Penelope Brudenell, Countess of Cardigan – It's rare to see our regular Deletion Review cohort so divided on a question of facts, as we are below. This is an entirely unsatisfactory result for me and I presume it will also be for a lot of others (as it lacks clarity and decisiveness, which is what DRV can normally deliver one way or the other), but there is no consensus below, to change the no consensus close at AfD. This may be worth another run through AfD in a few months, potentially, given this uncertainty and division? Daniel (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I am requesting a review because I am dumbfounded by the interpretation of consensus. The article was nominated for deletion because it fails WP:GNG: it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. The Keep !votes argue that "she would almost certainly have more sources if historical sources wrote more about women". Somehow this speculative argument has been found to outweigh the fact that there is, in fact, no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Is it now enough to assert that sources would have existed if the world were a different place? Is this going to apply to content disputes as well? Surtsicna (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closure of No Consensus was a valid closure, and the closer provided an adequate closing statement that addresses the appellant's concern. The appellant says that there is insufficient coverage of the subject. The closer acknowledges this argument, and says that her position was notable, and that the argument that her position was notable was made in support of the Keep statements. It is somewhat unusual for a closer to make a closing statement in support of No Consensus, and the closer should be thanked. The appellant appears to be saying that the closer should have discounted the Keep statements. The Keep position was soundly argued based on notability of the position of Lady of the Bedchamber, and the closer relied on this argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. The delete side has successfully argued that the article is not suitable for retention on notability and WP:NOTGENEALOGY grounds and the argument that the courtly function is a notable topic is a red herring and is a question relevant to the article about that court title, not this biography. Some keeps admitted that the sourcing is not there, which means they made an observation consistent with the conclusion that the article should be deleted. They then excused this by saying that in her time the subject wasn't covered much because of systemic bias, but this does not matter as Wikipedia can't fix historic injustices. They did not argue that the article is a suitable encyclopedic entry in spite of a lack of notability, by explaining what its encyclopedic value is. Its encyclopedic value can't be that we're covering non-notable women from 250 years ago to make a point about systemic bias. The only reasonable close would have been to weigh such arguments less favorably than the clear policy-based arguments and to find that there is a rough consensus coming from the policy-based delete advocacy. —Alalch E.21:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse NOTINHERITED is the wrong argument against the Keeps; NC is a perfectly valid reading of the lack of consensus. NC is valid when the participants degree about policy, just like it is when they disagree about facts or sources. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one used the word "inherit" or linked to WP:NOTINHERITED in the AfD. The deletes did not base their case on an essay. The keeps did not argue that the page makes for an article that is suitable for retention in spite of policy (1. this is a possibility, as the policies aren't perfect; 2. they could have done it and those arguments would not have been discountable). They said that it should be kept because of the 18th and 19th century systemic bias, because the subject had a certain position, and because she appeared in a certain painting. So this isn't a disagreement about a policy. It isn't policy-based arguments vs. relevant policy-questioning arguments. It's policy-based arguments vs. red herrings. —Alalch E.08:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete This seems like the SNG vs GNG thing all over again. It's clear from the discussion that GNG isn't met, though, especially considering it was well argued by delete !voters and even keep !voters mentioned this, meaning there was consensus GNG wasn't met. SportingFlyerT·C22:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The Keeps are weak as a group, but the argument that we should have articles on all holders of a highly notable office is basically a WP:NPOL argument and not so unreasonable as to be summarily ignored. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:TheJoyfulTentmaker, Eluchil404, could you please explain to me which of the two points of WP:NPOL, namely "politicians and judges" and "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", does a lady-in-waiting with no significant coverage meet? Also, and this is entirely on me for not noticing earlier, not even our source for her lady of the bedchamber role can be called reliable source coverage – it is a self-published genealogy website. Surtsicna (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: The first bullet of NPOL essentially says: Politicians who has held state/province–wide offices are presumed notable. It is a very legitimate interpretation of the policy to consider the position held by the subject to be equivalent to state/province-wide politicians, and all of the keep votes included some reasoning along these directions. The two bullet points in the guideline are connected with an OR, not an AND; so if the position is important enough, that by itself is considered sufficient evidence of Wikipedia-notability. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I participate in a lot of discussions where WP:NPOL is relevant. She was married to a member of parliament but was not a member of parliament herself, so NPOL is crystal clearly not met here. SportingFlyerT·C06:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete - The delete side clearly showed that GNG was not met. Sandstein's comment summed this up: Nobody above makes an argument that any given source covers the subject in the depth required by WP:GNG. There are very many AfDs where non policy votes are made, and two of the people endorsing this AfD recently endorsed a close that overturned a clear majority delete on the basis that most of the 17 delete votes were not based in policy, but seem less willing to overturn non policy keep votes (in that case or this one). We are repeatedly reminded that AfD is not a vote, and that it is the arguments that hold sway. But here, even the keep votes understood that the article did not meet GNG but wanted to keep the article because it was, to them, the right thing to do. AfD is already biased to keeping information, because a no consensus close keeps an article. It is not appropriate to leverage that to keep an article that clearly does not meet GNG, just because a number of voters showed up to keep it, without any valid P&G reason. