but the page would not be protected.—Alalch E. 23:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a non-admin, I can't tell exactly what has happened here. SportingFlyer T·C 04:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elephant was persistently vandalized in August 2006, apparently at the behest of Stephen Colbert. When that article was protected, it inevitably spilled over into new titles. Since there's some value in this one, it was redirected to Elephant and then protected, and lived happily on for almost eighteen years when CBDunkerson "uncontroversially" deleted it. —Cryptic 05:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Overturn In that case, it should be overturned, even though if I agree with the spirit of the deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as an out-of-process deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as an improper deletion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. A G6 speedy deletion has the express requirement of being non-controversial. The fact that one or more editors have seen fit to raise a challenge here indicates it is not non-controversial and therefore the deletion cannot stand. It may be sent to WP:RFD if anyone is willing to send it there, and I would be minded to support deleting it there. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Akiko Kitamura (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't believe this closure was appropriate. I provided a legitimate argument for deletion, and this was a PROD that had been removed. None of the votes for "keep" commented on the merits of the article and instead cast aspersions on my work. I recommend this AFD be reopened. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. The AfD ran for a full week, during which not a single participant supported your call for deletion. Whether or not you did a proper WP:BEFORE search is no longer relevant. There was no consensus to delete, and no compelling reason to relist it. I can't fault other editors for being suspicious of your nominations, seeing your poor track record. The ten examples that JTtheOG provided tell a damning story. Go for quality nominations, not for quantity. Owen× ☎ 21:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn to no consensus Endorse with no prejudice against immediate re-nomination (citing very low attendance). While there is clearly not anything close to consensus to delete, the keep !votes are attacking the nominator and do nothing to claim the subject is notable. I recommend this option rather than resisting because a potential future AFD can focus on the article rather than the nominator. If Bgsu98 wishes to renominate, I recommend this user take the advice at WP:RENOM and put together a stronger case as to why this particular article should be deleted. Frank Anchor 22:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the past six years, there have been three ArbCom cases involving deletion discussions, and in those three cases I have proposed that ArbCom institute discretionary sanctions, now known as contentious topics, for conduct in deletion discussions. ArbCom has evidently considered and not accepted that idea. This is another illustration of behavior in deletion discussions that appears to be disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To which behavior are you referring? Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse - There was no error by the closer. The nomination was properly listed, and at least two editors saw it, and two editors commented, opposing deletion. Relist would have been a valid action. No Consensus would not have been a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There should be a Skating list at Deletion Sorting, especially since the appellant is nominating large numbers of figure skaters for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Y Done. Owen× ☎ 12:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there are currently 52 open AfDs in the newly created WP:DELSORT/Skating, of which 51 were nominated by Bgsu98, most using a copy-pasted nomination text. The exception was WP:Articles_for_deletion/Nordic_cross_skating, which isn't about a skater, and arguably may not be about skating at all.
Did the appellant believe their chances are better with 51 separate nominations than with one, 51-entry discussion? Either way, DRV, as a second instance forum, may aggregate all 51 into a single merged AfD, for a more meaningful discussion about WP:NSKATE and related guidelines. Leaving all 51, minimally-attended individual AfDs to the luck of who saw the AfD will result in inconsistent outcomes, encouraging more BEFORE-less nominations. Owen× ☎ 13:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Bad AfD conduct as noted by the participants--too many at once, copy/paste rationale, no or inadequate BEFORE--are all rebuttals to the presumed good faith of the nominations. This is a perfectly fine reason to reject an AfD: if the nominator didn't pay the encyclopedia and community due respect, then no return consideration is necessary. Otherwise, shotgun XFD nominations would be a WP:FAIT unless specifically and carefully rebutted. Jclemens (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with no prejudice against immediate re-nomination This underlying discussion is not a great example of what a deletion discussion should look like. On one hand, WP:NSKATE, as part of WP:NSPORT, is largely depreciated and I believe should be seen more like WP:OUTCOMES. However, since it still is an SNG, the community still thinks there is value in NSPORT, there is no obvious error in the nominator to nominate individuals who do not meet the criteria in WP:NSKATE. That said, failing the SNG does not mean that a subject must be deleted - as the subject can still merit an article by meeting GNG, and the nominator should review the existing sources. For the subsequent comments in this deletion discussion, there was no attempt to find or provide sources to show that the subject meets GNG. Instead, the points raised were to procedurally keep the article. While quick nominations are usually frowned on by the community, entering them in quick succession is not necessarily a problem, especially if the nominator did their homework prior to the nomination. And, just because other nominated articles in the same sequence may have sources, does not necessarily mean that this nomination was in error. All of this means to me that the close should be seen as a procedural keep and any editor could re-nominate the article. --Enos733 (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and allow immediate re-nomination the reason to delete was possibly not well thought through, the reasons to keep were procedural and not policy-driven, so it's basically like the discussion didn't happen at all. No problem with a new AfD, and if nominated by the same user, clear evidence of a WP:BEFORE search would be wise. SportingFlyer T·C 04:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse an editor filing ~50 related AfDs in rapid succession should expect to face criticism for flooding the process. The proper response is to learn from the experience and do better next time. This is not that. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advice in general, if the nom cannot be grouped (and I think in this case they could not), you should probably keep it down to 3 or 4 noms a week in a given topic area. If someone is creating bad articles at a higher rate than that in a given topic area, talk to them and get them to slow down and see the AfD outcomes if you can. But yeah, flooding the system with these is never going to go well. Just don't do it. Hobit (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure but with permission to renominate on a slower and more careful basis. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 May 2024

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
ro:Vasa Proiect ([[|talk]]|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Buna ziua, a fost stearsa pagina creata de mine pt firma de proiectare Vasa Proiect. Administratorul Gikü a invocat motivul A7 “nici o indicatie a importantei”. Nu mi-a oferit nici o oportunitate sa ii raspund si mi-a sters pagina. I-am explicat ulteriror ca este vorba despre o firma renumita de proiectari din Sibiu care a facut numeroase cladiri, care au fost mentionate in detaliu in sectiunea portofoliu a paginii Wikipedia. I-am explicat ca am inclus referinte la cladirile construite pe baza proiectelor Vasa Proiect si la numeroasele companii, inclusiv internationale, cu care a colaborat Vasa Proiect, in masura in care acestea exista online. Dar, avand in vedere natura domeniului de actvitate, si anume proiectarea pt constructia de cladiri, importanta firmei o demonstreaza cladirile construite si nu toate sunt mentionate in presa/ online etc. De aceea am fost limitata in numaraul de referinte care l-am putut include. Deasemenea am vazut alte firme de proiectare din Romania care au pagini similare pe Wikipedia, chiar cu mai putine referinte decat Vasa Proiect, si care nu au fost sterse. Doresc sa mentionez si ca Gikü mi-a criticat pagina invocand probleme de copyright pt logoul firmei si imaginile caldirilor, pt ca proveneau de pe siteul siteul Vasa Proiect (http://vasaproiect.ro/). Aceasta este o critica absurda pt ca acesta este siteul nostru, pozele si logul ne apartin, de aceea le-am inclus de pe pagina noastra de Wikipedia. Deci nu are sens sa se invoce o problema de copyright. Consider ca stergerea pagingii si motivele invocate sunt incorecte. Va rog sa ma ajutati. Va multumesc. Danawiki2024 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The following is a machine translation from Romanian:

Hello, the page I created for the design company Vasa Proiect has been deleted. Administrator Gikü cited reason A7 "no indication of importance". He didn't give me any opportunity to answer him and deleted my page. I explained to others that it is about a famous design firm from Sibiu that made numerous buildings, which were mentioned in detail in the portfolio section of the Wikipedia page. I explained to him that I had included references to the buildings built on the basis of Vasa Proiect projects and to the many companies, including international ones, with which Vasa Proiect collaborated, to the extent that they exist online. But, considering the nature of the field of activity, namely the design for the construction of buildings, the importance of the company is demonstrated by the buildings built and not all of them are mentioned in the press/online, etc. That is why I was limited in the number of references that I could include. I have also seen other design firms from Romania that have similar pages on Wikipedia, even with fewer references than Vasa Proiect, and which have not been deleted. I also want to mention that Gikü criticized my page invoking copyright issues for the company logo and the images of the boilers, because they came from the Vasa Project website ( http://vasaproiect.ro/ ). This is an absurd criticism because this is our website, the pictures and the logo belong to us, that's why we included them from our Wikipedia page. So it makes no sense to invoke a copyright problem. I believe that the deletion of the page and the reasons cited are incorrect. Please help me. Thank you

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We need provisions for Speedy Endorse, similar to Speedy Keep at AFD. In this case it is not even clear what if anything was deleted. The filer refers to something have been A7, but also says that there is no copyright problem, which implies that an admin thinks that there is a copyright problem. We do consider A7 appeals, if we know what they are. We don't consider copyright appeals, even if we know what they are. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close ? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as wrong venue. This actually appears to be a dispute on ro.wiki so not anything we can have a view on here. Doesn't appear to be a similar problem on en.wiki that I can find. JMWt (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 May 2024

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

I'd like to request a deletion review for the subject. It is a notable subject and remained there for almost a year. I would really appreciate a constructive dialog on said matter. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.188.92.234 (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse the G5 but allow recreation by any editor in good standing. The article was created and substantially only edited by a confirmed sock of User:Wrathofyazdan, and deleted as such. A quick look didn't reveal any independent SIGCOV about the subject, but I might have missed something. I see no reason to forbid recreation, ideally as a draft, by a legitimate editor. Owen× ☎ 16:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G5 per OwenX. As the reason for this deletion is due to a blocked user being its only substantial author, and not due to content, recreation by any user in good standing is explicitly allowed. Frank Anchor 13:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the G5 per above, you are welcome to re-create the article if notable though. SportingFlyer T·C 23:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 May 2024

