Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 December

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 2019 Deletion review archives January 2020 >

31 December 2019

[edit]
  • Brahma Chellaney – No consensus, speedy deletion overturned. People disagree about whether and how much of this article is copyvio. This means that the speedy deletion for copyvio is overturned, and a normal deletion process can be initiated if desired. Sandstein 19:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Brahma Chellaney (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Absence of a reasoned and consensual decision among the editors Alpinespace (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse that's no reason to overturn a discussion regarding a speedy delete on copyvio grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 04:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy and relist. I'm certainly willing to entertain that this could have been WP:G11, but looking at "Deleted revision of Brahma Chellaney (as of 22 December 2019, at 17:47)", I'm not seeing any copyvios. The reason given for the 28 December deletion was, Deleted as requested in User talk:Usernamekiran/Archive 8#Deleted article re-appears, but that's not a valid WP:CSD. Neither is asserting that it's a copyvio without saying what it's a copyvio of. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it was deleted per AfD, and undeleted by User:Anthony Appleyard, User:Anthony Appleyard is entitled to re-delete it on his discretion, and given the mess of its deletion log, and the discussion at User_talk:Usernamekiran#Deleted_article_re-appears involving both involved admins, even without seeing the deleted content I feel confident in endorsing User:Anthony Appleyard action.
Recommend considering the deletion as WP:TNT. Encourage re-creation in draftspace given the lack of editing experience by the proponents. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: the problem is, the AfD never really happened. It was closed down after six hours by Anthony Appleyard's speedy deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Requesting temp undeletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, as I look through the history more closely, I do see some assertions of specific copyvios, which appear to have been cleaned. So, I've re-deleted all the revisions prior to the last one; that should be good enough for this review. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer See my comments immediately above. I messed up with my copyvio cleanup. I thought I was revdel-ing everything prior to the final revision, but apparently I only got one history page's worth of revisions. If this does end up being restored/kept, somebody will need to go through and do a better audit of which revisions are copyvio-tarnished and which are clean. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Not a valid G11. Not a G12. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The AfD alleged that this was copyvio content, but did not even suggest a source, and none of the deletion logs so much as mention any copyright issue. A quick google did not find a source -- earwig's tool will not run on a deleted article. I just reviewed (well, scanned, not a true review) the version just before deletion, and while it seems to contain some puffery, it didn't look to me anywhere close to G11 territory (nor TNT either, which is not policy after all, merely an essay). As RoySmith says just above, the Afd in effect never happened -- certainly not as a substantial discussion, so we are left with speedy deletion. G11, in my view does not apply, and G12 never applies without a named source. None of the reason in the user talk page discussion linked above and in one deletion log entry seem to me to justify deletion. Anyone who wants this deletes should either provide documentation of copyright issues, if there are any, or start a new AfD, and let it run full length. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add that the com metn in the linked talk-page discussion by The Gnome that after a decision to delete has been taken, we are in no position to ask whether or not an article "contain[s] any queryable matter". The text may have been improved but the process of posting up the text immediately after the AfD is against all due-process etiquette; such action effectively renders the AfD process null and void. is in my view seriously mistaken. A new version that deals with the issues for which the deletion was done is pretty much always acceptable, and unless the name was salted, going through draft is not required, although it is often advisable. That is doubly true when the original reasons for deletion are invalid, and there has been no general deletion discussion, as was the case here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • DES, you appear to be suggesting that every article being deleted through an AfD process can re-appear immediately after its deletion with an ostensibly "changed" text and the editor who recreated it justifying their action by claiming that the text now "addresses all the issues for which it was deleted". (I'm not referring to this specific article or its AfD.) I sincerely hope I'm reading you wrongly since such a loop hole would seriously undermine the whole clean up process. -The Gnome (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, The Gnome I am not only suggesting that I am saying exactly that. However, whether the changed article does in fact address the issues is not left solely to the judgement of the re-creating editor. If any other editor thinks the issues are not addressed it can be tagged for speed deletion under WP:CSD#G4. The reviewing admin must then evaluate whether the recreated version is "sufficiently similar" wording that is explicitly present in WP:CSD#G4. I do this every time I handle a G4 tag, and I hope and trust that other admins do so also. If an editor blatantly or repeatedly recreates deleted articles without making significant changes, when the editor should have known better, that might well be considered disruptive editing and be worthy of a block. If it happens multiple times on a single article, that title might be salted. But a single recreation that is a good faith effort to deal with the issues in the AfD, particularly added sourcing not considered by the AfD, is indeed permitted. We often advise going through a draft stage, but no policy requires this. See the current discussion on WT:DRV# Clarify purpose for more on this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This history identifies [1], [2], and [3] as sources of material copied into the article. I didn't check the first two, but the last one was from the very first edit (and it looks like after a little back and forth, that content did remain in the article). WilyD 09:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, allow re-creation. It's copyright infringement from edit one. If someone wants to write a new version that's licence compliant, they're free to. But, "Hey, can we violate the licence?" is not a discussion we should have, and the overturn !votes arguing we should restore infringing content must be ignored. WilyD 09:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second edit marked the first as a copy-vio, and after a bit of edit warring, the copy-vio content was retained. It's never a good idea to keep something built on copyvio, and at least the paragraphs starting "He was one of the authors..." and "Professor Chellaney has held appointments..." appear to derive from that first version. WilyD 14:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wily, I'm afraid no documentation of specific copyright issues has ever been provided. I've been through the history of the deleted article that had been on Wikipedia for almost 11 years and checked for any copyvio content in it, but I couldn't find any. I checked the three URLs you identified but didn't find any copyvio material from them. (The first URL is of a page that has a short conference description and pictures of conference participants, including a picture of the subject of the deleted article. The second URL is of a blog that reproduces that subject's Wall Street Journal article. And the third URL appears to be a dead link.) The more-recent recreation of the deleted article was a good-faith attempt to offer a much shorter version in which virtually every sentence was backed by sourcing. Alpinespace (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third url is a dead link now, but it's where copyright violating content came from, back in 2006, that remains in the article to this day. There's no way to restore the existing content, it'd have to be G12'd immediately. The only way to write an article would be to start over from scratch, not re-using copyright infringing content. WilyD 06:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wily, it will be really helpful if you could specify what copyright-infringing material was taken from the third URL. It appears that the third URL was just a source (in other words, a citation/endnote) to support a biographical reference in the article. You have presumed that the deleted page contained copyright-infringing content but you have not offered any proof in support. The history of the article does not contain any allegation of copyright violation, unless we mistake the undeletion of the deleted article by Anthony Appleyard (who later again deleted the page) as amounting to copyvios of the first version. As RoySmith points out, he has not seen any copyvios. And as DES correctly states, none of the deletion logs mentions any copyvio issue. Alpinespace (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse here. Look at the history - when the article was created, it was entirely a copyvio. Back in naive ol' 2006, people tried just blanking it out, but the copyright violator won the day, and the copyvio was restored and has been in the article (with bits of modification) ever since. There's no way the article can be restored. If there's to be an article, it needs to be started from scratch. It's no different than if you realise a used diaper was dropped in the meat grinder after everything is in casings. You don't try to pick out the problem bits, you throw them out and start over. WilyD 14:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn but send to WP:CP OK, the copyright violation we are talking about is that the first revision was copied from this (archived) source. And that this copyvio content partially remained within the article even as it was expanded. It it not grounds for speedy deletion though as some of the material now in the article isn't a copyright violation and thus the G12 criteria are not met, but certainly grounds to send the article to WP:CP in order to have the carried-over copyvio and the corresponding page revisions cleaned/hidden. Not all of the new content is spammy either so G11 does not apply either, although I am agnostic on whether the topic is notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blatant copyright infringement is a grounds for speedy deletion - one of the two important ones (along with G10). Some of the copyright infringing material remains in the current version of the article, and purging it trying to work out how to do attribution for the rest will be a complete mess. And in general, making some alterations to copyright infringing material can be legally okay, but is a huge problem for the licence. I haven't completely checked, but probably every version in the history is copyright infringing. There's just nothing to do with cases where every version in the history is a copyright problem but to delete it and start over. WilyD 14:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blatant copyright infringement is not always grounds for speedy deletion; from the policy emphasis mine This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio|url=insert URL here}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. and not all of the content of the revisions past or present is a copyright violation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • SSC Yugal – Administrative close. @Maestrale: I think you're talking about File:1956-57 Dalmatinac players.jpg, which was deleted back in July 2018. If your father wishes to donate the photo to Wikpiedia, you should read Wikipedia:Contact_us/Licensing for the correct process. Looking at the record of the deleted file, the problem looks like the author was listed as "Unknown", which isn't compatible with our licensing requirements. My suggestion is to email photosubmission@wikimedia.org and they can help you with the technical details. I know this seems like a lot of bureaucratic hassle, but we need to make sure we're not infringing on anybody's copyright, so there's a bit of administrative process that needs to be done correctly. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
SSC Yugal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The file 1956-57 Dalmatinac players.jpg was a photograph taken by my father George Posa on his camera in circa 1957. His copyright interest is remaining in the photo and he consents to use of it on this website. He is happy to send an email to Wiki if it is required. Please reverse Fastily's (20 July 2108 UTC) and innotata's (12 July 2018 UTC) deletion of this historical photograph. Thanks.

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

30 December 2019

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Media reports of persons hospitalized involving the 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Most ediors preferred keeping the article rather the merge. I think the close should be reversed and the article kept in accordance with consensus. After the merge mass content was deleted. If it is too long for the main article then it can be split. QuackGuru (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close; out of scope of DRV. No deletion. The right place to continue discussion, including challenges to reverse the merge, or to consider other SPINOUT options, is Talk:2019 outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products#Undo merge proposal not here. And Not FORUMSHOPPING. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC was de-listed and I was told to come here if I want to challenge the close. QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Beland (talk · contribs) in referring you here. WP:DRV is not for managing merges and contested merges. The advice of the closer, Callanecc (talk · contribs) should be sought before launching either an RfC or DRV. I note the problem on a lack of guidance on starting RfCs, and on contesting the unilateral close of a premature RfC, and that is an issue for WT:RFC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) appears to have been responsible for enacting the close. He should be invited to comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whee! -- Beland (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Purpose number one of DRV is for discussions where the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. Cases of blatant supervotes that ignore both policy and the discussion at XfD are exactly the purpose of DRV. WilyD 06:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The title phrase, "Media reports of ..." is a red flag for WP:NOR. Are there sources commenting on the "media reports of ..."? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, AfD is not a vote, and the spinoff article was an unencyclopedic laundry list. (Also, Callanecc should have at least been spoken to prior to filing a DRV if the outcome was in dispute, if nothing else than to hear his reasoning.) I actually just put back the merge that was in dispute before the AfD took place; it was Beland who originally performed it and took it to AfD when it was disputed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's recommended that you try discussing it with the closing admin, but it's not required. In cases of such a blatant supervote, it's probably usually better to move to DRV than to have a discussion with the closer that's almost certainly going to be pointless, and will be liable to raise the overall tension level in the situation. A more public forum like this is then a better idea. A lot of deletions are speedies where the admin failed to notice something, or cases you want to re-do on new information. Those kinds of situations are usually resolvable with a short discussion with the deleting admin, which is why you're recommended to go that route. WilyD 06:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think it's generally a good step, if for no other reason than to be able to say "The admin explained their reasoning and stood by it, and I still disagree." I know in a couple of cases with me, someone's pointed out to me something I missed, and I smacked my head and said "You're absolutely right, and I should've seen that, I'll reverse it." None of us are immune to errors. In other cases, sure, I said "I know that, but I still stand by my decision, and here's why." But at the very least, at least one should attempt discussion first. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, I think it's generally a good step, and in fact will usually resolve situations faster and more amicably. But that's not the same as universally, and in a case like this, I don't think it's wise or kind to force an editor to confront an admin where such a process is liable to be intimidating or otherwise needlessly stressful and unproductive. WilyD 17:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not mandatory because there are really good reasons why we don't want the discussion closer to become the gatekeeper for a deletion review. DRV should be easily accessible to anyone who disagrees with a close -- the bar is set deliberately low.—S Marshall T/C 10:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep - policy is a clear keep, headcount is a clear keep. There's absolutely no basis for such an obvious closer supervote to impose an outcome they could never achieve by discussion. Really, absolutely zero arguments are presented for deletion or merge, other than sometimes articles with similar titles have original research problems (but not that this article did, because it seems as though it did not - so such an argument is neither here nor there). It is true that the title is a bit wonky, but I would be reluctant to impose a move to the title suggested by Blue Raspberry given that no one else commented on it, but a move to Cases in the 2019 vaping lung illness outbreak is probably in order WilyD 06:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • See talk page. After the merge, editors are still aggressively trying to expunge the merged content. That is against the close of the merge. We don't merge and then do a backdoor deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly, we shouldn't have an article with this title, so I'd endorse the close as merge (clearly preferable to the only viable alternative which was "keep"). An encyclopaedia is a summary of what the reliable sources say. This is not a summary, it's immensely comprehensive -- inappropriately so in my view, to the point of being unencyclopaedic. I suspect the purpose of this article is to make a point.—S Marshall T/C 20:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep - Consensus is clearly keep, secondly, AFD is not the place to discuss a merge, the article page would be the correct page. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 21:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There were significant policy issues raised on each side, and the numbers were with those in favor of a Keep result. The close did not properly reflect that. After overturn, the merge should not be considered enforced by the AfC discussion, and the fate of any merge should be decided by separate merge discussions. A rename was suggested by several participants in the AfD, and might well be in order.
As to the scope issue, the AfD was explicitly started to enforce a previously contested merge, which is what the close did. Review of that close here is an eminently proper use of DRV. The idea (expressed by SmokeyJoe above) that because there was no deletion DRV is out is scope is simply incorrect. I was one of those active in the proposals that created DRV out of the previous VfU (Votes for Undeletion), and a significant part of the change was that All XfD closes, and in particular all AfD closes, are subject to review here. That is why the practice is to write "Overturn" or "Endorse" not "Keep" or "Delete" here at DRV. If an Afd is used to enforce a merge (and tjhat is valid, if not IMO best practice) then it is subject to review here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 December 2019