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an AfD participant, I'm involved, but as closer I'd probably have closed this as "delete" because, as I pointed out in the AfD, there were no policy- or guideline-based "keep" opinions. Sandstein 10:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the delete side was probably marginally stronger, however the keep side made reasonable arguments that the article passes an SNG. There was not consensus to delete the article despite it being listed for a month. FrankAnchor16:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I read the discussion as being between “no consensus” and “delete”, and with “no consensus” being well within admin discretion, and for a female historical subject, erring on the side of keeping is readily justified. WP:PRESERVE should be applied, and cutting content and merging is a likely good outcome that wasn’t given consideration. I advise cutting and consider merge possibilities. Failing that, see WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. None of the keep !votes even alleged sourcing exists, and not a single person put forth an argument as to why this specific subject (rather than her position) is notable in any non-GNG way or how her genealogy is so encyclopedic we need to IAR to keep it as a standalone. The only valid contributions here supported delete. JoelleJay (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please consider restoring the article. It was deleted twice before. The last time on September 19, the article was removed by quick deletion. It was in draft for a long time and then moved to the main space. The article is written in a neutral tone with authoritative sources. There were no claims to significance in the draft. There were questions regarding the style of presentation. The draft has been corrected. However, after moving to the main space, the article was deleted. 195.49.205.23 (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned the article of advertising phrases and unnecessary sources. Please look at the latest deleted version of the article. It was moved from the draft. 195.49.205.23 (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and speedy close. Both AfDs, the previous DRV, and the subsequent G4 were all correct. Someone seems to be paying good money to revive this self-aggrandizing curriculum vitae, and our goal should be to minimize the time wasted by other editors re-reviewing this. Consider adding to WP:DEEPER if this comes back here again. Owen×☎10:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are very categorical. The person is significant. The last edition of the article was not written in an advertising tone. I submitted a request here to discuss restoring the article. The deleted article was not created bypassing recovery. It was in draft for a long time and then was moved. All comments have been eliminated. Nobody pays any money! There is no monetary interest on my part! 195.49.205.23 (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll endorse this too. The text is different, but there are no new relevant, substantive factual changes except his purchase of Wycombe Wanderers F.C. (BBC ref). 20 of 32 refs were present in at least one of the versions deleted at afd, most of the rest aren't WP:SIGCOV, and at least one has the same text as one of the refs in the previous versions (there were 75 of those; I'm not about to read them all). —Cryptic11:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can cut out even more of the text and make a stub. The person is significant according to Wikipedia criteria. And as the owner of a football club, and as the owner of the largest bank in Kazakhstan. I did not intend to make an advertisement out of this article. I was editing a draft that someone had created over a year ago that had been moved into the main space. 195.49.205.23 (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way you have constructed your DRV nomination makes it impractical to process. You should have made a new draft precisely along the lines of "make a stub" based entirely on the WP:THREE best references so that the draft speaks for itself as evidence that a suitable encyclopedia entry is possible. Lack of certainty among editors that it is possible is literally the thing that causes the article to be repeatedly deleted. Do you want to do that? Please remember, three. —Alalch E.12:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THREE is as usual good advice, but "make a stub" in this case isn't - there was a new article. The problem is that, whether long (the 2024 and September 2022 deletions) or short (the March 2022 deletion and proposed new stub), there doesn't seem to be anything to say about this person other than that he has a whole lot of money; that he's spent some of it; that he's run a couple redlinked companies; and that there's a bunch of very shallow and similar articles saying all that. —Cryptic13:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 to keep. I came across the most recent incarnation of this page during New Page Review and was prepared to G4 it, but as I checked the sources, they did include SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. As a result, I decided to mark it as reviewed. (I also wanted to defer to the judgment of Dr vulpes, who published the article at AfC, which is precisely where a COI editor should be expected to submit content.) This could be is a DRV#3 case, where there's new coverage and new information (principally Lomtadze's acquisition of a football club, which resulted in new SIGCOV meeting the standard (see BBC and Vedomosti). It's also a case of DRV#5, in which the two deletion nominations did not rely on a detailed source analysis. I believe the nominations were made in good faith (there is clearly COI/UPE going on) but the nomination statements did not show evidence of a WP:BEFORE search, and neither the (very poorly argued) "keep" !votes nor the (good faith) "delete" !votes did any detailed source evaluation. Instead, the discussion focused more on Lomtadze being most greatest businessman in most glorious nation of Kazakhstan! (the keeps) while the deletes focused on the UPE and COI issues plus the low-quality sources present in the article. However, a WP:BEFORE search finds SIGCOV in Forbes (by Forbes staff and thus a reliable source), in Bloomberg News in 2020 and again in November 2022. In Georgian, we have a major in-depth profile on Radio Tavisupleba and coverage in Fortune.ge. I think it's time to revisit these previous discussions and overturn to "keep," while protecting the page to mitigate COI editing. Alternatively, we could bring this to a new AfD where the sources can be re-evaluated, particularly those that have been published since the last AfD in 2022. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay @Dclemens1971, for whatever reason this notification slipped through the cracks. When I moved the article from AfC to main my rationale was that the article passed the rules at AfC and with the newer information about buying the football club the article passed notability. I will fully admit it did not pass by much and was a hard call for me, but I am particularly conservative with BLP. Both of your proposed remedies would be satisfactory, I would lean towards AfD so we can sort out the references and get someone who might know about non-English sources a chance to incorporate them properly. As always if I made some mistake in judgment please let me know. Pinging @Star Mississippi and @Pppery. Dr vulpes(Talk)04:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 (do nothing else; don't touch the AfD, which is not even contested). Not sufficiently identical (text significantly different and article less refbombed) and too heavily contested for a speedy deletion. AfD said the content was promotional but notability worth exploring, and then an AfC reviewer accepted the submission apparently accepting the new text as not promotional and a new page patroller marked the article as reviewed. So the last incarnation was a non-negligible attempt to fix the promo side at least, while notability is neither here nor there in terms of settledness because not even the AfD was closed as "delete" purely on the grounds of lack of notability, and in this DRV notability is being revisited kind of de novo. G4 isn't the correct tool to address this.—Alalch E.17:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Resubmit to AfD per the source analysis done by Dclemens1971. I still see no fault in the AfDs or the previous DRV, but there's no need to deprive ourselves of a potentially notable topic just to punish COI editors. A semi-protect for the article would be advisable. Owen×☎17:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Time for a new AfD based on the new version that was just G4ed. Semi Involved as closer of 2022 AfD. While I don't know whether factors have sufficiently changed that Lomtadze is notable and don't have time or interest to dig into the sources, it's worth community discussion and not a speedy. StarMississippi17:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse of G4 - I haven't seen either the 1 September 2022 version deleted by Star Mississippi after the second AFD, or the 19 September 2024 version deleted by Sandstein as G4, and we don't have a statement by Sandstein that the 2024 version was substantially the same as the 2022 version, so I will trust that Sandstein concluded that the 2024 version was substantially the same as the 2022 version.Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having not seen the previously deleted versions, these are definitely sufficiently different that the 2024 version should not have been G4'd. Especially since it had gone through AfC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4. Above source analysis shows the version deleted in the AFD and the G4ed version are not sufficiently similar. This can be sent to AFD if desired. FrankAnchor02:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 and send the offending admin back to CSD G4 school. This applies to sufficiently identical copies, [...] It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version. G4 is not because the same deletion rationale still applies--even if it does unquestionably. G4 is not for repeated UPE recreations, unless they would be G4 eligible even absent the UPE. New AfD? Sure. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 because the version deleted at the 2024 AFD and the version deleted at the G4 are not substantially the same, so the conditions for G4 were not present. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As speedy deleter, I disagree with the assertion that the new version of the article was not "sufficiently identical" in the sense of G4. It had new sources, yes, but it was was not deleted for lack of sources or non-notability, but for being an exercise in self-promotion. In this respect, the new version and the old are identical, in that they are, as someone above put it, all about "Lomtadze being most greatest businessman in most glorious nation of Kazakhstan". This is apparent from the fact that nothing even remotely critical of the subject appears in an ostensibly neutral article about the third-richest businessman in a notoriously corrupt country. I am perplexed at the effort some here expend to help such people use Wikipedia as a vehicle for self-promotion. But if G4 is too controversial, then I suppose we'll have to go back to AfD. Sandstein 10:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G4 explicitly means sufficiently identical. Either an article is or it isn’t. The presence of multiple new sources means it is not sufficiently identical and should not have been G4ed. The fact it was was not deleted for lack of sources or non-notability, but for being an exercise in self-promotion is not grounds for G4. You could possibly make an argument for G11, though I disagree with that as the temp-un deleted version shows it is not exclusively promotion/advertisement. FrankAnchor16:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I know you're not a native English speaker Sandstein, and I'm wondering if this is a semantic drift disconnect. Identical means the same. Not "similar", the same. "Sufficiently identical" means that trivial differences--e.g., reordering, punctuation, spelling changes--aren't enough to dodge G4. But one single new source means a new article isn't G4 able. Now, if one or more editors are gaming the system by trickling in new references