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User talk:216.15.18.224 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was speedily deleted under G6 midway through an MfD discussion in which multiple editors had argued in favour of keeping it. The deletion was therefore not uncontroversial maintenance, and is (in my view) out of process. In my opinion, the page should be undeleted, and the MfD reopened to finish running its course. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 15:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse speedy deletion, (a) because as most people said at the MFD, there is no rational need for it, and (b) there is possibly a privacy aspect here. But mostly per (c) process for process sake is an actively harmful attitude. WP:IAR is still a thing. That said, Bbb23 was pretty optimistic when he deleted this to save people from having to argue some more. Silly Bbb23, the entire purpose of Wikipedia is to argue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. G6 was wrong, but the page clearly qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:U2, with the same outcome. I have no problem moving Mandiace's month-old request for help to their own Talk page. But frankly, I can't believe a dozen editors wasted time on that MfD, and who knows how many more will waste time on this pointless DRV. Please withdraw and I'll move that help tag myself. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your request to withdraw, I’m considering doing so, given the initial comments here. However, I don’t believe U2 would have been valid either, given that multiple editors in good faith had opposed the page’s deletion at all - it still would have short-circuited an ongoing deletion discussion in which such opposition had been expressed. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 15:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion, already consensus for that in the MfD. The whole business is a mind-numbing waste of editor time and energy, resources that could have been spent on actually improving the encyclopaedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse U2 but not undeletion. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment which is the reality: And if the MFD was a waste of time, this is also a waste of time. Just let it stay deleted, no point in trying to reinstate it. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 16:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 May 2024

edit
  • janno Lieber – Speedy closed as a disruptive appeal for a disruptive AfD. Anon appellant blocked for one week, User:Railrider12 indef blocked as an account created specifically for this trolling AfD. Both were warring with the non-admin closer, who correctly speedy closed the disruptive AfD. Owen× ☎ 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
janno Lieber (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Disputed closure of bio article. 170.167.196.16 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 May 2024

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

Seems like a flawed nomination. See wikt:'phone. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a extremely contentious Afd that was closed by the admin with a simple keep as though they were closing an Afd opened by mistake. None of the problem inherent in the Afd discussion were addresed. From the canvassing at the beginning, to the the whole course of the keep !votes being based on false premises, hand-waving and wilful (supposed) ignorance of policy, particularly ignorance of the WP:O Note d, i.e. the idea that interviews can prove a person notable. These arguments have been given false creedence that has lead to a false keep !vote. It should have been delete, or at the worst no consensus. Now we have been left with a group that thinks its ok to use interviews to prove notability. I think the whole thing feels staged. scope_creepTalk 13:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. I agree with the appellant that the closing statement could have benefited from at least a brief closing rationale. I also agree that there was plenty of obvious canvassing, a litany of meritless "Keep" votes (not "!votes"), and incorrect categorization of sources as independent. However, even when you discard all those votes, we're still left with no consensus to delete. Doczilla is an experienced admin, and I'm sure he gave those canvassed, ILIKEIT-type votes the weight they deserve, namely, zero. Had he added a terse explanation of his close, it would be obvious. In my read of that AfD, the Delete views indeed carry more weight than the Keeps, but not overwhelmingly so. Is it really worth our while here to overturn this to a "No consensus", with the only practical effect being an earlier potential renomination? Unlike the appellant, I don't believe this close sets a precedent about the use of interviews as proof of notability. Most of those Keeps have no interest in our P&G, and are merely citing whatever they believe will get their pet page kept. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate and relist or alternatively overturn to no consensus and allow immediate renomination (involved), as per my comment in the AfD I found the vast majority of the keep votes/!votes to be just about worthless with regards to our P&G's (with one or two exceptions). I believe that the current closes available would be 'no consensus' or 'delete', but I also believe an extra 7 days may have led to an actual consensus (given the delete !votes came late). Alternatively, explicitly allowing immediate renomination (with a 'clean' restart) may also be beneficial to finding a true P&G-based consensus either way. I don't think this should have been closed as 'keep', and in the absence of an extended closing statement, I cannot see how that conclusion was reached. Daniel (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the nom, User:Scope creep, but really, he should be advocating a single outcome. Reading through the AfD, I cannot find two sources that meeting the GNG. It’s unfortunate that someone is saying interviews don’t meet WP:SECONDARY, because that is not true. The problem with whether the sources are independent. Content sourced from the subject via interview of the subject con at be independent of the subject.
I’m leaning to “Overturn (to no consensus) and allow standard WP:RENOM in two months”. I don’t see a case for unusual urgency in solving this one. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm involved, but I would have loved some sort of statement by Doczilla regarding the close, either in the close or on their talk page. I don't care what happens here, but the close does need a good explanation, which could have been provided with some talk page patience. SportingFlyer T·C 22:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I closed this after one week when there were no delete votes. This was undone on the basis that it was a controversial close and required an admin. All I see is the nom badgering and threatening people with ANI in a lost and hopeless cause. So we're supposed to overturn this to no consensus and give "super weight" to the few delete votes? I don't agree. The closer could have given a few words of explanation especially given the nom has fought too hard here. But the close is correct. Desertarun (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at your close, and can find no good reason to criticize. scope_creep does not make himself look good on your user_talk page. I long observe that terse nominations often result in trainwrecks. scope_creep should follow advice at WP:RENOM. It's not enough to be right, you have to get people to agree with you. "A large number of references are terrible" is not convincing. For an article that looks good, the flipside of WP:THREE applies. The nominator should make the case that the best three sources are not good enough. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse. This was by no means an extremely contentious Afd, and only gave the appearance of being contentious because Scope Creep forced their view on others by commenting 24(!) times (excluding the nom and stricken comments) throughout the discussion. Even discounting sock and WP:PERX votes, there is clearly not consensus to delete and little indication such consensus would form. My endorse !vote is only "weak" due to There was a late, well-reasoned delete !vote by Daniel (but not the other late delete vote, which is a glorified PERX). Relisting would could be viable option to allow time to discuss this !vote, but my first preference is to endorse the keep close. Frank Anchor 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: strengthened my endorse vote after review of Scope creep’s unjustified harassment of the first closer along with this user’s history of harassing other users. The first close was valid and should have stood. Frank Anchor 01:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. - From this vantage point, it is obvious that general notability has been met. The level of scrutiny exhibited towards this specific article both here and on the previous Afd discussions, the underlying motives behind the incessant WP:BADGERING, by members of this forum, which are transparent in previous discussions, and the obsessiveness in which actions are continually being taken, only make the importance of this article that much clearer to me. --Omer Toledano (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse, or Relist, as discussed below - My reading of the participation is that, until 24 hours before closing, there was one policy-based Delete !vote, by the nominator/appellant, two policy-based Keep !votes, by North8000 and Longhornsg, and 86 Keep !votes of uncertain quality that may have just been I Like It, and 2 Keep !votes from editors who were not Extended-Confirmed. At the end, there was one more policy-and-guideline based Delete and one more Delete that I consider of uncertain quality. So, at the close, there were two good-quality Keep !votes, two good-quality Delete !votes, 8 questionable Keeps, and one uncertain Delete. The closer was using reasonable judgment in giving some weight to the questionable Keeps and closing to Keep. Even if the closer had ignored all of the questionable Keeps, the result would have been No Consensus. There is no way that a closer could have twisted this to a Delete. Keep is a valid conclusion by the closer.
      • The closer should have made some statement concerning weighing the various comments, and addressing the nominator's concerns. DRV doesn't overturn a valid close simply because it was inadequately explained.
      • The arguments by the nominator/appellant are that the sources are garbage. Some of the sources are garbage. With 58 sources of varying quality, the burden should be on the nominator to provide a source analysis demonstrating that there are not three independent sources that provide significant coverage.
      • My own opinion, without having assessed the sources, is that it is in the interests of the readers for the English Wikipedia to have an article about the subject. The Ignore All Rules approach would be to say that it is in the interests of the reader for the encyclopedia to have an article on the subject. However, in my opinion, this is a situation where the rules can be applied carefully for the interests of the reader of the encyclopedia, by source assessment.
      • If the AFD is relisted, the purpose of the relist should be to give the nominator time to provide a source analysis showing that the sources are garbage. Other editors can provide source analyses showing that there are at least three independent sources that provide significant coverage.
      • It is true that assessing 58 sources will be work for the nominator/appellant. The burden of proving that all of the sources are garbage should be on the nominator. Most of the sources probably are garbage, and some of them probably are good sources.
      • Either leave the close standing, or give the appellant a week to show that all of the sources are garbage.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I'm not doing that. It is waste of time, like Afd. You seem to have taken a bullet list from somewhere without reading Afd. A source analysis was done. There is not 1 secondary source in that whole WP:BLP. Not one. scope_creepTalk 08:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With so many Keep votes there is little incentive to give lengthy thoughtful keep votes. I believe some of those weak/PERX votes would convert into something stronger in another AFD. Desertarun (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Two of the Keep votes were from editors who were not Extended-Confirmed, and so should have been stricken as excluded under Palestine-Israel restrictions. The nominator would have presented a less bad case if they had raised this issue, which is clear, instead of or in addition to yelling "canvassing". That leaves 6 Keeps of arguable quality, and the close is still plausible. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse 1) Doczilla rarely if ever provides statements when closing AfDs; this is not a new phenomenon and heretofore not a particular problem. 2) The NAC should have been allowed to stand... "I wanted to add a vote" isn't a good reason to revert a close, and yes, a NAC closure after the initial relist was just fine in the absence of actual votes against the emerging consensus. 3) Interviews are not inherently non-independent. Good interviews from reputable journalists do their own fact checking, such that the subject's words aren't accepted uncritically and unrebutted. The policy summary that says "Interviews aren't independent" is a horrible and inappropriate oversimplification. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DRV doesn't overturn a valid close simply because it was inadequately explained
DRV has to be able to overturn due to inadequate explanation, or there is no requirement on closers to provide adequate explanation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reclose or relist Step by step:
    • The discussion was bad. The keep !votes seemed to be canvased and the main delete contributor was way over the top (more than half of all the words in the AfD perhaps?).
    • The close was bad. A discussion with all the issues that one had needs a clearly explained close. As Robert notes, some (2?) of the keep !votes shouldn't have been counted. Were they? No clue, the closer gave us no idea. Was canvasing relevant? No idea? Strength of arguments? Again, no idea.
    • Keeping this is probably the right thing I don't have a horse in this race, but it seems very clear to me that this person is notable. Plenty of independent coverage. Is THREE met? Maybe not, but the weight of all the sources, many independent and reliable, is enough to get us well past WP:N. And that's the bar.
I lean toward a WP:FISH for Scope creep (at the least learn to be more concise, but if you find yourself that invested in an AfD you need to walk away) and Doczilla (don't close continuous AfDs if you aren't willing to put in the time to explain what you're doing) and either a reclose or relist. Hobit (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be doing that but your absolutely right. I was too close to it and shouldn't have been done it. Its impossible to get these trash article deleted now on Wikipedia. It cannot be done and everybody knows it and the reason Afd is failing. I'm tired of trying to fight battles that can't be won. The whole Afd system is broken and has been for a very long while and the whole thing feels like a group failure. No more Afd's for me. This can closed. I've no interest in it. scope_creepTalk 08:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, this isn't a trash article. There is a ton of coverage and the article is written fairly well. Is it over our inclusion bar? I'd say yes, you'd say no. AfD isn't failing--it's doing it's job and mostly (mostly) doing it well. The drop in participation is painful. This particular AfD is broken. And the big problem was that enough folks outside of the PI conflict didn't get involved. That's how to address AfDs with the issues we have here--lots of dispassionate outside eyes. And the drop in participation does make that more difficult. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 May 2024