[edit]

28 December 2019

[edit]
  • Melila Purcell – Endorse, allow recreation. There's unanimous agreement that the AfD of 4 years ago was closed correctly. There's also near-unanimous agreement that there's nothing preventing anybody from writing a new article provided the deficiencies noted in the AfD have been resolved, i.e. new sources which demonstrate the subject now passes WP:GNG. There were some sources presented here, but there seems to be consensus that those particular sources are not adequate.
The question of requiring a new draft to go through the WP:AfC process was raised. Of the people who commented on this, there's strong feeling that such a requirement is not supported by policy. Thus, at least for the narrow case of the existing Draft:Melila Purcell, no such requirement is imposed. This is not the first time this has come up, so noting WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, I suggest that it would be good if somebody started a WP:RfC to determine if there is project-wide consensus on this one way or the other. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Melila Purcell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Subject passes WP:NGRIDIRON, having played in the Arena Football League per this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, allow re-creation. The AfD is valid; playing in an AFL game creates a presumption of notability, but the player still needs to satisfy the GNG. The original article had no sources whatsoever. If you can write an article based on multiple in-depth sources then go ahead. Mackensen (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFL is a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian rules football. Please avoid local abbreviations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The article still has to pass WP:GNG, and delete was the correct close for this review. No worries if the article can be recreated. We should also take a look to see if playing in the arena league guarantees a player coverage per WP:GNG to satisfy the presumption of notability, as the league has now folded and was pretty minor for its last few seasons. Also, WP:GNG has to be satisfied - this player only played in one game which qualifies for WP:GRIDIRON and it was a minor league. These sorts of non-GNG satisfying players are typically deleted over at WikiProject Football. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1 By Jason Kaneshiro. Quoting the subject's dad, later the subject, the subject's cousin. It does contain two paragraphs not quoted from the subject/family:

An outside linebacker much of last season, Purcell has settled into his new position at left defensive end leading up to tomorrow's opener.
Purcell signed with Penn State coming out of Leone High School in American Samoa in 2003 and spent two seasons with the Nittany Lions. Upon transferring to UH to play with his older brother, he sat out the 2005 season and made his Warriors debut last year. A knee injury sidelined him for three games and he finished the year with 11 total tackles, including a sack.

The only qualitative contribution from the author is "has settled into", the rest is just facts. For the GNG, this is very weak, but not zero.
2 By Rebecca Breyer. Made with with subject's cooperation, and so not independent. It is local newspaper promotion of locals. Does not attest Wikipedia-notability.
3 By Dave Reardon. Coach interview. Subject interview. Alo brother and cousins. Very very local coverage emphasizing local and family connections. Does not attest Wikipedia-notability.
4 By Stephen Tsai. Backstory of the subject and University of Hawai'i fellow players friendship from 6 years prior, when they played basketball. Very weak but not zero use.
5 Interview information from the subject and coach. Not independent. Does not attest Wikipedia-notability.
I think that these are not good enough, but 1 & 5 are not astraight "no". If you could find one article not from Hawaii, an article that does not centre on interviewing the subject, team coach or players, or family, that might be enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He has a lot of google news hits that are just directory style data pages, sometimes empty. After that, there are news stories of him, such as in New Caledonia in 2011, but they seem to only ever be interviews of him, local reporting, not independent coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing stopping you from writing another article about this person. The above argument wasn't raised in the AfD so a recreation which includes it shouldn't be deleted without another AfD (the deleted version doesn't mention Spokane at all). I'm sure we could restore the deleted version to draft space if you'd like to use it as a starting point. Hut 8.5 17:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close, could not have been closed any other way. However, noting that sources continue to be thrown up, encourage undeleting to draftspace, require passage through WP:AfC for re-creation, and point prominently to the advice at WP:THREE (the number of sources is irrelevant, only the quality of the 2 or 3 best). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator's new source link is worthless. Not an independent secondary source on the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My worthless source link is from one of the top statistics websites of the Arena Football League used on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arena_Football_League/Reliable_Sources), and it is included in Template:Infobox NFL biography as a general reference for arena football players. I brought this article to deletion review because I believe this new information satisfies criteria 3 from WP:DRVPURPOSE. I am not arguing that the close was improper, I would have closed the AFD the same way. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Arena Football League/Reliable Sources is good, but don't confuse "reliable source" with sources that attest notability, aka GNG when push comes to shove.
I recommend requesting draftification, now while this DRV is running. Add the new sources. Point out the three best. An improved draft version makes it much easier to talk about. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, draft is at Draft:Melila Purcell. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per our longstanding consensus sports biographies must still pass WP:GNG, the arenafan site doesn't in and of itself grant automatic notability in spite of the fact a listing there would get a player past the WP:NGRIDIRON threshold. It's not "worthless," but especially given the fact he only played one game in the league, there needs to be a showing that he was actually covered by the media, as opposed to bringing up the source to show he (barely) passes a WP:SNG. I also concur with SmokeyJoe's analysis of the articles. Is there any coverage of him from his time with Spokane? SportingFlyer T·C 05:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Without voicing an opinion on whether re-creation should be allowed, if the discussion concludes it should, do not allow the grossly inappropriate and bullying suggestion that the new article should have to go through AfC or otherwise follow higher standards than any other article. WilyD 09:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, allow re-creation. The AfD was closed correctly based on the information that was available at the time, however, new information has since come to light that would very likely result in a different outcome if the article were sent to AfD today. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close but permit recreation. Do not attempt to mandate an AfC review. AfC is designed to assist new or less experienced editors. It should never be required of any autoconfirmed editor. There is no policy basis for such a requirement. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be required for even old editors IF the deletion was recent (I think recent = 6 months). Otherwise, the deletion process is undermined. This deletion was years ago, so sure, bold recreation is OK. However, I do not see what has changed since 2015, so I expect that the current draft if mainspace could be promptly nominated and deleted at AfD. The discussion may go differently. I would advise the proponent to address the old AfD deletion reasons on the talk page (which too should be undeleted). -SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be a major policy change and would require a site-wide RfC, and I for one would strongly oppose it. In any case, no policy currently allows such a restriction to be imposed on any editor, except perhaps as part of a community-imposed topic ban, and I have not seen that done. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 08:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is at least the second DRV in maybe a month or so where AfC has come up as a possible option and then been vehemently dismissed by its detractors. I think the article itself is a very interesting case: the new information presented at DRV shows the player technically passes a WP:SNG, but barely, and for a minor sports league, and there's no WP:GNG-qualifying coverage of him playing in the league for which he would pass the WP:SNG (the coverage I found was from a Hawaii fan blog and arenafan.com, which is reliable for demonstrating he played in the league and was released after playing one game, but not for conferring WP:GNG notability, as it's just a list of statistics. The article on the player arenafan.com reprinted was from a team press release and clearly primary.) I'm in favour of allowing re-creation if other sources are found, as I don't think any of the sources pass WP:GNG (they're all local/routine transactional/not independent), but we also need to ensure the article's in good enough shape to be recreated - the two best ways of doing this are to either immediately send the article to AfD once it's out of draft space unless substantial improvements are made, or allow it to be peer-reviewed at AfC. There's absolutely no reason experienced editors can't use AfC - we have mandated it for experienced editors whose creations frequently showed up at AfD, and some continue to use it even though the requirement was lifted. I'm somewhat in agreement that it shouldn't necessarily be mandated, I'm not certain it should apply to this specific article, but I see no issue with having it in our arsenal here at DRV, especially because it's not a restriction on the editor but rather on the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 11:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 December 2019

[edit]

26 December 2019

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jean-François Gariépy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

RHaworth speedily deleted the article Jean-Francois Gariepy according to G5: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Gari%C3%A9py. Admin holds article was created by blocked user Jean-Francois Gariepy. This user, however, is neither blocked nor the creator of said page. As admin states on his talk page, the creator was the user Hijadealgo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth#Deletion_article_Jean-Francois_Gariepy. This user was blocked on 10 September 2019. User´s latest contribution was on 8 September 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hijadealgo. G5 does not hold as a reason for speedy deletion. Tacokanone (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn G5 doesn't seem to apply here. The account mentioned in the deletion log was never even blocked [9]. Hijadealgo was a sock of Erdmännle (unrelated to Jean Francois apparently) [10], but that wasn't in a violation of block (since the sockmaster used the puppet without being blocked beforehand) and thus both accounts got blocked at the same time on Dec 10. The article was created through AfC before that in November per User talk:Hijadealgo. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Kvng since he was the AfC reviewer who accepted the now deleted article in November. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - This appears to be a case of negligence by the deleting administrator, because the listed account isn't blocked, and was found by CheckUser not to be involved in the sockpuppetry. It appears that the deleting administrator simply wasn't checking the details. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note:. Although this doesn't change the analysis of the G5 deletion, I just blocked Tacokanone as  Likely to Tongtom (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The G5 was incorrect, and since the AfC draft was accepted by a neutral editor, it can be considered endorsed by somebody not connected to any sockfarm. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the page was created by Hijadealgo on 31 August. Hijadealgo was blocked as a sockpuppet as a result of a checkuser investigation into a potential sockpuppet of Jean-Francois Gariepy (see here), which is why the deletion log links to an SPI on that user. I don't think being accepted at AfC should necessarily disqualify something from G5, because AfC reviewers presumably don't accept drafts which they know are written by block-evading sockpuppets. Hijadealgo is a sockpuppet and is blocked, so much of what's said above isn't correct. However Hijadealgo wasn't evading a block when the page was created, so the page didn't qualify for G5. Hut 8.5 16:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I accepted the draft based on the merits of the material. It is not part of AfC workflow to check for blocked user issues. ~Kvng (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Grandayy – Moot. The article has already been put in draft and there is never an objection to articles being put back into mainspace if the reasons for deletion do not apply. In any event DRV cannot protect you from another Afd anyway if someone disagrees Spartaz Humbug! 17:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Grandayy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Allow recreation, this article had survived the first AfD but then was renominated and lost in the 2nd AfD due to "failing WP:GNG, passing mentions only". I have found secondary reliable sources which gives the subject significant coverage and demonstrates that this article and subject passes our GNG and therefore should allow a recreation.

  1. Alexander, Julia (2019-03-17). "YouTube creators are still trying to fight back against European copyright vote". The Verge. Retrieved 2019-12-26.

    The article notes:

    "The reaction of YouTubers has been virtually unanimous against Article 13," Grandayy, a creator with more than 2 million subscribers who is best known for his memes, told The Verge. "The sad thing is that us YouTubers have no lobby groups or unions that can fight for us and speak to politicians directly for us. Most politicians have no idea about the troubles YouTubers face with copyright, or what type of content the typical YouTuber even produces."

    Part of the issue, according to Grandayy, is that “most politicians working on the directive didn’t even know what ‘memes’ were before all the criticism starts coming in.” Grandayy has met with two members of Parliament to address concerns within the community, and he is hopeful that lawmakers are starting to realize the implications of the new rules. It’s a similar stance to YouTube’s own executives who tweeted their hope of working with members of Parliament to address the company’s biggest concerns.

    It’s one of the few issues that YouTube’s creators and executives are fighting together on, and that cohesiveness isn’t lost on creators like Grandayy. He recognizes that YouTube’s response has been “pretty good so far,” adding that the company’s executives aren’t “being too negative, and are instead providing constructive criticism by suggesting improvements to the text rather than just saying it is bad and should be scrapped altogether.” Grandayy suggested that, if anything, people within the YouTube community feel like YouTube’s executive team hasn’t taken a hard enough stance, but that’s a good thing.

  2. Vella, Matthew (2019-03-23). "Malta's biggest Youtuber's impassioned plea on why EU copyright law 'could kill Internet'". Malta Today. Retrieved 2019-12-26.

    The article notes:

    Malta’s biggest Youtuber Grandayy has released a music video taking to task the controversial Article 13 in the EU’s Copyright Directive, featuring YouTube’s most followed broadcaster, PewDiePie.

    “As important as it is, it’s sadly not getting too much attention in Malta, unlike what’s happening in other European countries,” Grandayy, a qualified doctor who now makes a living from producing memes on YouTube.

    But Grandayy warned that all this broadcasts risk getting censored because of these automated bots. Grandayy also warned that the Copyright Directive could disrupt the way people on the internet share content like jokes and memes among each other on social media.

  3. Hernandez, Patricia (2019-08-01). "Minecraft is having a big comeback in 2019". Polygon. Retrieved 2019-12-26.

    The article notes:

    For over a year, YouTube creator Grandayy — who is known for his Minecraft memes — kept suggesting the idea of a “Minecraft Monday” to Keemstar, a YouTube gossip reporter who has increasingly been holding more video game competitions over the last year. After begging for Keemstar to host it, the YouTube personality finally gave in. Like his Friday Fortnite tournament, Keemstar opted to bring in big names who could attract huge viewerships, such as Fortnite superstar Tyler “Ninja” Blevins. Blevins alone brought in nearly one million viewers on Twitch for that first week. Then, on week two, there was another megaton: Keemstar had convinced YouTube king Felix “PewDiePie” Kjellberg to participate in the event alongside beauty guru James Charles. Suddenly, nearly every big name on YouTube and Twitch was playing Mojang’s sandbox game. Minecraft became a spectacle once again. According to Keemstar, millions of people tune in to his show every week. Grandayy, who has made a name for himself making elaborate Minecraft jokes on social media, agrees with this assessment. He thinks people are pining for the game based on nostalgia factor, and then are surprised to find that the experience can still feel fresh in 2019.