to try to avoid the technical eligibility for G4, that is an excellent reason for other behavioral interventions such as pblocking, blocking/banning, salting, and DEEPER. But each of those benefits from a discussion, as they rightly should, because in very few cases do we want unilateral admins memory holing articles or editors--and when we do, it's usually best left to functionaries (checkusers and oversighters) because something really against conduct norms is happening. So please... don't pretend similar articles are identical. Call them out, have the discussion, and in doing so highlight the conduct issues of the editor(s) in question. Jclemens (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, adding one new source to a deleted article wouldn't necessarily be enough to overcome G4 on its own. You seem to be arguing that it only applies to identical or near-identical pages. SportingFlyerT·C06:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Identical" would mean corresponding exactly to the deleted version. That would almost never be the case. Therefore WP:G4 refers to "sufficiently identical", or "substantially identical", which means it that conceives of identity as a matter of degree, of not as a binary property. And by excluding "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies" G4 makes clear that what matters for the purpose of assessing the degree of identity required is the degree to which the reason for deletion - in this case, being unduly promotional - still applies. Because the article is still an exercise in self-promotion, the G4 deletion is in my view appropriate. Sandstein 07:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies means that even if the reposted content is 100% identical, if the rest of the world has changed such that the reason for deletion didn't apply, G4 is invalid. Kind of an odd situation, but consider an AfD based on copyvio that's somehow not G12'ed. Website that's the source of the quoted material suddenly puts up a reuse-friendly license (I'll leave the details to the people who specialize in such things). Someone reposts a bit-for-bit copy of the copyvio-deleted article... now G4 does not apply because the reason for deletion no longer does. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and your reasoning backwards from that clause, even if erroneous, does give good insight into why you (and probably others) thought that G4 could be valid on a different but similar article to which the same deletion rationale clearly applies. This moves dialogue forward; thank you. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize you're trying to lecture someone about the meaning of policy that he wrote, right? I think he knows what he meant, even if the previous version left a little less room for deliberate misinterpretation. —Cryptic17:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Words have meaning independent of the authorial intent; this is the essence of modern critical scholarship. Are you suggesting that originalism is instead Wikipedia's guiding principle? Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion should not be used except in the most obvious cases. This isn't fulfilled here and that's it. Two established editors took actions to cause this to reappear in mainspace: an AfC reviewer and a new page patroller. They didn't notice that the reason for the deletion still applies because its continued existence is inherently non-obvious due to the complexity of the situation involving a rarer (but commendable) AfD result of a deletion not on grounds of non-notability but almost purely on promo grounds and there existing the need to understand that purely affirmative content about a tycoon in a post-Soviet republic needs to be strongly suspected for promotional intent and is likely not suitable material even if the tone is not promotional and the statements made are not falsely aggrandizing. This is not an obvious case so speedy deletion should not be used. —Alalch E.12:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4: After an AfC reviewer moves an article to the mainspace, it is not appropriate for an admin to speedily delete it due to G4, even if it is the same as a previously deleted version, especially when there is a long time between the last deletion and the review. This action shows how admin powers can unfairly favor the admin’s view, and it should be avoided. It permanently reverses the reviewer’s decision without discussion. A better approach would be to move the article back to draft space and talk with the AfC reviewer to understand their reasoning. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other way of analyzing matters is that the AfC reviewer "permanently" and improperly reverses the closing admin and the community's decision that this topic does not deserve an article without discussion. * Pppery *it has begun...03:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AfC reviewer's action is quite reversible, almost any account can revert that action. The admin's action, on the other hand, needs something as big as the current DRV to revert. So the situation is not symmetric. Rule of thumb: speedy deletion is only for non-controversial deletions. If there is an AfC reviewer who accepted the draft, deletion is no longer non-controversial and needs some discussion before action. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're all being played here. This is an IP whose sole edits are to hassle others about this one specific page, which has been written entirely by SPAs. And I suspect both them and Veronika.polichshuk who wrote this version are sockpuppets of Bodaidub. So here we have it. Two previous attempts by new users to write promotional biographies on this subject have been deleted at AfD, one by an account that's been blocked as a sockpuppet. We now have a third attempt, undoubtedly part of the same scheme. That's what makes it "substantially identical" as I see it, not any of the so-called differences brought up above. Endorse although I'm clearly in the minority here. And I'm normally the guy criticizing other admins for misusing speedy deletion. * Pppery *it has begun...
I don't think either Dr vulpes or Sandstien have done anything wrong here, it's perfectly fine for an AfC to accept a 50-50 article and let its fate be decided at AfD, and it's perfectly reasonable to consider a spammy CV to be substantially identical to the previous version that was also a spammy CV. Whatever, it's been two years, let's have another AfD. Endorse but list. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