edit
  • Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion – I have reopened this per WP:NACD, as "an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning". I agree with the applicant here (and subsequent comments from uninvovled participants) that this was not a good NAC, both due to the discussion being closed citing "SNOW" despite not meeting the threshold for that, and for not having any additional justification provided as part of the close. I will relist for 7 days to get it on a new 'log' page and allow for continued discussion about SUSTAINED. Daniel (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The argument that the article do not meet WP:SUSTAINED has not been attended by the closer. There are no reliable sources on the article subject other than within the last 2 months in 2023, and no such sources were presented during the deletion discussion. More on it at User talk:Cocobb8/Archives/2024/May#Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist and let an admin close. The rush to close the AfD "per SNOW" eight hours before the seven days were up smacks of an attempt to prevent anyone else from closing it, rather than a bona fide reduction in pointless process. The concern of the nom in the AfD was not addressed by any of the Keep !votes, half of which were a variant of ILIKEIT, and the other half - little more than a VAGUEWAVE. Granted, there was clearly no consensus to delete at that point, but relisting it for another seven days (or even another six days and 16 hours) may have garnered more useful opinions, preferably P&G-based ones. Owen× ☎ 21:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I actually observe the pattern of just counting votes and deciding based on that, not on quality of argument, even among the admins.
    What's P&G? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "P&G" stands for "policies and guidelines". When you see an acronym "XYZ" here, it's often shorthand for "WP:XYZ", in this case, WP:P&G. Owen× ☎ 21:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Owen×, I've observed that many NAC closures are early closures. AGF, I think they want to gain experience with closures but with a current shortage of closers, it's usually unnecessary to do closures early. I don't want to single out this closure as it's just a trend I've noticed this year. I've seen "SNOW" closes with only 3 or 4 discussion participants which is not how I interpret SNOW to work. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen I agree that a NAC SNOW--especially with only four opinions listed, as I've always understood the unwritten rule on SNOW to be 6 unanimous votes and 24 elapsed hours--is an unusual and possibly problematic occurrence. Let's let an admin handle this one. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate per above to allow an admin to close or relist. Too few opinions to be considered a NAC snow close. Frank Anchor 23:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Moroccanoil (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Meets notability guidelines for being an incredibly well-known cosmetics brand and considering the high level of controversy at this year's Eurovision Song Contest, the sponsorship of which by Moroccanoil is a major contributor of, an article is definitely both topical and necessary. Kapitan110295 (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 May 2024

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

This draft was nominated under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, and - after the discussion had been open for over a week - it was procedurally closed by a non-admin after their moving of the draft to mainspace. As I mentioned on the closer's talk, I believe that this was a bad close for several reasons:

  • I don't believe that it was fair towards the nominator or the discussion's participants for the (reasonably well-attended) MfD to have been procedurally closed based on a move that occurred some time after the discussion had started (in addition, I would question whether it's appropriate to move a draft currently at MfD to mainspace at all, given that this could effectively short-circuit/nullify any discussion that had already taken place). I see this as especially true due to the fact that, in this situation, the same rationale - WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - applies regardless of the discussion venue.
  • Given the split of opinions expressed by editors in the MfD, I believe that this was a WP:BADNAC - i.e., that [t]he outcome [was] a close call...or likely to be controversial, and so the MfD should therefore have been closed by an administrator. (I'd also argue that closing this discussion as procedural close was likely to be controversial in and of itself.)
  • The closer was involved with regards to the page in question, having edited the draft and accepted it/moved it to mainspace. I disagree with the closer's assertion that their involvement does not matter...because the close is of a procedural type - there is nothing in WP:PROCEDURAL that excludes such closes from the requirement to be uninvolved, and I don't believe that this is an appropriate situation to IAR.

I therefore believe that the closure should be overturned, and the page moved back to draftspace pending the outcome of the MfD. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 11:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse own procedural close. The close was a mere recording of an objective fact that the discussed page is no more from the standpoint of MfD. There had been a draft and then the draft was no more, so there's nothing to do in an MfD. That's not a close call or a non-close call, it's not a call. There is no dispute in which I might be involved. The AfC accept was not an outcome of the MfD discussion. The mainspacing comes fist in time and in the logic of things. The close is just a recording an objective fact that came first, indpendently from the MfD. I could, in my independent capacity, and I did, accept the submission because the submission is okay, and that is for an AfC reviewer to decide, not for MfD, as MfD is not a venue to review pending AfC submissions. A running MfD does not suspend AfC, and does not transform drafting from an optional to an obligatory apparatus. Once the move is performed WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies and the only recourse is AfD. I notified the concerned subject at User talk:Blacksun83#Article instructing her to start an AfD if they wish.—Alalch E. 11:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following this logic, if there was an AfD open, and someone unilaterally moved it to draft during the discussion, would that mean that the AfD would need to be procedurally closed as "the discussed page is no more from the standpoint of [AfD]. There had been a[n article] and then the [article] was no more, so there's nothing to do in an [AfD]"? I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with unilateral page moves to render a discussion mid-way through moot. Daniel (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It isn't symmetrical. Drafting is an optional mechanism, subservient to the encyclopedia in the narrower sense (the article space). Article space takes precedence and is where the matter of what pages constitute the encyclopedia gets truly settled. It would not be appropriate to move to draftspace during a running AfD, but it is appropriate to mainspace during a running MfD. MfD discussions about deleting drafts quickly stop making sense when editors in good standing (multiple in this case) start believing that the page should not be a draft but an article. That's generally when MfD should stop and AfD should start. MfDs to delete drafts are for very problematic pages that exist as drafts for which no one thinks they are worthy of article space, and the issue is whether it's sufficiently important and purposeful to delete those drafts before G13 kicks in (often a pretty esoteric question and often useless to even contemplate). When a reasonable AfC submission is made and editors exist who believe that not only should the page not be deleted, but that it should be an article (entirely different from merely not deleting the draft which is independent from the issue of whether that page will ever become an article), that transforms the nature of the dispute: It's not about whether to delete quicker than the natural course of things dictates, it's about whether to have or not to have a particular article in the encyclopedia, which is an issue of article deletion/retention, and is no longer a topical matter in an MfD. —Alalch E. 12:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can sort-of accept that. I'll say endorse close of the MfD, while noting I'm still not 100% sold on the act of moving an article from Draft to mainspace halfway through an MfD. But that's a totally different conversation. Daniel (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close this and start a fresh AfD. WP:BADNAC is there to prevent adjudication by those who don't have the tools, the experience, or the trust of the community to close such discussions. However, in this case, no adjudication was required. The closer merely informed participants that the MfD was now moot, as the closer has already moved the article to mainspace. Yes, it was the same closer who moved the page from draft to mainspace, but they did so rigorously following our AfC guidelines. Since no adjudication was required in the procedural close of the MfD, the issue of WP:INVOLVED is also of no practical bearing. Had Alalch E. accepted the AfC and asked a fellow editor to close the MfD, the result couldn't have been any different. Such an extra step seems redundant, although it's fair to ask whether it should be followed for appearances' sake.
Should the AfC have been accepted while the MfD was open? A case could be made for withholding AfC acceptance until the MfD (which was already open for nine days!) was closed, although I don't see any such requirement in our policies. But what would be the benefit of such a delay? Deleting the draft would not create a G4 basis for deleting a subsequent mainspace article anyway. And with sourcing that meets our BLP policy, any editor, including the original author of the draft, would be rightly encouraged to recreate the article for an apparently notable person. Which brings me to my recommendation of withdrawing this DRV, and starting a fresh AfD for the article, ideally notifying all the participants of the MfD. Once deleted in mainspace, recreation will be restricted based on our policies, which is the remedy the appellant and the subject of the article are seeking. Owen× ☎ 12:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Hi, I am the subject of the article as well as the nominator, and I think this outcome was fair to me, the person who made the deletion request in the first place, for reasons I will explain below. I became aware that there was a draft about me when I started to be deluged by scammers who wanted me to pay them to rewrite it and get it accepted. It got so bad that I took my publicly available email off the internet, but they still kept coming. I figured I had two options to try and get them to stop contacting me: I could try to get the article deleted, or I could try to get it accepted. Acceptance seemed complicated and less favorable, since I honestly thought the draft should have been accepted in the first place, since my novel was selected for two things: indies introduce and indie next, that are an enormous deal in the book world. So when it was declined, I realized I didn’t know what qualified for wiki acceptance, or even how to go about trying to get acceptance without running afoul of the conflict of interest guidelines. Requesting a deletion seemed like the more straightforward option, so I tried that. I was well aware that I might be deemed notable over the course of the review, since my novel has enjoyed even more of the non-interview, secondary coverage you all prefer here since the first version of the article was submitted. I have looked over the accepted article and think it is accurate, and a fine article to have on Wikipedia. Having an accepted article will also make the scammers who want me to pay to get an article accepted lose interest in emailing me all the time, so it is also, in my opinion, an ok option, and an outcome that fulfills my original goal of defeating the scammers. I obviously cannot speak for all the people involved in the other discussion, and for all I know, if the article is kept an entirely new type of scammer may fall out of the sky, but the outcome of all of this is an article I approve of. Thank you, User talk:Alalch E.. Blacksun83 (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. You're also welcome to suggest changes to the article on its talk page, especially as new independent reliable sources emerge in the future, enabling more comprehensive coverage. I'm sorry about your experience with the scammers. The best way to protect Wikipedia from disruption from the scammers is to keep our processes sane and clean and keep priorities straight at all times. —Alalch E. 13:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do! Thanks again! Blacksun83 (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR Delete which I am fully aware isn't an answer here. When you have a draft that the subject does not want, for myriad reasons, moving it to mainspace because you can is not what should be done especially when consensus at MfD is trending toward deletion. This is not what is intended by draftspace being optional. So within policy, move back to draft space where there are fewer eyes on it, and let the MfD run. If consensus changes, AfC can be determined. Star Mississippi 13:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Leaving the first part, which was less about this situation and more in general of procedure. But in light of the subject's comment (thanks both for the heads up) I guess my BLP comment is moot. To closer: please don't let my comment stand in the way. Star Mississippi 14:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take a look at the comment by the user who says they are the subject and who had originated the BLPREQUESTDELETE left in this DRV: Special:Diff/1223182504/1223192509 —Alalch E. 14:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as appellant: Following the comment here by the article's subject, I no longer seek this page's deletion/moving back to draftspace. I'm not closing this review as withdrawn, as I still believe that the closure was procedurally erroneous given the information available at the time (and so stand by my request for its review), as other editors have commented on the issue of moving the draft to mainspace mid-MfD, and as I can't speak for all of the participants who !voted delete in that discussion. That being said, I'd like to apologise to Blacksun83 for the somewhat drawn-out process that this has become, and for any part I've played in that - and I hope that this puts an end to you being contacted by the scammers. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 14:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, and thank you. Blacksun83 (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Procedural MfD close. Whether moving something from draft to mainspace while an MfD is in process is procedurally appropriate is a separate question, but an MfD can't delete a mainspace article, full stop, so the close was proper. Separately, the article subject appears notable based on the coverage in the article at the time I write this, so regardless of what it looked like before, it almost certainly should not be deleted on the basis of subject request, because LPI/NPF is for edge cases and does not apply to someone who unequivocally meets notability criteria. We should explore other ways besides deletion to help the article subject minimize disruption brought on by becoming "notable" in Wikipedia's eyes. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse procedural MFD close per above. Anyone can start an AFD on the newly mainspaced article if they so choose. Frank Anchor 16:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse procedural MfD close given Blacksun83's comments here and their withdrawal of their nomination in the MfD. If people wish to take it to AfD I'm sure they can work it out. TarnishedPathtalk 06:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as moot per Blacksun83. For the record the procedural close was clearly wrong at the time it was made, though. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Involved Endorse - I originally !voted to Delete, based on the request of the subject, and now support retention of the article based on the changed opinion of the subject, as well as the marginal notability of the subject. The closer was right in closing the MFD based on the changed circumstances. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're currently at a good outcome where the deletion rationale no longer applies, so this is basically moot. However, I have a big problem with a procedural close of an MfD after the user procedurally closed it had accepted it at AfC, therefore being involved, and while quite rare, would have !voted to overturn on those grounds if the deletion rationale still existed. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an important point, but I didn't belabor this point as DRV is not a user conduct review forum. Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I welcome any comments on my talk page. —Alalch E. 10:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 May 2024