  4. Debono, Fiona (2018-08-30). "'My only interest is to make people laugh'". Times of Malta. Retrieved 2019-12-26.

    The article notes:

    The content on his Grandayy YouTube channel consists mainly of memes (an image, video, piece of text, etc, typically humorous in nature, that is copied and spread rapidly by Internet users, according to the idiot’s guide to YouTube), enjoying nearly 300 million views.

    It may be difficult for anyone not into YouTube culture to comprehend this “massive achievement”, says the 24-year-old doctor, who goes by the name of Grandayy, preferring to keep his personal identity private.

    But to put things into some sort of perspective, the biggest YouTuber in the world, PewDiePie – also a fan of Grandayy – has 66 million subscribers. Locally, the second biggest Maltese YouTuber, Stella Cini, is currently at 220,000 subscribers, while singer Ira Losco is at 15,000.

    As things stand, Grandayy maintains he is currently “one of the most relevant and original meme creators worldwide”, especially on YouTube, along with another memer Dolan Dark, who has over 900,000 subscribers.

  5. Demarco, Joanna (2018-02-14). "From graduating as a doctor, to working as a full-time Youtuber". The Independent. Retrieved 2019-12-26.

    The article notes:

    On its 13th anniversary, The Malta Independent spoke to Malta’s top Youtuber ‘Grandayy’, who has been collecting thousands of subscribers since 2011, and who today, at the age of 23, works as a full-time Youtuber, despite graduating as a doctor last year.

    Grandayy has two Youtube channels; Grandayy and Grande1899; the former being his main focus, on which he creates meme videos. (A meme is a video or an image which is humorous and is copied and shared by Internet users with mild variations to the post.) Grandayy made his first Youtube video in 2007, however he acknowledges a better start date would be four years later, in January 2011 using his Grande 1899 account.

    In November of 2015 he started making his first meme videos, but, since they were different from the material which his Grande1899 channel hosted, he created a second channel called 'Grandayy'. Grandayy sees his success and large following as a result of consistency and, he hopes, the quality of his videos.

  6. Rosenblatt, Kalhan (2019-12-25). "How social media has changed in the past decade, according to its influencers". NBC News. Retrieved 2019-12-26.

    The article notes:

    Two of the most prolific creators of memes over the last decade are Dr Grandayy and Dolan Dark, who both asked to be identified by their internet personas.

    Dolan Dark said he began creating memes on a Facebook page in 2011 before moving over to Twitter and YouTube, while Grandayy has been making memes on YouTube since approximately 2016. Grandayy added that they’ve also become more mainstream, giving each one a shorter and shorter lifespan.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Grandayy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". These sources were not mentioned during the AfD. The last source describes Grandayy as "Two of the most prolific creators of memes over the last decade". The YouTuber has over 2.5 million subscribers today, not a trivial feat. When a YouTuber has 2.5 million subscribers he/she will receive significant coverage from reliable sources as Grandayy has. Given the significant coverage an article on the subject passes our GN guidelines.

Valoem talk contrib 13:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The deleted version has been moved to Draft:Grandayy and the title isn't protected. There's nothing stopping you from writing a new article at this title or improving the deleted one and moving it back to mainspace. If the issues in the AfD have been addressed then it won't be deleted again without another discussion. Hut 8.5 17:12, 26 December 2019 (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.
Hayley McLaughlin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

At time of closing, the tally to Keep:Delete was formally 3:2—adding the closing editor's vote against (inferred, though not formally registered) makes it 3:3. This is not a compelling deletion vote, and certainly does not justify closing the discussion in less than a week, and in the week before a major US and European holiday (!). Finally, the reason given—that there was no response to the point-by-point critique of article sources appearing in a Comment—is fallacious, in that a response to that critique was provided, on 17 December (in paragraph rather than bullet form). If a point-by-point rebuttal was desired, it should have been requested, rather than proceeding with deletion at the 5-6 day mark, days before a major holiday. 2601:246:C700:9B0:C0C7:A11E:21B1:A25C (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify I do not se that it was closed early: it wa listed at 05:49 Dec 13 and closed on 19:31 Dec . 21. I might think it better not to close a rationally disputed afd on 19:31 of Dec 24 , but this was Dec 21. The close was correct, but perhaps the solution here, as in may Del Revs, is Draftifying to cleanup the refs. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cleaning up the [bad] refs is scholarly dishonesty, if the material sourced from those refs is not cleaned up. It is probably too hard, too much to expect a normal editor to do. If the refs were bad, the content is bad. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"cleaning up the refs" idoes not mean fixing technical erors, but rather checking the references and the content and rewriting accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course one knows that when a bad source is removed, the content has to be checked against any new source that is added. Indeed, at my ands, when bad sources were removed either the content was also removed, or the references were replaced and the content checked. (If information was otherwise kept, which were the minority of cases, it was because the information appeared in multiple sources, including IMDB and European or better database equivalents, and in such cases, rather than listing IMDB, etc., the information was marked with [citation needed].) Bottom line, you did not see any "scholarly dishonest" editing from this former academic and WP editor, who regularly promotes Charles Lipson's Doing Honest Work in College to combat the fairly widespread issues of plagiarism here. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Scope creep’s !vote of 18:16, 16 December 2019 is pretty convincing that the references are broadly bad sources from the start, and the reply to that post is a clear statement that the message is not heard. The ongoing notions of adding IMDB references add to this. If you, DGG, were to do the cleanup, that would be fine, but based on statements at the AfD, I have zero confidence that the topic proponents would do anything better than gloss a few things and continue as before. No, that is not acceptable. The topic was deleted. At best, call it WP:TNT and insist on WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was presented as a Comment, and not a vote, and it is not for the one closing the AfD to decide what any party's vote might ultimately have been—is it? What policy allows tally of inferred votes, in AfDs? More critically, Joe, regarding your do[ing] anything better than gloss[ing] a few things and continu[ing] as before—this obfuscates, and is discussion that belongs in the AfD, and not here—it is discussion about the article closure. Moreover, it makes clear that you did not bother to look at the edit history of the article from the opening of the AfD, to its closure. All of the editing that you disdainfully dismiss was of the highest academic integrity, with IMDB and other poor sources being removed, and clearly independent, third-party sources being added. Your cursory conclusion and criticism are incorrect to the available evidence, and therefore deeply unjust. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave deleted, do not restore. The AfD shows that the article was WP:Reference bombed with weak and bad sources. Call it WP:TNT. Allow a fresh page to be created in draftspace, and urge interested editors to follow the advice at WP:THREE. This should be considered mandatory for an attempt to quickly re-create an article just properly deleted for notability and sourcing concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If have read the google cache for the article, and researched the actress. The article was very well written, but the notability is not established. The sourcing is not good enough. It amounts to promotion of a young actress in need of promotion. The quality of writing of the deleted article says this was not written by newcomers. I’m calling this WP:UPE product. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am near beside myself with rage. As I have stated repeatedly, I am a former academic that edits for the service of the encyclopedia. How can you and others live with yourself, making unjust accusations supported only by presumption? How can you be so bloody irresponsible, not taking the time even to look at the edit history from this editor's regular IP address? There is no evidence whatsoever, of what you assert, and even the most limited look at my edits make clear, that unless I am in the pay of the most amazing array of persons, living and dead, and being paid to make their articles more unsightly for the critical editing—that your assertion is literally, nonsense. Bottom line, I do not edit in pay of anyone. You, sir, are guilty of ignoring evidence, not presuming good faith, and more broadly of bearing false witness. You should be ashamed. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rage? In contrast, I am quite calm. I think I see some hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. One of these is an obviously experienced Wikipedian not using their main account. I read what you are saying, and in the end: I do not believe you. The way forward for this topic is WP:THREE. If Hayley is Wikipedia-notable, then provide the best three sources that prove it. Don’t try to bamboozle others with a large number of weak sources. If she is not notable, I advise her and her agents to improve her IMDb entry. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion discussions aren't votes, the closer is expected to take the arguments put forward in the discussion into account, giving greater weight to arguments which are grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Here that definitely favoured deletion, in that good analyses of the sources in the article weren't effectively rebutted. I'd suggest that anyone who wants us to have an article on this person concentrate on showing notability through a small number of good sources, rather than a larger number of weak or useless ones. It looks like the only source in the article which is much use is [11], which is a Scottish tabloid newspaper and therefore not a great source to base an article about a living person on. The rest are either unreliable, don't discuss the subject at all or don't discuss the subject in depth. She has only appeared in a single substantial role in a notable production so far, it may well be that she becomes more notable as her career progresses and we can have an article on her then. Hut 8.5 16:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please, as asked elsewhere, support your assertion that an editor closing an AfD may ignore the prima facie tally of Keep:Delete, and infer from Comments what their ultimate vote will be. Please, quote specifically from the WP guidelines and policies where this is said. It is (shocking) news to me. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very few decisions on Wikipedia are taken through pure votes and policies and guidelines are littered with references to this, e.g. WP:DELAFD These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy, WP:DGFA Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted, or WP:NOTDEMOCRACY Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. If you want some outcome to be enacted then you need to put forward a good argument, not just get people to show up and agree with you. And stop shouting. Hut 8.5 16:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion – delete was a reasonable close for this discussion, the sourcing for the article was thoroughly discredited, the keep votes don't really discuss policy, and it was not closed early - if anything it was closed a bit late. SportingFlyer T·C 22:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Submitting to the ongoing rude injustice, but still hoping for good sense to prevail. Please explain—how does one justify circumventing the apparent tally of the formal votes in an AfD to render a conclusion opposite to the apparent one? And how does one justify closing a discussion when it is clear that not all editor's have had their say (with a major international holiday just days away)? Please, quote for me here the WP guidelines and policies that allow this. Otherwise, I made specific points of rebuttal above, and here repeat the main issues. Bottom line, the points above that discuss the merits of the article belong in an AfD, and not here. What matters here are whether the actual views of participating editors at the McLaughlin article were take into account, by allowing sufficient time (they were not, because of the impending holiday), and was the actual tally of votes at the AfD accurately reflected in the closure (it was not). To do beyond that, and to begin discussing again the merits of the article—absent the discussion and the evidence that was being presented and discussed in that AfD—is to misuse this venue. Otherwise, my points about the above are these:
First, I acknowledge, the process began on the 13th, and so when ending on the 21st, it has been going on for 8 days. This is still not inordinately long. Moreover, the process preceded into a holiday week, the week of Christmas as celebrated in the west. It is reasonable to assume therefore, unless one wanted a rushed decision, to allow the discussion to continue until all interested parties had had their say. (It is very reasonable to assume, looking at the fall-off in the discussion, and the lack of participation of other regular editors at the article, that the impending holiday had an impact on the discussion. I for one turned my attention from it as the holiday approached.)
Second, in that regard, the comment made by the editor closing the AfD was not "The vote is X to Y in favour of deletion", but rather, it stated that no one had replied to the multiple-bullet analysis of the sources of the article. Three important points about this. (a) In not stating the tally, it made inferences, and therefore decided the closure without a tally, see below. (b) The claim that the multiple-bullet had not seen a reply was falacious (as I had replied in paragraph form on 17 December). If the closing editor wanted a more detailed response, all he need done was ask. (c) The tally, as it appears at the article was 3 votes to Keep, and 2 votes to delete. The rest of the participants offered Comments, and did not state their votes. Even if the editor who closed the discusssion has their vote inferred, the vote tally at time of closing was formally, at best, tied at 3 votes to keep, and 3 votes to delete. It is simply outside of WP guidelines and policy to close a tied vote, or to infer what those commenting might ultimately think when time came for them to express a formal vote. This alone is reason in my view to reopen the discussion, and why I will persist with this matter.
Third, I argue that it is fundamentally improper here to mix apples and oranges. The views of editors regarding whether the article should be kept or not (whether stated or unstated) should not be brought to bear here, and should be carefully excluded—they can come into play when the discussion is reopened. All that matters is whether the discussion had ground to a halt—it had not, it was foreshortened by the holiday and rapid closure—and whether the closure reflected the formal wishes of the voting majority—which it did not, based on the actual Keeps/Delete votes appearing.
And, Fourth and finally, I would note for those participating in this Review that the AfD discussion was marked by accusations of POV participation and violations of AGF and bias against non-logging editors—which to my utter astonishment are repeated, just as superficially and baselessly, above. That is, the AfD discussion, and now this discussion, are deeply flawed—the AfD, apart from its shortening, for the reason of bias as well, and for that reason also, should be reopened.

For the record, regarding those accusations: Even minimal due diligence on the part of accusing editors would make clear that I edit broadly and diversely, and not in any support of entertainment personalities (a laughable supposition), given that the living and the dead in all subject areas get my attention. My editing is aimed at one, and only one thing—the quality of the ultimate WP article (with most time being spent on improving citations, and making text align with cited material). Indeed, the primary reason I became involved in the AfD for this article is that I perceived the thrust of the proposed deletion to be academically and judicially unjust, in that the original objections to the articles (all IMBD sourcing, and no available independent, third-party sources) proved in the latter case to be untrue. (There were easily located third-party, non-IMDB sources available.) It was only after I removed the IMDB sources, and found more than a half dozen independent published sources on the work of the actor, that the focus of the discussion moved to questioning my motives.

