Recreate per FL. I had not noticed that the !voters' specifications for the International 14 subcategory were different from other subcategories. I don't think there was any problem with how I handled the other categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I felt the consensus was wrongly interpretted. Those editors who voiced their opinion for the page to be retained were not heeded. Also, the page was vanalized during the decision review process with many credible independent arabic and english sources removed which resulted in a faulty process. Hope a fair judement is made here considering the merits of the page and the plethora of independent credible english and arabic sources available for the subject matter. Thank you for your time. Khonsuhorus (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus as consensus to delete the article clearly never formed despite the fact that the AFD was listed for over a month. I do think the "delete" side posted a modestly stronger argument as the sources presented by the "keep" side appear to be borderline GNG at best, but it certainly did not sway consensus. Also, the "delete" argument is tainted by US-Verified's misrepresentation of WP:THREE (an essay) superseding WP:GNG. This user argued Wikipedia requires at least three in-depth articles in reliable sources to prove the notability in direct contradiction of GNG, which states multiple sources are generally expected. FrankAnchor14:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll need some time to think about this. The discussion of the quality of the added sources being essentially non-existent doesn't really help much. In the meantime, I've popped the notifications as is procedurally required, maybe the input of the closer or AFD participants could offer a bit more information to be considered. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought over it, I remain inclined to endorse the close, although no consensus due to lack of quorum would also have been valid. Considering both the entire discussion and limiting to comments made after the second relist, neither of the keep !voters at all addressed the issue of significance or depth of coverage, and while the opposing view was touched upon only lightly, it was touched upon. For both considered stages, there is weak and rough consensus that sources provided do not constitute significant coverage — the number of sources do not substantially factor into this, and a delete result is within discretion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - As Frank Anchor notes, there was no consensus, and consensus never developed in spite of the maximum number of relists. Consensus never developed because there was no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - I'm not seeing consensus in the discussions - and the sources mentioned, although borderline, seem passable - especially given the lack of press freedom in very restrictive dictatorship. Nfitz (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