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
French ship Gapeau (B284) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A contentious AfD closed by a non-admin as a "no consensus / leaning keep", four days after it being relisted. Closing rationale makes it clear the closer was aware of the contentiousness, yet chose to ignore it. I reverted the close as an obvious BADNAC, with a polite notice on the closer's Talk page. The closer chose to lash back at me and re-close. I believe this one is best left for an admin to close, once the seven days since the last relist are up. Owen× ☎ 11:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, OwenX, for misrepresenting me. See my close for full detail. To clarify their points:
    It was not a particularly contentious topic or discussion, the latter being, while small, always calm. My closing rationale does not indicate otherwise.
    OwenX may not have refreshed themselves with WP:RELIST, but they are repeating the same error here as they made at my talk: it is explicitly allowed to close before a seven-day period after a relist is up, if a determination can be made. And since that determination can include a determination that no consensus can be reached, there was no early close.
    More generally, can OwenX dial back the bad faith? I did not "ignore" anything; I did not "lash back" (indeed, I had already reclosed when I saw his message, as I had added a corollary); this language is merely an attempt to present the NAC as knee-jerk, hotheaded action performed in ignorance. It was none of those things; I was not uncivil (unless being wrong is no longer grounds for being told one is wrong. of course).
    Since their submission here is based solely on the grounds of a non-contentious discussion/topic being a bad nac when there was no such contention, and secondly on a misreading of our relist procedure, I suggest the submission falls. ——Serial Number 54129 11:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your claim that this was an uncontentious AfD is, on its face, wrong. The nom from Fram was well-reasoned, there was a strong argument for Delete from Oaktree b, and a valid ATD suggested by The ed17. WP:BADNAC clearly tells us: A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: [...] The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial.. The fact that you closed it as "no consensus" tells us that this was a close call, making it a BADNAC. The issue of early closure is just the icing on this cake. Owen× ☎ 11:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Per WP:NACD, deletion-related closes by a non-admin can be reopened by an uninvolved administrator acting in their individual capacity giving their reasoning; which is what seems to have happened here. While OwenX’s reopening can of course be challenged, my impression is that Serial Number 54129 should not have reclosed the discussion after OwenX took an administrative action to revert his previous close. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 11:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and allow for closure by an admin. The DRV should have happened in lieu of Serial's re-close if Serial believed Owen's re-close was wrong. Owen's re-opening was fine per an unsettled discussion. Star Mississippi 13:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm not as big on the NAC essay as some of the other people at DRV, but this close is effectively Serial overturning the decision of an administrator unilaterially. Mach61 13:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn obvious WP:BADNAC and allow an admin to close. NACs are limited to discussions that are non-controversial, and a thrice-relisted discussion generally implies there is back-and-forth discussion and reasonable votes on either side. I do think NC is a reasonable outcome here, but should be left to an admin after the recent relist period is completed. Frank Anchor 16:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to allow for an admin closure.
      • This close raises the same issue about bad non-administrative closure as other similar closes to come here to Deletion Review, which is when or whether a non-admin may close a deletion discussion as No Consensus. The language in question is

        A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations:… The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial.

        It seems clear to the appellant and to the editors here who are saying to Overturn that a No Consensus call is almost always a close call, because there are almost always at least two valid outcomes. It therefore seems clear to some editors that a non-administrative close of No Consensus is almost always wrong. However, this closer is not the first non-admin to disagree with the overturning of their No Consensus call. Clearly there is disagreement about this information page and the guideline that it interprets. This disagreement should be discussed further at the Village Pump.
      • In the meantime, this closure was a close call, and the fact that it is here at Deletion Review is a controversy.
      • The closer was in particular wrong in reclosing, which is a form of wheel warring.
      • This close should be overturned. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. A reasonable finding of a lack of consensus in a close by a non-admin is self-defeating because it translates to a reasonable estimation of the situation as a close call... so that editor, a non-admin, should not have closed. It could be argued that an "obvious" 'no consensus' close is not a close call, and in DRV we often see comments of the "obvious 'no consensus' close, no other way to close" type, but administrators can close even "/purportedly/ obvious 'no consensus'" discussions in a particular non-'no-consensus' way, by spotting a rough consensus after all, after weighing the arguments, using perhaps a non-obvious, but valid and acceptable reasoning, and while many such closes are less obvious or may be quite non-obvious, they can still be reasonable (and sometimes quite excellent and illuminating), and these closes would, in the alternative scenario involving the same discussion, also be endorsed—this time not as "obvious, no other way etc etc", but as "could also have been X, but Y is reasonable" or similar. And the latter type of truly contentious closes, that hinge on reasonableness, are obviously totally reserved for administrators. And when a non-administrator closes as no-consensus, even if it's an "obvious" 'no consensus', they eliminate this possibility, and that's not a net positive, because the possibility to get some other outcome should be left available to be exploited by an admin. It's for administrators to explore the realm of possibility and decide whether to make a "safer" or a more "risky" close; the latter is sometimes necessary to move things forward.—Alalch E. 23:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Any action that would constitute wheel warring if taken by an admin, should, if taken by a non-admin, result in a block and topic ban from the affected process of an appropriate duration. Since DRV isn't the forum to decide that, the non-admin closer should carefully take this under advisement. Revert wars in admin areas or functions are just not appropriate. Oh, and yes, it shouldn't have been non-admin closed in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn, an uninvolved administrator reopened a debate per DELPRO#NAC in their individual capacity. To then see it re-closed by the same non-administrator is very unusual, and is a non-tools-used form of wheel warring (as Robert M and Jclemens put it above). Daniel (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as a WP:BADNAC, since an administrative closer could have found for delete, i.e. the close was contentious. Re-closing after the close was vacated was more than just a trout-worthy error of judgment. SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 May 2024