Besides being off-base, and easily determined as such, the bait-and-switch/move-the-target approaches of claiming the actor is unsupportable except with IMDB sources, then arguing, well, there is third party support, but it still does not make them notable enough—esp. when it was acknowledged many lessor examples exist within WP, and that the actor's last (Netflix LD&R premier) and next (recurring guest star) roles are major and newsworthy, the former with the actor receiving international media attention. All of this smacked of stubborn, personal interest actions of the initiating editor, rather than a real devotion to the quality of the encyclopedia, or this article. (Anyone could have found the many third-party, non-IMDB citations; only I took the time and did so.) All in all, this discussion and premature closing smack of WP operating at its worst. The discussion should be reopened, and allowed to wind down after all concerned editors have had their say, and when the tally is clearly in favour of one outcome or the other, not tied or near-tied. And the editor quick to accuse of POV editing, and those that display bias against non-logging editors—these whould should be encouraged to return to AGF practices, and if unable, should recuse themselves. Because this editor is not POV-involved, has edited at this article to improve it, found citations that other editors did not take the time to find, and otherwise is not going away (or logging) anytime soon. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E057:9794:CB77:30A (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want anyone to actually read this and respond to it then I suggest you condense it into a paragraph or two and stop sticking entire paragraphs into bold italics. Hut 8.5 16:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to encourage the behaviour but I'll still have a go at a response. 1. AfDs are open for at least a week, and this was not open during any holiday period. 2. WP:NOTAVOTE. Closers close discussions based on policy. 3. The close was reasonable, the article did not need to be relisted. 4. I have no idea where there's reversible error in that difficult-to-read paragraph, but please quit WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 17:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 December 2019

[edit]

24 December 2019

[edit]

23 December 2019

[edit]
  • User:Queerly Bohemian/Userboxes/FreedomFighters – Endorse. There's two different issues under discussion; 1) whether the close was correct, and 2) whether it was appropriate for a non-admin to take on. There's wide agreement here to endorse the correctness of the close. There's more dissent about the WP:NAC issue, but not enough to take any action on. Several (two, if I counted correctly) people noted that MfD has a higher cultural acceptance for NAC in close cases, compared to AfD. I don't work at MfD, so I have no personal experience on that. However, I have observed that over the past few years, in reviews of all kinds here at DRV, there does seem to be a greater acceptance of NAC in borderline cases, with WP:BADNAC arguments carrying less weight compared to examining the ultimate result. It might be worth re-examining BADNAC to see if community consensus really has moved since it was first implemented. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Queerly Bohemian/Userboxes/FreedomFighters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

WP:BadNac, Controversial closes are best left to administrators. The closer is not. Issues such as TOS and Polemic were cited as reasons to delete this page, (Edit conflict) Issues such as TOS and Polemic were cited as reasons to delete this page, further, this MFD received a lot of discussion and was for both reasons a controversial close, for that reason alone an admin should have closed it.

Additionally, I believe the closer ignored WP:POLEMIC and WP:TOS as valid reasons to delete this page and essentially, disregarded both reasons, both of which are valid. I request this close be overturned. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serial_Number_54129 This was my first DRV ever, sorry, I assumed it was pretty much like an MFD, I removed the "supervote" I'd placed in as I did check and found it was incorrect. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And why should you remind me? ——SN54129 14:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support a deletion review of this controversial close and was thinking about submitting one myself. As I said during the deletion discussion: if this does not count as polemic then WP:POLEMIC should be deleted as nothing will count as polemic. At best a compromise close should have recommended deleting “pkk” and “freedom fighters the world over” from the userbox and left the other less controversial wording and groups. The pkk are widely regarded as a terrorist organisation, in part because they have on many occasions targeted civilians and used suicide bombings as a tactic. The keep arguments were very weak and many of the keep arguments mentioned deleting certain parts of the userbox, so a consensus did exist but was bizarrely closed with ‘no consensus’.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, reluctantly. I struck my above vote and comment. WilyD has convinced me that the delete or even amend argument is not sufficient under current policy to override the keep arguments. The close of no consensus was thus good and it was also good where the close gave the suggestion of an RfC. BTW I voted ‘delete’ or as a compromise ‘amend’ wording.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – I !voted delete, but I don't think the closer was incorrect in closing this as a "no consensus". The delete argument boils down to (1) "Pkk is a terrorist organization" and (2) "therefore the userbox is [POLEMIC/TOS violation/etc], but neither #1 nor #2 had consensus in the discussion. The keep !voters noted that some nations/groups made the terrorist designation but others (most) didn't; that the designation is often made for political purposes; that the designation has been applied to people/organizations in the past that have won the Nobel Peace Prize (like Mandela's ANC and Arafat's PLO); and that even assuming arguendo that it's a "terrorist organization", that is not necessarily a TOS violation or polemic to have a userbox with a message of support. W/r/t the badnac argument, sure, an admin can re-close (or countersign) this as "no consensus"; I don't really see the point in taking that bureaucratic step. I think in this discussion, closing as either keep or delete would be a supervote; there were good arguments on both sides. – Levivich 15:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You might be correct that there was not a consensus for the userbox to be completely deleted but I thought there was a healthy numerical and general consensus to remove ‘PKK’ and ‘freedom fighters the world over’ but leave the other Kurdish paramilitary groups which are not regarded as terrorists. This is because a fair number of keep votes mentioned keeping but deleting certain parts of the wording, especially PKK.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich Let's see, you're saying that since 1 has no consensus and 2 has no consensus that it should be ok to keep the user box? Hmmmm...... well, argument number one has three reliable sources behind it. Therefore, it's not a matter of consensus , but of reliable sources. Reliable sources do say that these groups are terrorist groups, consensus isn't necessary, just reliable sources.
So that leaves us with argument #2 , that the userbox is not polemic. YOu say there's no consensus, again, there doesn't need to be, we have a definition that was set up BY consensus of what constitutes polemic, this user box meets the definition, therefore it IS polemic. Just like we have a definition of what's vandalism, if something meets that definition, we can call it vandalism.
In short, this is a false argument. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Necromonger: The close is a no-consensus close. It explicitly left the door open for another MFD. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It also left the door open for an RfC which I feel would be the next step if anyone wants to take this further.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, I guess - so, it's extremely clear this doesn't violate the terms of service, and invoking it is probably counter-productive because it makes it seem as though one is just throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what'll stick, rather than trying to make a point in good faith. WP:POLEMIC is much closer, but it really refers to an attack on something, so there's a bit of wiggle room there. (And indeed, Wikipedia:User pages says ""Acts of violence" includes all forms of violence but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence.") - which seems to target this exactly scenario, and has been on the page since at least May. No, I don't see that delete really has a policy leg to stand on. I do have userboxen, except perhaps as a warning that editors will have trouble being unbiased, but there's a roughly even headcount, and really no policy/guideline basis for delete to stand on. WilyD 15:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point there Wily re. WP:UPNOT and acts of violence and groups that support such acts. That does, I concede, weaken the polemic argument to delete that I in large part relied upon.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Endorse I don't doubt Britishfinance's good faith in implementing what I consider to be a reasonable close; that said, discussions such as this one really should be closed by an admin. Contentious non-admin closures are highly likely to end up at deletion review and should therefore be avoided. That said, I do think the closing rationale is technically correct and I don't see much use in reopening the discussion just so that an admin can rubber stamp what has already been said. I don't think anyone is going to find a consensus in that MfD. Lepricavark (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse. Great NAC. MFD has a stronger culture for non-admin closes because we explicitly not dealing with reader-facing content here. If this was an AFD, I wouldn't endorse because the stakes are higher. Regardless, there was no way that conversation was going to lead to anything but a no-consensus close. Britishfinance explained their reasoning rather well, and it was the best close we were ever going to get as a reflection of the discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, as someone who initially !voted to remove PKK from the userbox, I'll say that MFD is not usually set up for cleanup or to make content decisions like that. Unless the consensus is clear and obvious, a MFD closes won't bother even addressing those questions.
    Btw, I !voted delete. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly disagree with User:MJL that "MFD has a stronger culture for non-admin closes because we explicitly not dealing with reader-facing content" is not the wording I would use. MfD does not have a particularly strong culture of NACs, if you don't count procedural closes. MfD does see a fair bit of good NAC work, but mostly, appropriately, it is procedural. Also, the statement implies the MFD is not so important. This is absolutely not true, MfD is a potentially corrosive forum where busybodies can harass and persecute other Wikipedians in a community-destroying way. Seeking deletion of someones self-expression userbox is quite a SLAP, a public community declaration that what they were saying was not appropriate to be said. Deletions of others' userspace material is a public rejection of what the user was doing, and is quite a step in ostracizing the individual. MFD appropriately has a higher preponderance of Wikipedia Bureaucrats and ArbCom members closing that it does have NACs using it for practice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @SmokeyJoe: I mostly agree with your disagreement. I think the NACs I have done on MFD have been meaningful and more than simple practice. IDK.
      I didn't mean to imply that MFD's subject matter wasn't important, but I do think the consequences are less immediate outside Wikipedia's editing community. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think my response was overly confrontational. Edited in an attempt to be more conversational. MfD blunders don't do any immediate damage damage that readers see, but MfD blunders could really hurt editors. I wouldn't want to encourage adventurous NAC activity, but I agree that this NAC was a great close, on the mark, well explained, and a close was overdue and needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reviewing, controversial closes are best left to administrators. Admins should count and weight arguments not count cliches*. Like for example when the keep vote is followed by a reason like, the U.S. France did also target civilians and committed what would be described as terrorist attack or that freedom fighter-terrorist proverb. These types of so-called "arguments"/cliches would apply if we were discussing a userbox that supports ISIS. We need an admin to close this and review the actual arguments. Thank you.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SharabSalam: If you just renominated this in a week with pre-emptive arguments against WP:NOTCENSORED, no regular of MFD would bat an eye. Likewise, if there wasn't an ongoing deletion review, you could just edit the userbox to acceptable standards while citing the previously closed MFD as showing there are clear problems that need to be addressed. The close left a lot of things on the table. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would revert any such changes to the user box promptly on principle. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What you think SharabSalam of starting an RfC first, like what was suggested in the MfD close?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SharabSalam: although the userbox is clearly distasteful, offensive even, editor DESiegel made a good point during the deletion discussion when he suggested POV userboxes could be used to identify POV pushers editing our articles. When looking at it from that angle, perhaps the close is not such a bad thing after all. Maybe we should accept the close and move on.... That is where my thinking is travelling.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Literaturegeek anyone is free to start an RfC in an attempt to clarify or change our policy on user boxes. It will not be easy to get consensus for a change, the current policy is the result of several well-participated discussions, but it could happen, depending on what is proposed and what argument is made. But this is not the place for such an argument. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - there is no way to read that discussion other than "no consensus". The closer appropriately weighted the arguments presented and noted in detail that, while POLEMIC and TOS were offered as issues supporting deletion, the arguments were not accepted by consensus of the discussion participants. The closer not being an administrator is irrelevant; this was an excellent close. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - right result, but nac-controversial - I feel that the the closer did a good job reading it (and explaining it, for that matter) and it's the same close I would have given it if I hadn't participated. However, I would agree that it's controversial enough it shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin. I'd be happy with asking for an admin review, but I don't believe it needs reopening etc, and given the quality of the close, I don't really mind if we skip the review. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - Proper "no consensus" close per policy. Thank you closer. Lightburst (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse.Uninvolved
The DRV nomination? It fails to make a substantive case that something was wrong with the close. The closer summarized the discussion, and the closer and discussion made ample consideration of POLEMIC. And see WT:DEL for a clear precedent that ToS violation is not a deletion reason. Advice to the nominator: Read WP:RENOM.
BADNAC? No, I read a non-controversial "no consensus". Admittedly, this is not usual. "tailed off two weeks ago", with the last !vote being a respected admin's "Keep" argument, and four of the last five being "Keep" !votes, "Delete" was not a possible close, and I do not think any admin could have reasonably closed the discussion as "Keep" vs "no consensus".
NAC? Any admin may revert or countersign the close. However, the closing statement is very good. I suspect the closer will soon be ready for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Britishfinance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse BF running for RfA to avoid further nac complications. :-) – Levivich 06:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: - I've heard worse ideas! Nosebagbear (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as the NAC closer). I read the entire MfD and felt at the end that there was no other close but no consensus, and hence I felt that it was not such a controversial NAC. The quality of the debate was high, and the issues were accurately identified. I felt any close other than no consensus would be akin to a SUPERVOTE, and ultimately, at the core of this MfD is a serious issue about the identification of problematic organizations, which I think should be really decided at an RfC and not MfD (either for the specific organizations listed in the userboxes, and/or for the method by which problematic organizations are labeled). I kind of indirectly suggested in the summary that a potential solution could be somebody boldly amending the boxes post-MfD (e.g. possibly deleting the PKK), which I often find at AfD is an underutilized way of solving issues (a superb example being Jim and Mary McCartney by Ritchie333, a very experienced AfD participant). I meant no discourtesy to the participants in this MfD, and as a regular AfD/MfD participant myself, I am conscious that there are closes that should be done by an admin (and sometimes even for non-controversial ones). I saw this one was still hanging in the "Old Business" queue of MfD, and wanted to see if I could help move things along. Thanks for the comments above. Britishfinance (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Personally, I would have closed as Keep, but then I was involved in the discussion. The close was reasonable, and I don't see that it needs to be overturned just because an experienced non-admin closed it. The nomination here is mistaken in that the closer did not ignore the policy arguments made for deletion, but rather found them balanced by the arguments for retention, which is not a supervote position. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse - On the one hand, the appellant is correct that this was a controversial MFD and should have been left to an administrator. A trout to the closer for taking it on themselves to do a non-administrative close. On the other hand, this appeal has no substantive merit except that the closer should have allowed an administrator to make the close. The appellant appears to be saying that an administrator should have supervoted, and should have ignored the Keep arguments and the policy-based reasons for the Keep arguments. This appeal is basically another appeal that a closer should have ignored the community; the community was divided and had no consensus. Right close, wrong closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Robert_McClenon not quite what I said. What I said is that the closer ignored WP:POLEMIC which is a policy set up by consensus with a definition and a set of things to do if something is Polemic, also set up by consensus. The closer ignored the fact that this userbox is polemic which demands removal of any and all polemic material. I'm not suggesting a supervote, I'm suggesting only that the existing consensus be observed. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A "polemic" is defined as contentious rhetoric that is intended to support a specific position by aggressive claims and undermining of the opposing position. WP:POLEMIC also forbids statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities and other forms of negative information. At least arguably, positive statements about unpopular or even evil groups, if not made with "aggressive claims and undermining of the opposing position" does not come under WP:POLEMIC, and there was not a consensus that WP:POLEMIC applied in this case. Thus that is not a basis to discount the keep arguments. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wekeepwhatwekill - Yes. You are saying that the closer should have supervoted by recognizing the policy-based argument that the user page is a polemic and discounting the policy-based arguments that the user page satisfied user page guidelines including that normally one is allowed to have userboxes. Yes. You are saying that the closer should have recognized the policy-based arguments with which you agree and should have ignored the policy-based arguments with which you disagree, which would be a form of supervote. Yes. Some of us think that the community at MFD decides how to apply the policy consensus. You are saying that the closer should have set themselves up to decide what was the right interpretation of policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once again , you're putting words in my mouth Robert_McClenon. Let me make this simpler.
 ::::::::The userbox is polemic.
The definition of polemic "forbids statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons or other entities..."
Our own page on the PKK states Since 1984 the PKK has been involved in an armed conflict with the Turkish state (with cease-fires in 1999–2004 and 2013–2015), with the initial aim of achieving an independent Kurdish state - therefore vilifying the Turkish state.
for the record, I'm not Turkish at all and have no opinion on the Turkish state at all
Therefore it meets a consensus agreed upon definition of Polemic
Therefore WP:Polemic shouldn't have been ignored, it's already consensus.
That's not a supervote. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLEMIC forbids statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. There are no such statements in the user box. Policy does not forbid statements in support of a group that has made polemical statements off-wiki. Thus your reasoning above is flawed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agree with User:Nosebagbear. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral as to Overturn Close to permit administrative close as No Consensus. The appellant has made their case that this was a controversial close, by creating the controversy, that should have been left to an administrator to find No Consensus', and to caution the appellant for being tendentious in the appeal. No. I am not putting words in the pen of the appellant; I am only restating what the appellant has written, which makes sense if either the appellant is re-litigating, or if the appellant thinks that the job of the closer is to act as a a judge. It appears that the appellant is saying that the closer should have made an interpretation of consensus-based policy, rather than allowing the community to form a consensus on policy (and if the interpretation of policy is done by the community, the community can fail to reach a consensus on how to apply policy). The appellant clearly either is re-litigating, or is saying that the closer should have ignored policy-based arguments to Keep, or is saying that the closer should have made a ruling, e.g., a supervote. Yes, it is true that polemic is part of the policy; so is Userbox. Right close, wrong closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POLEMIC is extremely explicit that it doesn't apply here. I have userboxen as much as the next guy, but if POLEMIC was overlooked here, it resulted in this being closed as no consensus instead of keep, not instead of delete. WilyD 07:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 December 2019

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

Rosario is a self-published practically unknown author, outside of some fringe far-right neo-Nazi circles. His works have a few dozens followers worldwide but aside from an intersting case on Nazi esotericism authors and anti-Semitic/white supremacists/conspiracy theory writers, he's practically unknown and has little to non influence both in literature and in esotericism in Latin America or elsewhere. And even as a subject study for the former is normally ignored and overlooked. Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 December 2019

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

I am involved with the mushing community heavily. My partner has been breeding and racing Eurohounds for almost 25 years. They are a specific cross-breed produced for a very niche reason, Sprint Sled Dog Racing. They were initially cross-bred in Scandanavia in the 80's specifically for this purpose. I know they exist because they continue to dominate the Sprint Sled Dog World to this day. No, they are not an AKC breed because they are not American. They are bred around the world and created initially in Scandinavia. I looked at the discussion page, and not a single person involved in that discussion appears to have any contact with the mushing community. If you had asked the community, you would have quickly learned that they are a prevalent breed in the sport.

As a member of the Eurohound community, I would like the page returned to its former status. It is visited often by members of the community, and was noticed the day it was deleted by just that community.

I, fortunately, understand enough about Wikipedia to know how to contact you about this issue and what to do to get the page restored.

Please contact me directly, and I will be happy to provide any information that you require.

If you don't have actual evidence that the breed does not exist, then I would appreciate it if you would restore the page on that fact alone.

Here is a paper that formally mentions the introduction into the racing community. (See table 5) 

* https://www.facebook.com/groups/230165397107610/
* https://nationalpurebreddogday.com/iditarod-marathoner-of-dogs/
* https://snowcountrykennel.weebly.com/training-racing--more.html
* https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/78yygy/chasing-down-the-worlds-greatest-dogsledder
* https://www.minnesotamonthly.com/featured/learn-skijoring/
* https://the-journal.com/articles/122757
* https://www.sooeveningnews.com/news/20190125/sled-dog-racing-returns-to-kinross
* http://www.iesda.org/homepage_files/AboutUs.htm
* https://www.northernwolf.co.uk/breeds/other-sled-dogs/
* https://www.endurancekennels.com/about-eurohound-sprint-racing-sled-dogs

And I can go on and on and on with the mentions of Eurohounds by Eurohound breeders and mushers.

Thank you for your time in this matter.

Chaim Krause Tinjaw (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Deletion review is for addressing errors in applying deletion procedure, such as erroneously finding that there is a consensus to delete. It is not for re-arguing a deletion discussion on the merits, which is all this review request attempts to do. Sandstein 09:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse - I didn't take part in the AFD and haven't seen the deleted article. Based on what has been said, I think that the wrong decision has been made by the community, and that the article should have been kept, but I don't see an error by the closer. I also see that the appellant is engaging in a very annoying behavior by authors of drafts, and that is providing a dump of URLs, which essentially says: "I don't have time to work these references into an article, but you, the Wikipedia community, need to do my dirty work for me." However, the issue isn't whether this draft or another draft should be kept. It is whether the closer made an error, and the answer is no. I think that the community made an error, but that isn't the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There's no other possible way this AfD could have been closed. If somebody believes they have located better sourcing, they are always free to write a new article on the subject. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Agree with the above - the discussion here can't be read as anything other than delete - but there's a weirdness around dog breeds at AfD and I would encourage a new article to be written on the subject with sources that clearly pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Couldn't have been closed any other way. That said, I do share the disappointment that many dog breeds have been deleted due to a lack of independent sources. I'm sure there must exist books that cover these dogs, surely. I think they are difficult to access, being non-academic and rarely indexed. Is there an encyclopedia on dogs? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • update: I posted here on the advice of [1] In which the editor states. "The article was deleted after a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurohound, which was closed after being open for two weeks with a clear policy-based consensus to delete the page. If you'd like to contest the close, you can do so at Deletion review. However, convincing me of the validity of the article is pointless - I did not unilaterally decide to delete it, I simply pressed the button after assessing the community's view, as expressed through the deletion discussion. It is the community whom you have to convince. Yunshui 雲水 08:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)" And that is the only reason I followed this path. If you all are saying that I should just make a new page. Then that is what I will do. I just wanted to follow the proper procedure. Which, I thought, was to ask for the deletion to be reversed. I just need to know the proper procedure and that is what I will do. Thank you for your time. Tinjaw (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yunshui&oldid=932088382
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 December 2019

[edit]

19 December 2019

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

This was deleted A7 after another admin objected and had been here since 2006. While I'm not sure if it's truly notable and was actually researching it myself for an AFD, I do think that it rises well above the low, low bar of A7. Praxidicae (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have undeleted so others may consider its history and the applicability of A7. As best as I can tell outside of one version deleted by Bradv there was no COPYVIO in what I restored despite the presence of an RD1 tag at the time of its speedy deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RHaworth restored the content of the article. I have asked them on their talk page whether or not they are reversing their speedy deletion (in which case I would suggest that this DRV be speedily closed). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The page has now been restored, so there's nothing left to do here. I suggest this be speedy closed. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this discussion and start one at AfD. It was an edit conflict. I had the version of 2019-12-19 15:06:37 open in my browser but got distracted by something. I did the deletion at 15:25:46 on the basis of that version and thus never realised that at 15:21:55‎ the speedy tag had been removed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Um RHaworth regardless of what version you had open, it doesn't address that it is clearly not an A7 regardless of whether it was contested by an admin or an IP. Praxidicae (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 December 2019

[edit]
  • Portal:Weather – Overturn. Seems like we have a pretty solid consensus that the main maintainer not being notified of the deletion discussion and the "unmaintained" argument being (potentially; there are several weighty counterarguments that a lot of outdated content was in the portal) wrong are problems so severe to warrant overturning the deletion and beginning a new one. Regarding the merits of the deletion itself it's a bit harder to assess as portal deletion discussions tend to be very open ended (we don't have a set of guidelines that describe when a portal is allowed and when not) and there is plenty of disagreement on whether the keep and delete arguments in the MFD were adequate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Portal:Weather (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm not gonna lie, I'm pretty miffed about this.

I am the primary (only) maintainer of this portal. I have put a lot of effort over the years into making this a low-maintenance, sustainable portal that can be incrementally updated. This is precisely *why* there are so many subpages, since I've put a lot of care into ensuring that there will always be relevant and randomized, fresh content based on the current date, and there will never be broken links. I've made hundreds of edits this year alone, not just in the "on this day" section but also in the "did you know" section and adding a new featured picture. This is all the result of hundreds or maybe even thousands of hours of effort over more than a decade, searching for relevant weather events from a given date, and adding them to the "on this day" section so that they appear around the appropriate anniversary.

Many of the "delete" comments seem to have lazily just looked at the history of the main portal page, seen very few edits, and thrown up their hands and said "Well, no one's working on it, get rid of it!". If they had actually done some digging and seen the history of transcluded pages, they would have seen that yes, this portal has been heavily maintained over the years. Why is this even a proper rationale for deletion anyway?? Even if it were true, no one is even addressing the merits of the content as it exists (or rather, existed I guess).

If the Portal really needed to go so badly, why did no one think to remove it from the literal thousands of pages that still link to it?

Most annoying of all, I was not notified about this deletion discussion. When I went in to make some updates today (as I often do), I saw that the entirety of my work had been deleted, without even being able to offer a defense.

The closing admin's reasoning is completely incorrect: "There is no argument that this portal is unmaintained and serving inaccurate information to readers." Well, let me give this argument then: I have made hundreds of edits to this portal's subpages in this year alone. If anything, I've updated this Portal more in the past year than in any year since it was first overhauled over a decade ago. The nominator pointed to a single example of inaccurate information that would have been easily corrected, and used that as representative of the entire breadth of pages under the Portal. Why were the first comments pointing to WP:FIXIT ignored??

Do people want more selected articles? I can do that! Do people want a place to report inaccurate information? I can do that! Do people want instructions on how to add their own weather event to the list of 1000+ "On this day" links? I can do that! No one ever asked, so I never thought these were priorities that could lead to the entire portal being deleted out from under me.