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:No queerphobes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I respectfully request that the community overturn the good faith close by ScottishFinnishRadish to No Consensus on the grounds that the discussion was irretrievably prejudiced by selective notifications of the discussion. In particular the notification of the LGBT noticeboard by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist and the WP:DISCRIMINATION by MikutoH. I note that YNFS has advanced an argument that her notifications were within the bounds of WP:APPNOTE. While arguably within a strict reading of guidelines, it still had the effect of prejudicing the discussion. The latter notification is even more problematic, and do not believe it is defensible under PG. I do not intend to belabor this as it has been discussed exhaustively both on my talk page and at SFR's talk page (currently at the bottom). In summary, my position is that you cannot have a fair discussion and an accurate reading of community consensus when there have been notifications made to editors and forums that as a matter of commonsense are going to disproportionately generate support for one side of a discussion/debate. I will conclude by noting that I am not asking for the page to be deleted. Even heavily discounting the Keep !votes it is obvious that no consensus for that exists. Nor do I currently plan to renominate the essay as I do not believe it would be productive. And in any event the essay has evolved significantly since my original nomination. I still disagree with it and most of the related "No..." essays, but I am not confident that it merits deletion in its current iteration. I have had a number of people on both sides of this express differing opinions on the concerns raised above, and obviously, I have a strong opinion or I would not be here. But I will defer to the community's judgement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review request withdrawn. Consensus is clear and there is no point in prolonging this. There being no comments supporting overturning the result of the MfD, I propose speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose overturn, support keep: (completely uninvolved until now but following this from afar) Ad Orientem is relitigating the close of a discussion that he himself tried to shut down when it didn't go his way. That essay wasn't bothering anybody but Ad Orientem. The suggestion that it is somehow improper to notify a project devoted in part to queer topics of the proposed deletion of an essay devoted to queer topics is... something I am not certain I can describe in a civil manner, but may amount to administrative misconduct in my personal and uninvolved opinion. Since this is a rather strong opinion, I'll note that I am not even particularly close to any editor involved, nor am I a member of the LGBTQ Project. A quick shoutout in passing: NatGertler is right that "No queerphobia" would be a somewhat better title, I think. But that is a quibble and nothing to do with deletion. Elinruby (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you'll be glad to know that the essay was indeed moved to Wikipedia:No queerphobia before the discussion was finished and remains there. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment: if you don't mind me asking, what would be the practical benefit to the project of overturning this Keep to No consensus? We all love to be vindicated for a well thought out and skillfully presented opinion, and the one you, Ad Orientem, originally expressed there (before striking it out) certainly fits that description. But after countless hours were spent by dozens of editors on that XfD, what have we to gain by several more of us spending another week here to do--what, exactly? Open the door for other editors to renominate the page sooner, seeing as you don't intend to do so yourself? I'm all for pro forma and due process, but at some point even I have to go with the usual "Meh" this type of DRV usually garners from the regulars here. I acknowledge the validity of your argument on that MfD, agree that discussion was tainted by what appears to be canvassing, and it's quite possible that I would have closed it as No consensus. That said, I think we should invoke WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:LETITGO. Owen× ☎ 23:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think allowing one sided notifications in community discussions, especially where they touch on hot button subject areas, is unwise and allowing this to stand sends the message that such is permissible. It would have the effect of blurring P&G and providing a precedent and roadmap for WP:GAMING and WP:CANVASSING. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps so, but I doubt the canvassed crowd really cares if their essay is kept as a "Keep" or as a "No consensus". The message you're trying to send will likely be lost on them. Owen× ☎ 00:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are right. But, as the saying goes, it is what it is. Whichever way this discussion goes, I'm going to have to treat it as precedent. And that could radically alter my understanding of what is and is not permissible and how I deal with some issues when I'm wearing my admin hat. If this stands, it might not exactly negate GAMING and CANVASSING, but it will seriously weaken them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt the canvassed crowd really cares if their essay is kept as a "Keep" or as a "No consensus". This discussion, and specifically the argument that notifying WP:LGBT on LGBT-related topics is inherently canvassing, is potentially of much greater significance than the outcome of the MfD. (For the record, I came to the MfD from the WP:LGBT notice, and disagreed with the essay but supported keeping it as within the bounds of WP:PG.) A WikiProject cannot function if it cannot be notified of discussions clearly within its scope. Bringing in a variety of viewpoints is beneficial if there are multiple relevant WikiProjects, but the notifications should be based on topical relevance, not anticipated responses.--Trystan (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse ScottishFinnishRadish's close, which seems to me to be an accurate summary of the MfD, which I read but did not participate in. I am troubled by the continued accusation of bad faith regarding notifying the associated wikiproject(s), and am somewhat surprised to see those accusations being repeated after ScottishFinnishRadish and others have explained why the assumption of bad faith is not warranted. 28bytes (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm involved but obvious Keep. The notifications in question weren't "within a strict reading of WP:APPNOTE", they were within both the text and spirit of WP:APPNOTE. WP:APPNOTE specifically allows related noticeboards to be notified, which WP:LGBT and WP:DISCRIMINATION both are. All the people pinged individually are people who had participated on the talk page of the page proposed for deletion, which is specifically also within the bounds of WP:APPNOTE.
Several of them are people who you wouldn't expect to want to keep the page: Queen of Hearts in fact !voted to delete the page in strong terms, and while Hob Gadling didn't !vote either way, their only contribution to the talk page was a single minor correction. And of course there's no guarantee that any given reader of WP:LGBT or WP:DISCRIMINATION agrees with YFNS on this issue. Nobody was excluded who should have been notified.
I honestly feel that rather than this being a partisan notification, failing to notify obvious groups like "the literal talk page of the article" and "the most relevant Wikiproject" would have been a partisan lack of notification. If you can draw a line around everyone who might want to keep a page, and you specifically notify none of those people, then you've failed to give proper notification in the first place. Loki (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of pointless absolute precision, I will note that I was individually pinged and had not (yet) "participated on the talk page of the page proposed for deletion"... but I had participated in discussion of the essay at the Wikiproject, as the pinger pointed out. And yes, I'm obviously an involved editor, but I think the central argument here seems an awful lot like "if there's a discussion somewhere about whether New Jersey is in the US or in Mozambique, we better not notify Wikiproject:New Jersey, because they all know the answer". And I don't think anyone has pointed to any Wikiprojects of reasonable relevance that could've been notified in the interest of "balance" but weren't. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't bring myself to endorse Ad Orientem's request, but he does have a point that's worth recognizing. Yes, WP:APPNOTE does say you should ping The ... noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects ... which may have interest in the topic under discussion. And clearly pinging WikiProject LGBT studies met that criterion. Still, it's hard to imagine that most members of that project are not biased. It's exactly the same as if I nominated New York State Route 101 and somebody pinged WP:WikiProject Highways; I would expect that most members of that project would come out as opposing deletion. Likewise, I would expect that most members of WP:WikiProject Football would be opposed to deleting Librado Azcona and most members of WP:WikiProject Middle-earth would be opposed to deleting Mental illness in Middle-earth.
    This happens IRL too. I'm politically active in a number of areas, and belong to a number of organizations which advocate for positions I agree with. I often get emails asking me to show up at some community board meeting and speak in support or opposition to some proposal. That's the way things work. Heck, as I was typing this very paragraph, I just got a phone call asking me to volunteer for a political candidate.
    The problem is, it's not clear how to improve the situation. On the surface, the answer is "Well, if you're going to ping a group of people who are predisposed to one point of view, the neutral thing would be to also ping a group of people who are predisposed to the other point of view. But it doesn't work like that because there really aren't any projects made up of people who dislike a topic. For some topics, there are natural pairings of projects which cover contrasing viewpoints. WP:WikiProject Pakistan and WP:WikiProject India perhaps. Or maybe even WP:WikiProject Energy and WP:WikiProject Environment. But for sure, we don't have (Lord, I hope this comes out as a red link) WP:WikiProject gay bashers and hate mongers. So, yeah, we ping WP:WikiProject LGBT studies because it makes sense, but at the same time we can't be blind to the fact that it's not exactly a neutral thing to be doing. RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closure as keep (involved editor of the essay prior to the MfD) - In fact on the grounds of WP:DRVPURPOSE 5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion & 8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed), this may qualify for a speedy close. The nominator already made the same argument raised here during the MfD that somehow notifying WP:LGBT on an essay about a LGBT topic is somehow biased or violated the very definition and first line of WP:APPNOTE. If this were true, then any notification of any Wikiproject on a topic that it concerns itself with in the future would be void as well. This would imply No more notifying WP:TRAINS if an article related to trains is nominated for discussions. The DRV makes no new arguments, other than repeating that somehow WP:LGBT is supposedly different, which cannot be read as anything other than an accusation of bias. As is the very topic of the essay at hand, we luckily do not have a Wikiproject that openly promotes hate speech and should not and it is a fallacy to somehow argue that because we don't have a Wikiproject supporting hate speech that notifying the Wikiproject that does concern itself with the topic at hand is therefore not appropriate. Anyone is free to follow a Wikiproject and do so for a variety of reasons. So, beyond the current topic at hand, if the nominator want to suggest a change in policy of APPNOTE itself, then this is not the correct venue for it. Raladic (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse, no case has been made for why this needs to be revisited as the non-issue of canvassing was already addressed in the MfD while it ran. DRV isn't the 3rd bite at the apple. I appreciate that AO doesn't care for the "No X" essays, but the method for that is getting the policy changed, not MfD and DRV for one that has been deemed to not be an issue. Star Mississippi 02:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse per Radalic (WP:DRVPURPOSE) and per the various correct interpretations of WP:APPNOTE and WP:WikiProject made during the MfD. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 03:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am involved as a participant in the MfD, a WP:LGBT member, and one of the essay contributors supposedly canvassed to the discussion by YFNS. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 03:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'm not going to assess the MfD (I'm lucky to have gotten in before it got too messy), and applaud SFR for doing so, but this was appropriate APPNOTE, and that is the entire crux of the argument. (Fwiw, I was "canvassed" and !voted "Delete/userfy/redirect/do whatever to get this out of projectspace".) Queen of Hearts (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 May 2024

edit

6 May 2024

edit
  • Woke Mind Virus – There is no consensus on whether the merge closure was appropriate, which means it remains in force. I'm declining to exercise my discretion to relist the discussion, since I don't any point to doing so - it seems more likely to result in a rehash of the same arguments than bring new clarity. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Woke Mind Virus (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Communicated with the closer user:Ganesha811 prior to posting this comment here for deletion review. The closer respectfully disagrees, but has not posited any specific evidence or points to bolster their reason for interpreting the "consensus" as they did beyond stating, "I appreciated your reasoned arguments in favor of keep, but after re-reading the linked policies and considering the !votes for deletion as well as those explicitly for merge, I felt that a merger which retained large parts of the material reflected the overall consensus."