Please restore all 2100+ pages that I have worked hard on for more than a decade, and maybe next time use a little more discretion and transparency when deleting a huge body of work like this. RunningOnBrains(talk) 19:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For those without admin privileges, this tool shows the number of pages created (not number of edits, which is higher) by me in the Portal:Weather space. You can see I created more than 200 now-deleted pages in the space in the past year alone.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 20:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn there were two major arguments for deletion in that discussion: that the portal wasn't maintained and that it contained errors. The first argument is clearly not true, the OP was making an average of more than one edit a day to the portal and has done so for a long time. Admittedly nobody pointed this out but that just suggests the discussion was defective. The fact the OP as the portal's main maintainer wasn't aware of the discussion also weakens it. The argument that the portal contains errors contradicts WP:SOFIXIT and WP:ATD, as was pointed out in the discussion. Those are respectively a guideline and a policy and people citing them shouldn't be downweighted on strength of argument, as the closer seems to have done. Hut 8.5 22:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would the nominator have known whom to contact? Or which of the thousands of subpages were edited recently? Was an MfD tag put on the portal page, and if so, why wasn't that sufficient to notify the maintainer? – Levivich 22:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Levivich having had a chance to cool my head, I can understand the lack of notification. The opener of discussion did notify the creator of the portal, and the appropriate Wikiproject. My arguments against the conclusions reached still stand, however.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 04:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An MFD was placed on Portal:Weather on November 17, 2019, at 20:28 by Mark Schierbecker. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A glance at Special:RelatedChanges would have easily shown that Runningonbrains was maintaining the portal. The argument for deletion here was that the portal wasn't being maintained, it's hardly unreasonable to expect the nominator to check whether anyone is maintaining it. Hut 8.5 23:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editors need to think past the letter of the law. When nominating a single article for deletion, standard-level effort at notification is appropriate. When dealing with a collection of 2000 pages, you really need to put in extra effort to make sure everybody who is interested knows about it. In this case, the portal maintainer was off-wiki from 17 November to 18 December; the entire MFD took place during a period when they were not around. What was so important about deleting these 2000 pages that it couldn't wait for them to return? Or, maybe try a little harder to notify them. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're presupposing that anybody in that MfD was even aware that there was an editor who was updating some (like 10%? less?) of the 2100 subpages. It's a highly-unlikely circumstance that you have a maintainer who is regularly maintaining the portal, but only a certain part of it and not the main part, and on top of that, the editor is a regular contributor but doesn't log in for the almost-two-weeks that the portal is tagged for MfD. Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with not logging in for two weeks, nor with maintaining some but not all of a portal. In the past year that I've been rather active in portal deletions, I've never seen this very unique confluence of circumstances: 2100 pages, some being maintained, maintainer not logging in for MfD duration. I bet nobody can name another example like this. That's a one-in-a-million coincidence. Have we ever seen before a portal with that many subpages? I don't think anybody–not the nominator, not !voters, not the closer, and not the maintainer–did anything wrong here. It's just a "perfect storm" of circumstances. – Levivich 16:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith not that it matters but as a point of order, I wasn't fully off-wiki during the time of the discussion, I was definitely browsing during this time, so if I received a message I would have seen it.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 01:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Insufficient notification. While portals are now recognized as a dubious concept, that is not justification for the deletion of such a large number of old portal pages so hastily. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The closer starts by saying that There is no argument that this portal is unmaintained and serving inaccurate information to readers yet neither of those assertions is correct. The portal is maintained, as mentioned in the nom above, and a simple investigation would have revealed the status. And nobody in the discussion mentioned inaccuracy at all. I fully sympathise with the OP's annoyance at this hasty and ill-thought-through deletion, given that the community explicitly decided not to deprecate maintained portals, and this is one. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. Insufficient notification, and false claims from people who clearly don't have a clue how old-style multisubpage portals work. Two errors (one relatively minor) in 2100 pages is a low error rate, though I'd suggest the maintainer either checks included bios of living people for their death on a regular timetable or sticks to bios of the deceased. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I'm not sure I can blame the closer, given the arguments. Numerically, it's about a wash, but the keep arguments are mostly rather vague. I can't really blame the closer for down-weighting many of them. But, taking a step back, it's clear we ended up in the wrong place. Perhaps no rules were broken by not notifying the portal maintainer, but the lack of such notification clearly led to a sub-standard discussion. The closing statement says, There is no argument that this portal is unmaintained and serving inaccurate information to readers, and the deletion was based largely on that. But, the person best equipped to counter that argument didn't even know the discussion was going on. A defective notification and a close-call decision that depends on discounting some arguments don't seem like the process we want to use to delete over 2000 pages. If after another week of discussion, it still ends up as delete, that's fine, but at least Runningonbrains should have a chance to argue their case. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but relist based on new evidence – Notification to creator, WikiProject, and MfD tag on the portal page, was sufficient notification. The close was correct: literally zero editors argued that the portal was maintained or that it served accurate information; the !keeps were "sofixit" or otherwise stated the portal needed work. I strongly disagree with comments above that the deletion was hasty (12 days isn't hasty) or ill-thought out, or that delete !voters based their !votes on the portal history (those are experienced editors who know to look at subpages). There weren't two arguments for deletion, there were three. The third was that the portal had 2100 subpages, which is unmaintainable–more pages than we have the editors to maintain. This argument was discussed explicitly in the MfD. It seems to me that the nom and other voters were focused on Selected Articles and Selected Bios (that's the nom's examples of "never-updated" and "errors"), whereas the DRV filer is saying they maintained the DYK, OTD, and FP sections–not SA or SB. I can understand how !voters looking at SA and SB may not notice, among 2100 pages, that other pages (DYK, OTD) had recently been edited. I can also understand how a maintainer can miss an MfD tag on the portal for 12 days if they happened to not log in during those 12 days–and the contribs show that Runningonbrains didn't make any edits between Nov 18 and Nov 30. So I don't think there was anything wrong with how this MfD went down at all. Nevertheless, since there is an editor who has been building and maintaining this portal for a long time, and didn't get a chance to participate in the MfD, I can't see any reason not to relist it. I believe there's precedent for portals being kept when there's evidence of maintenance, and nobody brought forward evidence of maintenance in the MfD. Rather than seeing this as a "defective close", I see this as a "relist to consider new evidence" situation. – Levivich 04:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist - I see some nonsense arguments to religitate the deletion discussion. I also see that the maintainer was not notified of the nomination for deletion. I don't see any plausible substantive arguments on appeal. I do see a valid procedural reason for this appeal, and that is the lack of notice. I don't think that I am required to declare that I !voted to Delete; I will make that declaration. I am arguing differently than I did at AFD because the issues to be decided and burden of proof are different. I still think that the portal should be deleted; but the portal maintainer should be given a chance to make the case for the portal. Relist it for another seven days. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, the main objection ("unmaintained") was only partially true. The maintainer's deleted edits show hundreds of edits to portal subpages in the last two years. I can understand why the nominator did not find out who was the maintainer from just looking at the main page history. Anyway, this is probably a good warning against having only one person checking a portal -- if they go away for longer than a week, they may miss an MFD completely. —Kusma (t·c) 18:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Even for the sake of argument you discount everything the maintainer wrote above, I don't even think the close was correct given the discussion, probably a no consensus at best, but I would overturn to a keep based on the flawed deletion rationale. Portal MfDs are especially terrible since there's not a lot of rules in place, so they tend to be "won" by whichever group of users shows up in force. SportingFlyer T·C 21:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the anti-portal campaign needs to be brought under control and a good start would be to an overturn here. There was no consensus for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There are three components to this deletion review nomination:
    1. "I wasn't notified" -- Nowhere do the rules say it was necessary for you to be notified, given that the portal was tagged for twelve days
    2. "The deleters were mistaken; the portal was in fact maintained" -- Mark Schierbecker presented evidence that it was unmaintained, that (assuming I read him or her correctly) it described someone who died five years ago as still living. Several users also !voted delete on the basis of the difficult-to-maintain structure, rather than any apparent lack of maintenance. Furthermore, this entire line of argument is claiming the !voters erred, rather than the closer, which is simply not within the scope of deletion review.
    3. "Please don't destroy my hard work" -- This is simply not a valid argument.
    * Pppery * it has begun... 01:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pppery I disagree with your characterization of my argument. I am saying that the !voters said things that were completely false, and the closer took these incorrect things at faith, which 'is' completely within the scope of deletion review. A single error that went overlooked does not point to something being unmaintained. If that's the case I guess we should delete half of Wikipedia. Furthermore, even if this portal were truly "difficult to maintain", that is not a valid criterion for deletion that I am aware of. If standards have changed, and "hub pages" (as the nominator refers to them) are required, that is something that could easily be created. As for not wanting someone to "destroy my hard work" (your quotes, not mine), my argument is that drastic actions (the deletion of a large body of ongoing work) should be held to a higher standard for complete deletion. Maybe that's still not a valid argument, but the point here isn't my feelings, it's the process.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 00:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Runningonbrains, Can you clarify what was said in the MFD that you think is "completely false"? (Note: "maintenance" means checking and if necessary fixing existing content, not just adding content). Re the "single error": the filer of the MFD did enough to demonstrate that the portal was not being kept up to date. DexDor (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The discussion showed no consensus (not even a rough one) so should have been closed as "no consensus". I don't especially see the MfD's keep arguments as being "vague" (as suggested above) and in good measure the delete arguments were not based on fact. So, by counting or weighting I do not see any consensus. Thincat (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thincat: I think you were referring to me regarding the vague keep comments. More specifically, arguments which consist entirely of, Keep WP:SOFIXIT (x2) or Keep per WP:ATD don't give any specific reason why this portal is worth keeping. That's what I was referring to as vague. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I took these remarks to be in response to the three claims in the MFD nomination that the portal was not being updated. The responses therefore are saying update the portal. This would be regarded as an entirely satisfactory response to an AFD asking for deletion because the article was not being updated, wouldn't it? (And, by the way, it seems the claims were, at least partially, wrong). Thincat (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn As this seems to have been a spectacular blunder and competence is required, we should reflect on the process. WP:DGFA explains how closes should be made:
  1. Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" (see below).
  2. Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
  3. As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it.
  4. When in doubt, don't delete.
In this case, there was no consensus, common sense was not used, the feelings of the Wikipedians were not respected and benefit of the doubt was not given. I'm going to ensure this is logged as evidence in the Portal case. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was the editor who notified the WikiProject. Editors trying to delete a portal rarely alert anyone other than the creator of its main page (often inactive for years), so I check daily for new MfDs and notify any appropriate active projects. I also make a quick check for a maintainer, but unfortunately on this occasion I overlooked Runningonbrains. Certes (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The portal attackers should cool it. This was a maintained portal. Lightburst (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist. I have every confidence that the closer used a reasonable competence to verify claims made on both sides. However, given the somewhat decentralized structure of some sorts of portal construction, it clearly required more effort than was performed. Virtually every delete !vote made an "unmaintained" assertion; even the closing statement asserted lack of maintenance as a reason for deleting. OP's nomination here blows all that up. This case demonstrates that a guideline on portal construction is necessary; further, it demonstrates that such a guideline requires input from parties who believe in and maintain portals themselves. BusterD (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - 'spectacular blunder', not IMO by the closer, but in the premise (that the portal was not maintained). This casts doubt on other deletions of portals. Oculi (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Levivich, Pppery, and others. Solid rationales provided by the above. I agree with all of it. It was a solid close. Consensus can change and there's nothing stopping nom from restoring the portal, but I see no need to restore the subpage. Just begin anew. Portals can be easily re-created. Doug Mehus T·C 01:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus: Do you really think that 2100 subpages of selected article excerpts, images, "on this day", etc. could be "easily re-created"? If so, how would that be better than restoring the deleted versions with attribution history? Certes (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Certes: I don't it's necessary to re-create those subpages. They're just automatically generated lists of pages we featured, essentially, for this portal. Also, I don't see why WP:ATT makes sense in the case of portals. Little original editing actually takes place in the portal namespace. Some willing editors could easily just re-create Portal:Weather relatively quickly and feature new articles going forward. No need to say what articles a previous iteration were featured. --Doug Mehus T·C 02:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why wouldn't it be preferable to simply reinstate the deleted portal, which (contrary to claims made at the MfD) was being maintained? What on earth would be the benefit to completely starting over? Lepricavark (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:G4? My endorse was unequivocal, not "endorse but relist" or "endorse but allow recreation". There is no indication that consensus has changed here. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no indication that there was ever a consensus in favor of deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In the (unlikely but possible) hypothetical scenario in which this discussion was closed as endorse, then this discussion will be that indication. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The closer saw no argument that this portal is unmaintained and serving inaccurate information to readers. We now have new evidence of hundreds of edits this year and that this is a low-maintenance, sustainable portal which does not require daily tinkering to justify its survival. The inaccurate information consists of one easily fixed omission of a meteorologist's death. I suggest transcluding excerpts to prevent such errors in future, but it's not a valid excuse for deletion. Certes (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close which didn't say there shouldn't be a weather portal, but said it could be "recreated in a more maintainable form at such time that there are editors who are committed to maintaining it regularly.", but restore the portal's main page to userspace to help the OP start creating a transclusion-based portal (should they choose to do so).
There are several irrelevant and misleading statements in the comments above - for example, "why did no one think to remove it from ..." as (1) there's no need to remove portal links (in most/all cases links to non-existant portals are not shown) and (2) doing so would (presumably) mean re-adding the links if the portal was re-created (as allowed by the close).
The XFD included statements such as that the 41 selected articles/biographies were created in 2008-2010 and never updated since (even where the subject of a biography had died).  Assuming that statement is correct it indicates a lack of maintenance. The OP may have been adding more pages to the portal, but that's expansion not maintenance. A fundamental problem with portals appears to be that editors like to create/expand them, but (unlike with articles) editors don't like to maintain them (especially maintaining parts of a portal created by another editor).
That an editor put hundreds of hours into a page(s) (that few if any readers ever looked at) isn't itself a reason to keep. In fact, it's a reason for encouraging editors to do something more useful instead.
A portal consisting of thousands of copied subpages that probably had just one person (the page's creator) watchlisting each one and doesn't have strong support from other editors interested in the topic (e.g. who would copy across changes from the articles) was not maintainable in the long term. DexDor (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2019 (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.
Tiff's_Treats (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The decision to delete this page is the result of an extremely narrow interpretation of WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. As editors, our mandate is not to re-interpret editorial decisions made by legitimate media outlets. Doing so puts the entire premise of WP as an encyclopedia at stake. The analysis presented by HighKing essentially challenges the editorial decisions of an independent newsroom to publish a story about this subject. HighKing is basing their analysis on the fact that the stories about this subject contain minimal sources outside of the subject. While it might be reasonable to challenge the newsroom on their reporting, it is not our role. It is not unusual to read articles with limited sources. The subject of this page has been profiled in a number of different, legitimate, independent, media outlets. We cannot take the rigid stance that if a piece of news is not reported to a degree that we would prefer, that it is therefore illegitimate for inclusion as a proper citation. Web pages, press releases, and other obvious self-promotional channels are clearly not legitimate sources for citations. However, it is not our role to be challenging the editorial decisions of major, independent media outlets in this way. While one could understand the need for additional citations for this subject, I firmly disagree with the decision to delete based on the analysis of one individual and urge further review of how WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND policies are being interpreted in this instance. In the meantime, the decision to delete should be reversed. Coffee312 (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer's comment I feel like this is an issue that Hijiri88 pointed out at another current DRV. In weighing the outcome of that AfD I see a consensus of editors who agree with HighKing's analysis and as such there is a consensus to delete, as I noted in my closing statement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC) FWIW Coffee made no attempt to contact me prior to launching this DRV, but did notify me of the DRV, which I appreciate.[reply]
  • Endorse.
An editorial decision by an independent newsroom to publish a story does not make the non-independent story independent.
User:HighKing's analysis was correct.
User:Cunard has a habit of reference bombing discussions with a large number of weak sources, weak in terms of demonstrating notability.
WP:Reference bombing has become a pretty standard technique for bamboozling reviewers. The answer is WP:THREE. If the best three are not good enough, no number of additional weaker sources will help. Name the best three. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per SmokeyJoe above. The three best references supplied (whichever they are) don't add up to a demonstration of notability, and that was successfully argued in the discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- the deletion discussion contained a bombardment of marginal or useless sources, a detailed rebuttal of them, and after two relists the consensus was clearly to delete. The WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND might have been interpreted more strictly than some would like, but that was by the discussion participants. Not by the closing administrator, who only judged consensus. This was clearly a correct close. Reyk YO! 09:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I feel guilty being pinged and then failing to show up, but I didn't feel I had anything to add to this review, since it is obviously going to end in an endorse result. Perhaps we should review the deletion review process, whereby any frivolous deletion reviews that are clearly not worth the community's time are speedy-closed after one day, with the filer being warned for the first two breaches and then issued with escalating blocks for the third and later? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also the same warnings and escalating blocks for editors who repeatedly source-bomb AFDs with a bunch of news articles, books and journal articles they themselves clearly haven't read. I have seen more than my fair share of AFDs end in "keep" or "no consensus -- default to keep" results because of this kind of disruptive behaviour. (Perhaps the most disruptive example in my experience was here, although in that case there was no "bombing", since only two or three sources the keep !voters hadn't read were actually presented. This is another example, since while the problem was more !vote-stacking than people posting links to sources they hadn't read/understood, the latter still definitely occurred -- from a syspop, who even defended an IP sock of a site-banned user and never retracted said defense!) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Delete was a possible close to this discussion and the close and delete !votes are grounded in policy, I don't see any reversible error here. The mere existence of sources does not imply notability. SportingFlyer T·C 03:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Cunard has a bad habit of ref-bombing AfDs and 90% of the references he posts are crap. Coffee312's belief that NCORP was/is being extremely narrowly interpreted is entirely incorrect. Reading the above, it appears that Coffee312 is suggesting that if a major, independent media outlet publishes any kind of article mentioning an organization, then we are bound to accept the article as a sign that the company meets the requirements for notability. This is wrong. It is so wrong that the NCORP guidelines were significantly tightened up about a year ago in order to remove precisely the types of references that are a mix of churnalism and interviews masquerading as independent content which are prevalent in Cunard's list of references. In order to meet the criteria for notability, Independent Content must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That is not a "narrow interpretation" and its aim is to exclude all obvious promotional content generated by the company. HighKing++ 11:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but with slight reservations. This does look a bit like a supervote, but when you dig into it you find a valid reading based on misunderstanding by some editors of the impact of churnalism on "referenciness". Guy (help!) 00:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 December 2019