The page Woke mind virus in fact had dozens of sources that were reliable and clearly and unambiguously separated the word "Woke mind virus" out as distinct from woke. More importantly for this deletion review, I feel that the largest body of consensus, both in terms of !votes as well as most importantly in terms of WP policy arguments, all pretty clearly favored a Keep close of the AfD. This is my first time ever requesting a AfD that closed in a manner that I feel was inconsistent with the apparent consensus to be reviewed. It seemed that most recently too near the time of close even more Keep !votes had been emerging, and therefore the close was both premature and not representative of the actual consensus as I understood the varied arguments and commentary. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist. Policy gives a closing admin a fair amount of discretion in picking a viable ATD over deletion, even when views for the Merge/Redirect option don't receive a rough consensus. Policy gives a closing admin no leeway in picking Merge as an alternative to Keep, when there's no consensus to do so. Even if we view all Delete !votes in this AfD as implicitly supporting a merger - a big stretch of interpretation - there still is no consensus for Merge as the preferred result. I'm on the fence as to whether the closing rationale expresses a supervote, but even if it doesn't, the reading of consensus was wrong, and the close was premature. Owen× ☎ 13:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That depends on whether you believe merge is a separate option to keep or delete, though. AfD is a yes/no on whether an article qualifies for mainspace - !voting merge is a clear indication that it should not be in mainspace, not a separate category between keep/delete/merge. SportingFlyer T·C 22:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but as I said, there was still no consensus against keeping the article in place. Owen× ☎ 23:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse. Either of a "no consensus between keep or merge" or "keep" closure would have been justified, but that doesn't mean this merge closure was bad. That there is some evidence a subject has been discussed in RS does not perclude a merger; that is the point of WP:NOPAGE. With that being said I would have relisted in this case. Mach61 13:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep Those arguing for merge substantially present WP:JNN or WP:NOPAGE arguments without support, while those arguing for retaining the page as separate provided appropriate sources, including a WSJ. NOPAGE explains that we can choose not to cover a notable topic in its own page, and is among the weakest of p&g-based arguments, because there's no requirement or expectation that we do so. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (independent of my role as closer): the WSJ article notably conflates the terms "woke" and "woke mind virus" throughout the piece. Rhododendrites and buidhe made related comments during the discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as closer): I've looked back at my close and subsequent comments to Iljhgtn; I do not think my close was a supervote (my words were intended to reflect the overall consensus), but I think it could plausibly be read that way. I'll have to be more careful to phrase my closes carefully in the future. I think that underlying the issue here is that AfD may not have been the best venue to begin a discussion about the article; a merge proposal on the talk page might have been more successful in getting a clear consensus on whether 'woke' and 'woke mind virus' should be separate articles, as consensus is clear that they are (a) notable term(s) that Wikipedia should be covering in some way. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, while I disagree with your close, I don't think it was unreasonable; I think you just gave too equal weight to some relatively weak merge/redirect rationales. It's far from a tragedy if it appears as part of Woke. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to add that I think the additional content that was added to the Woke page by user:Ganesha811 was well written and was a useful contribution to that article which fairly summarized the Woke mind virus article. I just believe that the sources and policy arguments indicate that that contribution should have been made in addition to a Keep of the Woke mind virus article, not instead of. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (first preference) or overturn to no consensus (second preference). I don't see a consensus not to keep the article, with policy-based voting on both sides. Delete/merge voters cite WP:UNDUE and WP:NEO, which I believe is reasonably refuted by the keep voters. I feel it is possible for consensus to form with another week of discussion. Frank Anchor 18:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse [involved] - I don't see how you could close this as anything which keeps the article when only one of the keep !voters even acknowledged the chief objection: that it's fundamentally the same subject as woke. Yes, it's notable; as are e.g. "woke mob" and "wokeness" and "wokism", all of which are variations on the same subject, too. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action. Deletion discussions boil down to one of two outcomes, namely delete or not-delete. There is no need to raise DRVs to move from one variant of not-delete (such as merge) to another (such as keep). Such a discussion can be taken forward via the article talk page, if needed. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep or NC. I think either of those outcomes meets with the discussion. For the record, if I'd !voted at the AfD, I'd likely have !voted to merge as we really don't need a FORK here. Hobit (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse While the numbers are close, I still find more comments opposed to keeping the article in the mainspace, and there is no obvious error by the closer. The closer does have some discretion to consider ATDs even if there is not a numerical majority for the ATD. While a relist could be possible, there was strong participation and I am not sure if any new information would be added. --Enos733 (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep the consensus is clear to relist or overturn to keep. I think overturning to keep is more supported by the arguments I read at the AfD. 12.18.235.142 (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IP's only contrib is commenting on this deletion review BrigadierG (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, NOPAGE is a perfectly valid argument against retaining a standalone article, and merging was a reasonable ATD. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 May 2024

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

<The Nominator "Noorullah" has a strong personal bias and had placed my legitimate Wikipedia page for Articles for deletion in which this user "Noorullah" was the only person in discussion. He had mentioned the reasoning for the removal was that the article relied upon only Hari Ram Gupta source and had some copy past to it, however the account of this event is undeniable and is recorded in Sikh History from Persian Sources page 31 which is a contemporary source-https://archive.org/details/SikhHistoryFromPersianSources/page/n43/mode/1up?q=1764&view=theater> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festivalfalcon873 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • fixed malformed nom Queen of ♡ | Speak 23:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly involved Endorse - The statement that the nominator was the only person in the discussion is incorrect. There were two other Delete statements, so that Delete was the correct closure, and the only possible closure. The appellant is entitled to submit a draft for review with additional sources, or to create a new article with additional sources subject to AFD.
    Yes you are correct. It seems like there were two other individuals, Southasianhistorian and ImperialAficionado, who seem to be from the same background as “Noorullah” who attempted to dismiss the article as being GNG or having no historical background as simply pushing the delete procedure to help the nominator. Having already citied a contemporary source , there are other contemporary sources such as Nur Mohammad on folios 186-90 and Jang Namah 190-210 which have verified this event. This event is historically accurate without doubt, however the nominator does not seem neutral in his approach for pushing articles for deletion. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there was no other way to close that discussion, and Festivalfalcon873's assertion that the AfD nom was the only participant is factually incorrect. Please AGF, Falcon. Star Mississippi 01:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also notified the closer which you neglected to do (mandatory), nor did you discuss it with them (suggested) Star Mississippi 01:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had emailed the closer but have not receive any response back just yet. Regardless thank you for letting him know. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Festivalfalcon873: Nothing about the deletion needs to be discussed en camera -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Everything about this appeal smells fishy. From the now-retracted claim of there being only one delete !vote, and the dismissal of the other two as being from the same background, to the claimed email notification and the scare quotes around “Noorullah”. One problem with DRV is that it costs an unscrupulous appellant nothing to give their pet page another shot here at DRV, at which point multiple editors end up wasting time for a week responding to a meritless appeal that has zero chance of overturning the original result. In most legal systems, a court may refuse to hear an appeal if it is prima facie without merit. We need a similar mechanism to short-circuit or speedy such requests. "I'm not happy with the AfD result and am not above twisting the truth to get my way" should be met with a TROUTing, not a weeklong debate. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:OwenX appears to be expressing a concern about how DRV should deal with vexatious litigation. The boomerang principle applies to vexatious or frivolous filings at WP:ANI and WP:AN, where some form of "OP blocked" is not an uncommon closure. I have observed that stupid or disruptive Requests for Arbitration result in nothing more than dismissal of the request. One possibility would be to have Speedy Endorses, possibly when the DRV appeal is factually wrong (as this one is). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:SEYCGA.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleting administrator did not consider threshold of originality argument posed by me. There were two relicense votes and one delete vote, I do not think that's a consensus to delete.

For the benefit of this discussion, I will paste the argument here:

"The only part that could be above TOO is the flags on either side of the Seychelles flag (I can't tell which one it is), but there isn't much sufficient artistic detail to differentiate it from other drawings of flags. Addition of mere shading does not constitute copyright protection (see File:Arkansas map by Sean Pecor.png)." —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 11:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Comment: It's hard to assess this without actually seeing the file, but it's not clear why you think that the deleting administrator didn't consider your argument. The one "delete" !vote specifically addressed the TOO issue, stating that they believed some elements of the image too complex to be ineligible for copyright protection. The other "relicense" !vote seems have been basically a WP:MEETOO !vote, but file discussions aren't necessary decided by simply counting !votes even if it wasn't. If the file that was deleted is the same one shown on this website, then the two bird elements on each side of the flag do seem (at least in my opinion) to maybe be too close to call, and borderline local files sometimes end up being deleted for reasons similar to c:COM:PCP in order to err on the side of caution if policy-compliant non-free isn't considered possible. Anyway, if you're really quite sure that the file is too simple per c:COM:TOO United States and c:COM:Seychelles to need to be licensed as non-free, then one option would be to simply upload a higher resolution version of the file to Commons under an appropriate PD license because that's really where the file should be hosted if it's really PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marchjuly: This probably isn't below Seychelles TOO since Seychelles was a British colony, so their copyright law is probably modeled under c:COM:TOO UK, which is low. I'm proposing a {{PD-ineligible-USOnly}} relicense if it's not clear. If you want to see the logo to assess yourself, it's similar to this. I think that this design is similar in creativity to File:JeetKuneDo.svg, which was declared by the US copyright office to be below TOO. The birds don't seem to be that creative of a design, and addition of mere shading does not constitute copyright protection. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of what you posted above was posted in the FFD; so, I don't think you can really claim the deleting administrator didn't consider any of that; therefore, I also don't think you can claim the close was improper based on the comments that were posted or based on what you've posted above. In addition, I don't think you can really compare the complexity of the two birds shown in the file linked to below by Extraordinary Writ to the Chinese characters used in the Jeet Kune Do file; letters (even some basic kanji scripts/fonts), in general, are typically considered ineligible for copyright protection and the birds are not letters per se even minus the shading. So, once again, I personally don't think they're clearly too simple and therefore PD elements, absent a specific court case stating as much. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't get my point across well; I was mainly stating that the mere arrangement of the designs itself does not grant copyright protection. As for the bird, it does not appear to be creative. I hate to link to more cases, but I think it is necessary. This fleur-de-lis contains a similar amount of curves, yet it was deemed to be ineligible for copyright protection. Yes, the symbol has existed for a while, but that doesn't mean a derivative work could have gotten copyright protection as it's own rendition. This, combined with the previous argument that addition of shading doesn't provide copyright protection, makes me think this is below TOO.
    Your idea that "non of what you posted above was posted in the FFD" is incorrect, as I posted a summary of my argument here - if someone questioned it I would have been more than happy to elaborate. I think the close lacked a rationale, as the deleting admin should have considered both arguments and provided a justified rationale, or even better relist and see what other editors think, rather that "The result of this discussion was: delete". Hence I would advocate for a relist (since an overturn looks unlikely). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 15:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My None of what you posted above was posted in the FFD was in reference to what you posted in the post right above mine (i.e. "None of that you posted [in the post right] above [mine] was posted in the FFD"). My apologies if that was unclear. Anyway, someone did question your argument in the FFD: the "delete" !vote was posted a day after your comment and the other "keep" !vote were added. The FFD remained opened for three more days after the last comment in the discussion, yet you chose not to elaborate. Trying to do so here seems to be more of an attempt to re-argue the FFD, than argue the close was improper per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. As for examples of court cases, I'm sure you can provide examples of court cases of other logos/images; unless, however, you can provide one specifically related to these particular "birds" or really similar "bird" imagery, then it's going to be hard (at least in my opinion) to try and directly apply them to this case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I argued the close was improper (the second paragraph above starting from "I think the close lacked a rationale") but I doubt there are any court cases relating to birds. Guess I'll just let it go looking at the !votes below. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You participated in a few other FFD discussions listed on that same day as this one, and two of them were closed the same way as this one was closed; moreover, they were closed two days prior to this one being closed. Do you think those two closes should also be reviewed? If not, why? In those two discussions you !voted "delete" and the closes reflected your !votes, whereas in this one you !voted "keep" and the close didn't reflect your !vote. Could that possibly why you felt this close needed to be reviewed? In one of those two discussions your "delete" !vote was It is unclear whether this rendition of the NZ leaf is below TOO, but I think per the PCP this should be deleted, and in the other your "delete" !vote was Delete per nom...Tree is definitely above TOO. How are your delete !votes any different and any less subjective than the one given in this particular FFD discussion that you describe below as being more or less meaningless? Should your !votes have been given less weight because you didn't include any links to other images or to case studies? If not, why? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think all this proves is TOO has valid yet different interpretations. In this case at least, I considered that all the elements individually and thought "they're all below TOO", but I underestimated the potential of arrangement by itself to surpass the hurdle, which has been pointed out by a lot of people here. In the other two FFDs, the individual elements by themselves had extremely clear creativity put into them plus the unique arrangement, so I !voted delete. When something has a high creativity or a low creativity, it is pretty obvious (and you can just say it). It is only where there is a middle creativity like this image where it gets a bit murky and it may not be obvious. Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse based on my not being familiar with the details of non-free copy rules, but knowing that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, so any deletion is probably at least a valid exercise of closer discretion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the benefit of non-admins, the deleted image is the same as this one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak relist. I don't think the flags/birds/planes/Supermans/whatevers on each side are simple, but I don't see a consensus to delete here and it should be relisted for more opinions. Queen of ♡ | Speak 04:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Queen of Hearts, your signature has inadequate contrast. See WP:SIGAPP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment from closer - FFDs involving the licensing status of an image is a little different from other types of deletion discussions. Instead of the application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it is the application of copyright rules to the image that determine the outcome. The claim that this image falls below the threshold of originality is based on all elements being too simple for copyright including " the flags on either side of the Seychelles flag" which was rebutted with "the birds in the logo are sufficiently complex to warrant the creation of copyright". The drawing of birds is not a simple shape so the rebuttal is in line with the guidance of what constitutes threshold of originality for the US. As such, the argument that this is copyrightable was stronger, and with no agument that there was a valid non-free usage, I closed accordingly. -- Whpq (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this was a particularly good close. First of all, TOO is extremely subjective if you don't link to any case studies/other images, so saying "the birds are sufficiently complex to warrant the creation of copyright" is more or less meaningless. As stated above, as the deleting admin I think you should have considered both arguments and provided a justified rationale, or even better relist and see what other editors think, rather than just a boilerplate "The result of this discussion was: delete". —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 15:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you're a Commons administrator, you're obviously experienced in file licensing related stuff and other administrator stuff. Did you try to informally discuss your concerns with the closing admin prior to starting a deletion review? You're not required to do per se, but it's generally considered courteous and sometimes can save time/effort as explained in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Wikipedia administrators can change the wording of their closes or even "revert" their closes if they deem it necessary to do so after the fact without requiring a DR. Perhaps it's a moot point now, but perhaps doing so might've ended up resolving things without needing to come here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad; I didn't know you're supposed to discuss concerns with the closing admin - I'll do so next time. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse FFD is one of the areas of Wikipedia where consensus matters the least and factfinding matters the most. I haven't seen it so there's a chance I'm incorrect, but I'm convinced by the argument that it violates NFCC #8, especially given Whpq's analysis above. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And given the image was linked above, I absolutely agree with the delete arguments. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Surprised to see we're rehashing this FfD. This is a cut-and-dry case of an obvious non-free image being non-free. Also worth noting that isn't the first time I've observed Matrix taking a dangerously lax approach to TOO. -Fastily 00:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Failed WP:NFCC#8 as a non-free file and was too complex to qualify for {{PD-ineligible}}. ✗plicit 04:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't even a close call. The image is possibly above the TOO even without the birds to either side of the Seychelles flag - there's at least three elements of creativity, maybe four, depending on whether the gradient is counted separately from the coloring of the triangles, and that's been ruled enough to be copyrightable in some cases - so we'd still have to treat it conservatively. The argument that this must be PD because the NFL stopped sending baseless cease-and-desists for the use of another symbol of lesser complexity which has been in use for millennia shouldn't need answering. —Cryptic 06:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see the direction that this is headed, but for the record I would still like to address the last sentence. I was stating that even though the symbol was used for a long time, a derivative rendition of it could have still theoretically created its own copyright, were it not for TOO. I argued that because of this, the birds/flags (idk which one) were below TOO. Whether all these elements together is above TOO is the dispute in question, but there seems to be consensus that it is (opposed to my view that it's not). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • NFCC failure is very clear – it fails 10c as well as 8, as the rationale was a generic template which is not specific – so the only question the FFD needed to answer was whether TOO was met, and it's pretty clear that it is. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Joe Dispenza (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