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

The article was redirected. My concern here is that the policy of WP:NOCONSENSUS was not followed. The closer admits that they made a controversial close based on their reading of WP:N which is a guideline. I am asking that the close be overturned to reflect policy. Lightburst (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2019 (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.
Hodor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was redirected. My concern here is that the policy of WP:NOCONSENSUS was not followed. The closer admits that they made a controversial close based on their reading of WP:N which is a guideline. I am asking that the close be overturned to reflect policy. Lightburst (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial" is not the same as "no consensus". If it was, half the encyclopedia would be paralyzed. ApLundell (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Consensus is an actual policy. If this was closed as no-consensus it would be within policy and a correct close. There was clearly no consensus to delete and no consensus to keep, and no consensus to redirect. Policy says we keep it. The article can be nominated at AfD 100 times, but recreation is notoriously more difficult, and that is why we have this policy. Not meaning to lecture anyone I was just hoping that we could have a policy based close and not a Supervote close. There is literally no reason for editors to debate at AfD if consensus does not matter. Another editor might have a different close based on their own preferences. Another reason why we need to follow the consensus policy. Lightburst (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way was the WP:CONSENSUS policy not followed? Or, alternatively, why was it "clearly" no consensus to redirect? And if your answer is based on the numbers, what about WP:NOTAVOTE? – Levivich 16:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editors volunteered their time to participate in the AfD and improve the article. Some improved the article and others provided guideline based reasons to keep the article. It is a common refrain for editors to claim WP:NOTAVOTE but all regular AfD participants know that an AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE. Andrew Davidson brought many relevant sources to AfD. I added sources to the article. Hunter Kahn discovered sources. The article was improved at AfD and the !vote and opinions were evenly divided. This is a classic no-consensus. We have another actual policy which applies, not a guideline. WP:PRESERVE. I think this is why the rules are set up to say consensus is needed to take action. Otherwise. WP:NORUSH (IK...only an essay) applies. Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, You are correct that "Consensus" is policy. I don't understand how that's an answer to what I said.
You had originally seemed to claim that "controversial" implies "no consensus" which is absolutely not true. You can link to WP:CONSENSUS as many times as you want, but it still won't say that. ApLundell (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think redirect/merge was a valid close here given the state of the article and the general rule minor characters which consist of only WP:PLOT are better suited to lists. I think no consensus also would have been a valid close, but I have no problem with the close or the rationale, and it was probably the correct result. There's also nothing prohibiting the article from being recreated, and though this is not a popular opinion, I'd prefer to see it go through AfC. SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am troubled by what seems to be the implicit statement made here, and indeed at least one other AfD I've recently seen and closed by a different sysop, that if the sourcing presented at AfD is not incorporated into the article it doesn't count for notability. I have always felt given WP:NPOSSIBLE ("Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article", emphasis in the original) that sources shown at AfD are sufficient, if of enough quality, to demonstrate notability whether or not someone has done the work of incorporating into an article. That said I want to give a deeper thought, and explore the advanced sources a bit more, before saying whether the closer weighed participation correctly in establishing what consensus there was or wasn't before a close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and careful consideration. I do agree with the WP:NEXIST guidance. However I also participated in the improvement of this article and my concern is that the closer did not follow the consensus policy. We should close based on consensus, and an article may be relisted and may find a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Lightburst (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't your statement that I wonder about, it was the closer's. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Sorry to butt in, but I believe Tone may have been thinking that since the sources presented at AFD were challenged as not actually demonstrating notability, the onus then shifted back to the ones claiming it did to show that it did by doing what I and others said couldn't be done, which was using those sources to build an article that isn't ALLPLOT.
A more troubling trend, in my view, than admins following this line of reasoning is the tendency for editors to copy-paste a bunch of links they Googled up, apparently without even reading them, and claiming they demonstrate notability, and this being enough to create doubt and shift the AFD to "no consensus" -- this is definitely what was en route to happening at the Hodor AFD, as I read all the sources presented on the 9th and 11th, and only didn't go through the ones presented on the 16th because I had just wasted half an hour going through similar sources presented two minutes earlier here by the same editor, who all but admitted to not having read them himself.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse a perfectly reasonable close given the state of the article and the strength of some of the arguments put forward. Redirection is a pretty soft-touch way to deal with a questionable article and, therefore, applying it in preference to No Consensus ought not to be especially controversial. Hugsyrup 22:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - absolutely reasonable close.Onel5969 TT me 01:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Sourcing presented at the AFD was clearly inadequate, and those presenting them either (a) admitted not to having read them or (b) carefully refused to reply when asked as much. Once all the "Notable -- I Googled up a bunch of links I haven't actually read" and "Notable -- someone else Googled up a bunch of links I also haven't read" !votes are discounted, there was a very clear majority in favour of redirecting, and Tone assessed the consensus correctly. If only more admins were willing to do so.
As an aside, the page history hasn't been deleted, nor have any of the sources presented in the AFD, so there's nothing stopping anyone who believes it can be done from writing up a new article within the list that isn't ALLPLOT, perhaps incorporating some of the ALLPLOT content from the previous article, and undoing the redirect once the content gets to long not to get its own article. Yes, doing this without consensus would potentially result in another Talk:List of longest marriages mess, and there's nothing to say that all real-world, non-plot content is encyclopedic and worth including, but if anyone actually believes, in good faith, that the sources linked by Andrew and Hunter, and any other sources that are out there, actually would be enough to build a standalone article, then everything is still there for them to expand the list entry in an article-length piece of encyclopedic prose.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus - okay, I'll admit I'm surprised the only Games of Thrones character I've heard of got redirected (unless - is the blonde lady with the braids named `Mother of Dragons'?), but the vast majority of the arguments for redirection ignore all the sources presented, and discuss only what's in the article - and the close reasoning is explicitly based on that. Among the few editors who looked at the question of whether the subject meets WP:N, there was no consensus, and the sources presented are sufficient to be plausible for WP:N (though perhaps not a slam dunk), so neither those who thought they met WP:N, nor those who didn't, can really be ignored. Such a defective closing rationale would be extremely problematic going forward, because it would be extremely ambiguous as to whether an expanded article would fall under G4, given it was based on votes that ignored the discussion and facts. WilyD 09:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Among the few editors who looked at the question of whether the subject meets WP:N, there was no consensus That's because everyone who said "keep" was basing their argument on a quick Googling of "sources" that either mention the subject in passing or consist exclusively plot summary, while the majority of the redirects either didn't feel the need to respond to such inane !votes or felt it was sufficient to say "per Hijiri"; selectively counting the "keep -- notable" !votes that ignored the actually issue at hand, while ignoring the !votes that were based on the issue at hand specifically for that reason, as you are implying you would have done, would have been a much more defective closing rationale, which makes me question your competence as an admin with the authority to make such decisions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- consensus at the AfD was that articles consisting entirely of plot summary are not good, and that the content would be better dealt with in an encyclopedic manner in some other- comprehensive- article. The close reflected that. There's no issue here. Reyk YO! 11:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The question is between a separate article and a redirect, and the redirect permits the inclusion of a reasonable amount of material in the list article. This means that information is not really lost by the redirection. This in turn provides a reason why the closer can and should use judgment, and the closer used judgment. I do not have an opinion on whether I would have !voted to Keep or to Redirect, but the closer used proper judgment and there is no reversible error. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A straight WP:NOTPLOT#1 decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Sound close, and nothing of value is lost because the redirect is, if anything, more informative, because it includes more context. Guy (help!) 00:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist , on the basis that a wider discussion would help. But even if we keep it as is, I assume that additional published material on the series will give sufficient additional sourcing, includingfrom academic sources, to justify an article. I'd guess probably in early 2021, based on the time it takes for publication. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 23 December 2019 (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.
Dan Spilo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was speedily deleted as an attack page. While I cannot prove it without restoring the article, the page was neutral, did not make any unsourced allegations, and had several (I think seven?) sources from reputable, reliable sources (including Parade, Fox News, etc.). There were also claims made (according to the notices I got on my talk page) against the notability of the topic of the article, and there might be a debate on that, but I believe I gave enough to establish notability. Regardless, that would be a debate, not a speedy criteria. Again, for this to have speedily deleted seems absurd to me. Red Slash 01:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this was deleted on WP:A7, WP:A10, and WP:G10 grounds. I would ask for a temporary undeletion, but if the G10 is correct this is better left to the admins. SportingFlyer T·C 01:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I say below, I don't think this is a defensible G10, but I'm going to hold off a temp restore out of an abundance of caution until at least one other admin looks at it and agrees. —Cryptic 02:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wasn't appreciably different from Survivor: Island of the Idols#Controversy in claims, tone, or sourcing, though the text is quite different. None of the three criteria it was deleted for seem defensible - it's not a G10 because it's not libel or legal threats, there's no reason to think it was intended to harass or intimidate, and - while entirely negative in tone - was not unsourced. It's not an A10, if for no other reason than that it's a valid redirect (as evidenced by the deleting admin immediately recreating it as one). And, while I dearly wish we lived in a world where appearing on Survivor was not a claim of significance and did not generate coverage in reliable sources, we don't, so it's not an A7. Overturn. Editorially, I think redirecting was the right call, but speedy deleting it first isn't defensible. —Cryptic 02:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it's obviously not an A7, and it's not realistically an A10 (redirectable, but there's also a little more background on the guy, and (weirdly?) more details on why he got booted from the show. I don't see libel or legal threats, I don't think it's intended to harass or intimidate, and it's reasonably well sourced. So at least by the text, I don't think G10 applies. I think the article is likely to be redirected as is, since it's almost entirely about the show, but of course others sources may exist to justify a stand-alone article. WilyD 08:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh. We're an encyclopedia, not a supermarket gossip sheet. This whole thing could be adequately covered in a couple of sentences in the main article. But yeah, none of the cited CSD fit, so restore the history under the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After reading Hut 8.5's comment below, I agree, WP:BLP1E applies, and we shouldn't even restore the history. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At least with the listed sources, BLP1E probably does apply here. However, I'm extremely skeptical that it's a problem the material is in the history, when the page is a redirect that sends you to the same material. WilyD 08:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. The amount of space devoted to Spilo in the main article isn't justified either, per WP:UNDUE. Most of that should be revdel'd. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, did you even glance at the page before linking it? It's wholly inapplicable. As far as UNDUE, it's possible that you're right, but I'd also not be surprised if you're wrong, and the scandalous bits are the only bit of Survivor: The 544th iteration that attracts any attention in sources. WilyD 09:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With G10 being invoked (and, while seemingly wrong, not an obvious misclick or something), I suspect we're all very reluctant to undelete without an absolutely clear consensus. If you're worried about an immediately AfD if deleted, the best practice is probably to leave it as a redirect until you have a draft ready to go then go for it. WilyD 06:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A version of the article pre-deletion is on the Wayback Machine, just for the record. There are a bunch of claims that needed to be speedily removed - or speedily referenced - for violating BLP, but the article could have been stubified and I would not consider a Survivor contestant as eligible for A7 deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just in the US, there's been 38 seasons, roughly 20 contestants per season, so 750-ish. Times a bunch of franchises in other countries. So, figure thousands of contestants total. I disagree that being a member of that group of thousands of contestants is a legitimate claim of importance or significance. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is not in and of itself sufficient for notability. I sincerely believe that the vast amounts of independent (non-industry) media coverage of Spilo and his actions have made him notable. I've been an editor for well over a decade at this point; I know the notability policies. Red Slash 18:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but A7 is about significance, not notability. Being a contestant in a very well known work is not enough to make someone notable by default, but it does create enough "importance or significance" that I wouldn't consider it A7-able. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My comment above was narrowly in response the idea that being a Survivor contestant, per-se, disqualifies A7. I agree that A7 doesn't apply to this particular article about this particular contestant. But, if I wrote an article about Sonja Christopher which said nothing beyond she was a contestant on Survivor, that would surely be A7 territory. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having a regular role in a top television show is a CCSI; I don't see why it should be any different for a reality TV show than for a fictional one (since reality TV is fictional anyway). I think CCSI and N should be judged for a Survivor contestant the same as for any actor. – Levivich 06:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's definitely not an A7 and we can argue about G10, but having this article strikes me as a really bad idea. This guy is and is likely to remain a low profile individual and his sole claim to fame is a bunch of incidents of sexual assault, so that's all we can write about in the article. The incident is covered in more than enough depth at Survivor:_Island_of_the_Idols#Controversy and a standalone article on this person is pretty clearly inappropriate per WP:BLP1E. I don't think we should restore it. Hut 8.5 19:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would overturn on the basis that the article does not meet the above mentioned speedy deletion criteria. Being a Survivor contestant itself is not notable, however, being a significant contestant (like for instance winners, or highly regarded contestants like Ozzy Lusth, Coach (Survivor contestant), Russell Hantz, Jeff Varner, Rudy Bosch, Cirie Fields, etc, or someone notable for their actions on a show (like Dan) is notable. That's my opinion regarding Dan. However, I would not oppose to some work being done to the article and then seeing if it can withstand an AFD. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD. Not a G10. Definitely not an A7 or A10. At AfD, I would !vote "delete", it is a fan article, no encyclopedic content, BLP1E, the appropriate place to host this content is https://survivor.fandom.com/wiki/Dan_Spilo. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The article and its sources are terrible. Guy (help!) 00:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well gee, thanks for that. I'm not sure being "terrible" in JzG's opinion is a speedy deletion criterion. Red Slash 14:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse in that the right result is to redirect it to the Survivor page (note: I have been involved in writing that section on that page). There is nothing prior to this season to make Spilo notable, and thus this is clearly a BLP1E situation. A likely search term , so redirect is right. --Masem (t) 23:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's plausible that this is a BLP1E situation. But that is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Red Slash 14:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, I don't see how the speedy as an attack page is valid. The tone in the article, seems similar to detailed international mainstream media reporting that's come out since the DRV started, such as Global Canada CTV Canada (which is not the network that airs it), The Sun, UK, NBC USA (which is NOT the network it airs on) [13] (Fox USA - again not the network it airs on). Could be improved, but speedy not valid. Whether it should be an article, or just a redirect, is something that should be determined elsewhere. Nfitz (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – This is a G10 in my opinion. Almost the entire article disparages the subject, taking what sources report as allegations and stating them as facts in wikivoice, and employing hyperbole to accentuate the negative (for example, does any RS state that he was "forcibly removed" as opposed to "asked to leave"?). Copyedit the article and insert the requisite "allegedly", and you still end up with a BLP1E. Redirect is the right outcome. – Levivich 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the section in the season article is much more nuanced than the separate article, and gives full context. It's appropriate for WP to have the information, but it's not appropriate to highlight it by having a separate article out of context. I consider it a reasonable A10 because of that highlighting. A10 can apply not just because of the content, but because of the way it is presented. (I'm making essentially the same arguement as Levivich, but I read all the material before looking at he comments here) This is an illustration of my general view that A10 (& BLP in general) requires interpretation, not blind adherence to its wording. More than the other speedy categories, it's a matter of intent) DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 December 2019