G4 speedied on 6 January 2020, ten years after the original AfD in 2010. I find it hard to believe that someone would have held onto a substantially identical copy of the page for a decade. No opinion on the merits of the topic or whether other criteria apply. Deleting admin is no longer active. Paul_012 (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article deleted in 2020 was actually significantly poorer than the one deleted in 2010. The 2020 article had two references (1 2), neither of which were much good, and a link to his Youtube channel. I've temporarily undeleted for review of all, but for me this is endorse deletion as G4 is accurate considering it is actually a reduced version of the 2010 deleted article. Daniel (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G4 per the McClenon Criterion. You shouldn't be able to evade a G4 by merely removing content from the version deleted at AfD. Of course, any editor is welcome to create a new, properly-sourced article for the subject. Owen× ☎ 11:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "You shouldn't be able to evade a G4 by merely removing content from the version deleted at AfD." Fair enough, but I don't see how that should apply here, to a different stub created by a different person, ten years later. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Neither the identity of the author nor the date are relevant here. G4 is about content, and only content. It isn't a sanction against an editor, but enforcement of consensus. If consensus determined that a given subject doesn't meet our notability standards, I don't see how the same subject covered by less content will magically meet those standards, regardless of who penned the new, stripped-down version, or how long they've waited to do so. Owen× ☎ 12:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the G4 for either of two reasons. First, I have identical copies of a lot of things that are more than ten years old on my C: drive and my F: drive. That's what they're for. The idea that someone wouldn't have held onto a substantially identical copy is silly. Second, a substantially worse version of a deleted article should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first point is irrelevant, as it's a totally different person creating a totally unrelated version; I should have phrased it differently. And while I see where you're coming from, I still do not believe it to be within the spirit of G4 to overextend the criterion to newly created, entirely different stubs. Identifying such version as "substantially worse" will always be a judgment call, and CSD is for undisputable cases. And G4 should hardly remain appropriate after ten years, as it's most likely that the reason for the deletion no longer applies, which in this case, is the lack of third-party coverage, which now WP:NEXIST.[15][16][17] --Paul_012 (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 as the re-created version is not sufficiently identical to the deleted version. There is at least one reference in the 2020 version that was not present in the 2010 version. That said, the version that was G4ed would stand zero chance at an AFD and I would strongly recommend a move to draft space if Paul_012 or another user has a genuine interest in developing an article. Frank Anchor 13:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, per Frank, and simply because there ought to be a statue of limitations on G4. I am not defending the content of the page in any way. Mach61 13:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted It depends on how you view "sufficiently identical." I'm not sure this was a copy and paste and significant removal of the old article, and it depends on how strict you want to be in that regard, but it's definitely not ready for mainspace and could easily have been PRODded or maybe even loosely A7'd. SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm curious why you'd think an A7 would be loose - A7 was my immediate reaction on seeing this mentioned on the help desk and looking at the version WilyD deleted. What's the claim of significance here? Appearing in a movie? Heck, I've done that. —Cryptic 06:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how A7 would apply, as it does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines (emphasis copied from policy). A person's appearance in a movie and subsequent gain in publicity is a claim to significance (albeit a weak one). Frank Anchor 12:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - substantially the same, only worse. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Essentially same content, minus some content which still was present in the 2010 article. Discussions about limitations of G4 should be held on the appropriate page. Lectonar (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'm very conservative on speedy deletions. I'd prefer an AfD here to a G4 given how long ago the AfD was and degree of similarity (or lack thereof). But yeah, no additional sources or information, just fewer words. Not an ideal G4, but close enough. Hobit (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sri Yala Batik (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Early in the discussion, four potential sources were identified (by me). Apart from the nominator, neither of the folowing two delete !votes made any comment on these sources' suitability or lack thereof. As such, I don't think it was accurate to conclude that "Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient depth." I understand that !votes by IP editors may be given less weight or none at all, and had the delete !voters addressed the potential sources directly, I would agree with the close. But as things stood after three relists I don't believe there was consensus on how to interpret the source coverage. Paul_012 (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. One is not entitled to a rebuttal of their !vote by every participant in the discussion. The appellant's Keep view was duly rebutted by the AfD nom. Subsequent participants not addressing it suggests they had nothing further to add, not that they failed to parry a decisive argument. The final Delete view did, in fact, address the sources, contrary to the appellant's claim, and agreed with the AfD nom's analysis of the depth of the sources presented by the appellant. The sole supporting Keep view, by an IP, added nothing to the discussion. Saying they are "confident in the sources" is not an analysis of sources, and was correctly discarded by the closing admin. Nothing to do with them being an anon IP. Owen× ☎ 11:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last delete !voter making an offhand "merely passing mentions" remark when the four presented sources were entirely about the subject lead me to doubt that they actually looked at any analysis. I would have called it out, but the page had slipped from my watchlist by then. I'll concede, though, that one can hardly expect the closing admin to cross-examine every such argument, so it seems there's not much that can be done now. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer comment. We discussed it at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sri_Yala_Batik, flagging since it's not at a glance obvious on my Talk since we both had some offline time. While I endorse my own close as I noted there, I have no issue with more eyes on this and support this DRV. Star Mississippi 13:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The question is whether the closer had reason to find a Delete consensus when there were three !votes to Delete including the nominator, and two !votes to Keep, one of which was a nothing by an IP. The question is not even whether another closer might have had reason to find No Consensus, but only whether Star Mississippi had reason to Delete. Delete was a reasonable close. I think it was the right close, but that is not even the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Delete was a reasonable interpretation of consensus, largely per Robert McClenon. No consensus would have been a reasonable close as well. Frank Anchor 17:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Max Rowley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The subject was a well known Australian theatre, radio and television announcer, broadcaster and voiceover man.

I have found the following references showing WP:GNG:

  • "Events". The Age. Melbourne: John Fairfax Holdings. 20 April 2001. p. 2. ProQuest 363467038. (confirming his birthday)
  • Cockington, James (8 August 1994). "Mad on Max". The Guide. The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: John Fairfax Holdings. p. 53. Retrieved 5 May 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
  • Cockington, James (18 August 1994). "Max, Mulray's man with the milk-chocolate voice". Green Guide. The Age. Melbourne: John Fairfax Holdings. p. 64. Retrieved 5 May 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
  • Marshall, Valda (9 December 1973). "Tony casts a line and catches Max". The Sun-Herald. Sydney: John Fairfax and Sons. p. 110. Retrieved 5 May 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
  • "Australia's most loved game shows EVER!". Woman's Day. Are Media. 26 September 2022. pp. 50–53. EBSCOhost 159124968.
  • Syderhelm, Jen (4 May 2024). "Vale Max Rowley". RadioInfo Australia. Retrieved 5 May 2024. (about his death)

References about his academy:

Yours sincerely, Bas (or TechGeek105) (talk to me) 04:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC) (edited 05:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

  • You don't need DRV's permission to recreate a page in such a way that it decisively beats the reasons given for deletion in its afd. In this case, it was for being entirely unreferenced, and that appears accurate - the latest deleted revision, and spot checks of previous versions every couple years back to its creation in 2004, showed zero explicit citations and not even any external links except for https://www.maxrowley.com/.
    If you really, really want to write a new article backwards from the old version, I suppose we could userfy it for you. The usual advice is to do without. —Cryptic 06:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start a draft using AfC. Provide the references from the deleted article. It could be recreated directly in mainspace, but only by someone who is confident. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe, I agree with you, but the draft could be created by me. Can you please provide me with the source from the last revision before it was deleted, so I and other users can hopefully improve it? Yours sincerely, Bas (or TechGeek105) (talk to me) 08:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already gave the only source it ever had above. —Cryptic 06:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cryptic: I meant the source code from the last revision before the article was deleted. Yours sincerely, Bas (or TechGeek105) (talk to me) 10:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The original close was unanimous, but no reason to prohibit recreation. I don't support userfication. Draftspace is a better venue for structured collaborative work, with better visibility to other editors, and a definite timeline and mainspacing process. Owen× ☎ 12:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if the appellant is requesting that the original close be overturned. As is often the case, it isn't clear whether the appellant is asking to overturn the close, or is only asking for permission to create a new draft or new article, but permission isn't needed to create a new draft or new article. It also isn't clear why appellants want a deleted article restored if they have new sources. If they don't want to write a new draft or article from scratch, they can use the wizard. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Recreation because permission isn't required for that. A new article is subject to AFD, and a new draft will be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 May 2024

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Contested at Template_talk:AfC_submission/rejected#Template-protected_edit_request_on_3_May_2024 due to allegedly insufficient participation and failure to notify WP:AFC. Closure result was never carried out. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVOLVED but relist or renominate: I still believe that these categories should be merged together but we should relist to address the shortcomings, particularly the low participation of this CfD, and to allow for notification of WT:AFC about the nomination of this category. If the low participation is because this was uncontroversial, we will find this out. If not, then it will be deleted. BTW the decision was already partially carried out on the other {{AfC submission}} templates, just not this one. Awesome Aasim 23:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close as not in scope. It’s unclear what User:LaundryPizza03 wants, but it appears to be neither an issue with the CfD close or a deletion matter. Maybe go to WT:CfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe Did you take a look at the linked discussion? An uninvolved admin raised a legitimate concern, hence the closure review. What is wanted here is the discussion being reopened and relisted to further discussion. Awesome Aasim 01:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Nah. Wait and renominate. Not worthy of DRV time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I’m confused. LaundryPizza03 has launched a DRV over a request for him to revert his close? Can User:Primefac clarify? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked LaundryPizza03 to re-open the discussion to allow for more participation from the WikiProject. I was expecting a yes or no response, the latter of which would see me opening a DRV. I suppose they figured out my nefarious plan and decided to skip a couple of steps. Primefac (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per Primefac. Minimum notifications must be done. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there an objection to reopening/relisting? Given the low participation and the nominator's agreement with that, do we need a seven day discussion here, or can we close this and skip to the reopening with the additional notification? Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist; there are valid reasons for having this category, as it has been discussed multiple times at WT:AFC. If the consensus really is to get rid of the category that's fine, but the project should know that one of their maintenance/tracking categories is being nominated for deletion before that happens. Primefac (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Kudos to the closer for bringing this here, but a simple self-revert would have done the job just as well without wasting our time with a DRV. This should be the default, immediate response whenever a non-admin close is legitimately contested, which is clearly the case here. Owen× ☎ 12:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 May 2024

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

This show has the potential to be notable. 173.162.55.134 (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 May 2024

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

I would like to request a Deletion Review for the subject. It was moved to the Draftspace with the reason stating that It was not ready for the mainspace, and then it was deleted by another user. I contacted the concerned editor, however they have not responded yet. It is a notable subject and sources can be accessed at its draft. I appreciate everyone's time in this matter. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosedsneer (talk • contribs)

Noted, Robert McClenon. I haven't been able to respond to his query since I was away for travelling. Just responded. Thank you.
  • Close as moot the only thing that appears to have been deleted is the cross-namespace redirect to draft. Dosedsneer, do you understand where things are and how to continue working on the draft? If not, hit any of us up for help. Jclemens (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 May 2024

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

I think this is the right avenue for this. I saw this but never voted in it, I think it should be kept and I later noticed @Hameltion: bring this up somewhere. There's actually good sourcing from the Oregonian and also Colorado Gazeette. She is also a Youth Olympic silver medalist. So I think it should kept instead. Coop (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Frank Anchor 12:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to relist. It has come to my attention that delete voter Big Money Threepwood was indef blocked. Striking that vote, there is not a WP:QUORUM, meaning it must be relisted or closed as no consensus (with no prejudice against immediate renomination) or soft delete (subject to immediate restoration upon any good faith request such as this DRV). Relisting is probably the best option here, citing added visibility from this DRV. I will add that the Sandstein closed the AFD correctly based on information known at the time. Frank Anchor 19:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid close, but this isn't the right avenue. Some editors, including the current appellant, reasonably think that DRV is the right avenue to consider a new draft when an article was deleted, but DRV is not necessary in such cases. The article was deleted but not salted, and the draft will be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just note for posterity how unsatisfying the AfD was: these adequate sources were already in the article, but none of the delete !voters addressed why they felt they were insufficient, and the nominator didn't understand the subordinate role of an SNG vs GNG. But no one was making those points at the time, so the closer went along with unsubstantiated claims of sourcing problems. The draft should just be moved back into mainspace at this point. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I share your frustrations, but as an admin, I can tell you that it's damned if you do, and damned if you don't. If you discard perfunctory !votes that constitute a numerical majority and close based on guidelines, you're accused of supervoting. And if you don't discard perfunctory !votes, you're accused of counting noses and ignoring guidelines. We love quoting WP:NOTAVOTE, but in practice, things aren't as simple. Owen× ☎ 17:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, hard to close a discussion when there are no good policy-backed !votes. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The right thing to do if you're looking at closing a discussion where you disagree with the participants' interpretation of guidelines is to comment instead of closing. —Cryptic 19:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Endorse" and "the draft can be turned into an article right now as it is" aren't compatible; the changes from the version deleted at AFD and now are almost entirely cosmetic. —Cryptic 17:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Substantial content was added to the draft on 20 April. However, even if that was not the case, my opinion is akin to “I would have voted keep, but consensus disagreed with me, so I endorse the result.” DRV is not AFD part 2, but I’m sure you already know that. Frank Anchor 17:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would this "substantial content" be the changes to the infobox, the removal of the statement that she's a freshman in college, or the six new tables that give unreferenced statistics of the exact same competitions as the table that was already there? AFC isn't AFD part 2 either; if this is moved into mainspace I'll speedy it. —Cryptic 18:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I retract the "substantial" part, as I looked more at the quantity of the content than the quality. Thanks for finding my error. Frank Anchor 19:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed one of the delete voters are banned does their vote still count? Coop (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Frank Anchor 12:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not, which also causes there to not be a WP:QUORUM and "delete" to be an inappropriate close. Frank Anchor 19:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the nominator even said she never should have been nominated for deletion. Can we just move this from draft now? Coop (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Frank Anchor 12:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, I didn't know there was already another draft in progress. I'm fine with closing and withdrawing if someone knows how to do that. Coop (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Frank Anchor 12:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually closed this as withdrawn by nominator, but Cryptic's comment at 18:12 made me reconsider that approach. Leaving this open for the time being (despite your 'withdrawal') as we need a resolution on that statement. Daniel (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Deletion Review is not AFC, and does not move a draft into mainspace. But ...
  • Relist after discounting the sockpuppet !vote. The appellant is advised to improve the article while the deletion discussion is resuming, to try to get a Heymann result. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per everyone above. The delete closure was fine at the time it was made, but now that it's been reasonably challenged and one of the deleters was a sock a relist is reasonable. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we needed a participant to later be blocked for socking to have overturned this - a deletion discussion that waves away those sources with no more than "fails WP:SIGCOV" is defective, not just an outcome being disagreed with. But, as I mentioned above, we do need to overturn it, not just wave it away as "the deletion discussion was correct, but you can go ahead and move some stuff around in the WP:REFUNDed article and just dump it back in mainspace". —Cryptic 03:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I also wouldn't move the draft into mainspace any time soon, to be honest. The DRV nom has just been blocked, and the two articles we're basing this on fail WP:YOUNGATH (one is from her home metro area and the other is from her dance partner's metro area), and there's no other clear sourcing available yet. SportingFlyer T·C 06:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "keep" !vote makes a policy-based argument for Redirect without deletion of the edit history, which is not refuted in the AfD. 2603:6011:8241:6E00:243F:DBC7:2745:2359 (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as moot. Nom is also a sock. The extant draft can go through AfC like any other and if substantially improved, it will not be a G4. Star Mississippi 11:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nom is also a sock does not excuse the fact that the article was later found to be deleted without a quorum. In addition, there are multiple good-faith votes to not endorse the result, so the DRV must run its course. Frank Anchor 12:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely correct. However five more days here to kick it back to AfD for ~ 7 or more seems silly when there's a path to mainspace in less time and there's no guarantee a relist will result in retention. To be clear though, my opinion not policy. Star Mississippi 01:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Star Mississippi writes: there's a path to mainspace in less time and there's no guarantee a relist will result in retention. Yes, but there's no guarantee that AFC will result in promotion back to mainspace either. I would decline the current draft because it does not speak for itself and does not describe significant coverage by reliable sources. The idea of moving the draft into article space in its current state is well-meaning but silly. So I also think that a relist will very likely repeat the deletion. There is no quick path to resolve this. The article isn't ready for mainspace; the draft isn't ready for mainspace. The proponents of an article need to work on the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_May&oldid=1221442650"