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

To summarise:

  • Keep !voters were unable to provide policy-based rationales or post sources proving the article met WP:GNG, which Britishfinance's close failed to take into account. (DRVPURPOSE 1)
    • Melcous !voted "weak keep" as a GNG pass in the first AfD (closed as NC) and added quite a few sources. I removed a couple of unreliable ones and gave a detailed rationale in the second nomination statement explaining why the remaining sources don't result in a GNG pass. She reposted her previous reasoning with little consideration of the nomination statement, and pointed out the existence of articles on Footy 9s and Australian Football Harmony Cup as another reason to keep (true, but not relevant to notability as organisations do not inherit notability from events/products they are associated with).
    • Bookscale !voted "weak keep" said there was "enough to just meet GNG" but did not identify any sources to support this.
    • 4meter4 added no reasoning to previous participants' contributions.
    • J947 relisted the discussion twice, recognising no keep !voters had provided any substantial sources.
  • The close was a WP:BADNAC (2), considering the lack of substantial keep !votes and Barkeep49's delete !vote that edit-conflicted with the close.
    • If the !vote had come just one minute earlier, the tally would have been only 3–2 in favour of keep, with two of the keep !votes having no substantive reasoning of their own. (Not to say AfDs are decided by tallies, merely that this is a closer call than the close supposes and should be closed by an admin).
    • Britishfinance admitted they would have found no consensus if Barkeep's !vote stood, and has also acknowledged the discussion was a "borderline case".

This close should either be overturned to no consensus, reclosed by an admin, or reopened to allow Barkeep's !vote to be posted and further discussion to take place (or some combination of the three). – Teratix ₵ 13:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has spent 6 continual weeks at AfD without a single Delete !vote (nominated twice in short succession, and then relisted twice each time by the nom).
  • All !votes were Keep or Weak Keep, and they explicitly acknowledged that their !vote took in the borderline nature of the AfD (Per the talk page discussion above, WP:BASIC does allow them to consider non-trivial mentions is related RS as contributing to GNG).
  • Per the AfD talk page discussion, I mused on an NC close, but felt it would be too much of a WP:SUPERVOTE given there was no single Delete in the 6 weeks (combined) at AfD, and explicit consideration by the Keeps on the nature of their !vote.
  • Barkeep49 did not !vote in any of the AfDs, and to re-open for them to add a Delete !vote post-closing, I think we would at least need the agreement of the other participants: 4meter4, Bookscale, and Melcous as a courtesy; however, I was waiting for them to reply on the Talk page.
  • I am not sure what the benefit of trying to re-open this AfD is given there is no consensus to Delete it, and it has been re-nominated twice in succession? I suggested to the nom that they should have opted for a merge post the 1st re-list, but their response on the talk page indicated that they are not being objective with regard to this topic/AfD.
Hope that helps explain, thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note WP:BASIC applies to people, not organisations; organisations are covered by WP:NCORP, which is stricter and I believe does not allow the "combine coverage from multiple independent sources" defence
  • To not allow Barkeep to add a !vote you admitted would change the outcome of the discussion and would have been posted mere seconds or minutes after your close seems extremely unfair (and speaks volumes as to the fragility of the supposed keep consensus if one !vote was sufficient to sway the decision). – Teratix ₵ 14:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "not allow Barkeep49 add a !vote" - per the talk page, I made it clear to Barkeep49 that I had misread them as implying they were going to "close" the AfD as a Delete (which I would not have really agreed with on the basis of a SUPERVOTE). Nobody is trying to be "unfair" with you here; you have engaged the community at AfD for 6 weeks with no support to Delete(not one !vote), and !votes from at least one experienced AfD participant, who are fully aware of the borderline nature of the case. Britishfinance (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Endorse Even if the delete !vote had been allowed, it would have been closed as no consensus. This is a complete waste of time. We have already wasted six weeks on this. Enough is enough. Smartyllama (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, DRVs aren't closed early unless nominations are clearly in bad faith, the nominator withdraws the nomination, or the closer decides they completely blew it. WilyD 16:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - sure, a weak keep might've been appropriate, but it's been at AfD for six weeks; an immediate renomination is would be getting tendentious, so - fine. Sources are ... weak, but not so weak that a closer can substitute their own judgement; if most people are happy enough with them, then they're adequate. I'm not super-sympathetic that after six weeks across two AfDs, someone decided to chuck in a comment but found it was already closed (and really, I see no evidence their !vote would've meaningfully changed the outcome. Barkeep doesn't appear to have prepared some in depth analysis that would've tilted far away from a headcount on an article with plausible but not slam dunk sources.) WilyD 16:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closure as Keep. This is a clear case of bludgeoning the deletion process by the nominator/appellant. After one AFD didn't succeed, another was submitted, and that one also didn't succeed. The apparent purpose of this appeal is to change the result to No Consensus to permit a third AFD earlier. There isn't an error by the closer that warrants continuing to try to get the article deleted. Just leave it alone. This isn't WP:AN, but a topic-ban on the nominator from deletion discussions of this article (just this article) may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Not a single user has !voted delete over six weeks and two AfDs, and Barkeep49's vote doesn't change the outcome. This DRV smacks of trying to get the article deleted on a technicality as opposed to any sort of error by the closer, a non-admin who made a very easy close. I'm in the "enough is enough" crowd. SportingFlyer T·C 18:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I was pinged, either have it overturned to no consensus or kept as is. Either way it doesn't really matter. I relisted it in hope that the 'keep' !voters would expand upon their vote and react to Teratix's concerns, as that is good practice. J947 (c), at 22:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 December 2019

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

@Dream Focus: stated that the article, whose AFD was closed without comment, met WP:LISTPURP because enough articles on individual Marvel dimensions exist to provide navigational value for the list, which should have rendered moot any delete argument based on dearth of sources that talk about the concept as a group. The other five delete arguments are either based on essays (which can't be used to delete articles) or fail WP:ATA (WP:IDL and WP:PERX). The aforementioned fact that the AFD was closed without comment prevented this issue from being directly addressed. ミラP 01:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - While an extremely poor article, Features of the Marvel Universe#Extradimensional places covers the topic already, so the list is particularly redundant even disregarding its other issues. TTN (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't going to take a position on this drv, but that statement's... just... boggling. The deleted list covered these dimensions (or universes, or whatever) primarily in terms of this universe - the fictional places' series, issue, date, and authorship of first publication, with a brief in-universe description on about half the entries. The list you're describing as superior has almost exclusively the latter. —Cryptic 02:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of those details particularly matter if we're arguing the list is unneeded in the first place. Prettying up an unnecessary list doesn't give it purpose. If the justification of this DRV is that blue links = list, then that list already covers the topic adequately. TTN (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there were arguments on both sides regarding whether the list was valid for navigation, and a consensus to delete, so selecting this particular position would have been a supervote. Correct close. SportingFlyer T·C 06:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse 3 out of 4 keep/merge votes were WP:JUSTAVOTE (which is to be discounted as an argument not to use in AfDs) without even explaining why at all. Properly judged and closed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jovanmilic97: WP:JUSTAVOTE is listed at WP:ATA alongside WP:PERX and WP:IDL, so the delete votes I mentioned should have also been discounted for failing WP:ATA if it was applied to any of the keep votes. ミラP 22:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the worst things about Wikipedia deletion processes is ATA, an essay that consists entirely of a list of things that some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say. The fact that an argument is listed at ATA doesn't mean that argument should be disregarded by the closer. But the mere votes without reasoning or analysis carry no weight. I'm concerned by what Cryptic says above, that this deleted content is superior to our current coverage of the same topic in another article. We might benefit from restoring this list to draft to enable some merging.—S Marshall T/C 11:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Cryptic is arguing in the opposite direction. Thincat (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse DRV's purpose, in this article's case, is to contest the closing of a deletion discussion, not to muse if the content should be kept in one way or the other elsewhere. There is no other way this particular discussion could have been closed, given the provided rationales. I note that Miraclepine is happy to discount all the delete !votes as being inadequate, but fails to mention that 3/4 of the keep !votes offer exactly zero to the discussion and were likely disregarded as mere votes. Correct interpretation of consensus. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RetiredDuke: I am contest[ing] the closing of a deletion discussion, because the closer left no extra comment and failed to address the navigation argument. I did not mention the keep votes because I figured that the closer would disregard them regardless of comment. ミラP 22:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse three of the four Keep !votes have no rationale at all and it's reasonable to downweight those. The argument that the list has navigational value didn't go down well in the discussion and I'm not that surprised, few of the entries in the list had any sort of link and even fewer linked to standalone articles (many links just went to Features of the Marvel Universe). The deleted page is a 15 KB table listing these "dimensions" without going into detail about them, I think any merge would have to be very selective. I wouldn't be opposed to restoring it to draft space if someone has a serious proposal for one though. Hut 8.5 16:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, delete !voters don't necessarily need to address arguments put forward by keep !voters to achieve consensus. Delete !voters provided policy/guideline based rationales for deletion, including after arguments were made to be kept. The consensus here seems clear to me and was properly interpreted by the closer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I do not see reversible error. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- It seems Miraclepine wants to chuck out all the delete votes for citing essays they agree with, while treating the unsubstantiated "keepormerge" votes that get copy-pasted onto every AfD with extreme reverence. Consensus was very clear here and the closing administrator got it right. Reyk YO! 12:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer, Jovanmilic97, RetiredDuke, Hut 8.5, Barkeep49, Robert McClenon, and Reyk: I'm not suggesting that it should have been kept. I'm suggesting that so many votes on both sides used an amount of essays (which, as this AFD shows, can't be used to decide whether or not to keep/delete an article) to the point that it should have caused the AFD to be either closed as no consensus or relisted. ミラP 03:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're suggesting, and I disagree. I don't think any of us are arguing the article should have been kept - we're reviewing whether delete was a proper close given the circumstances. From what I can tell, you're asking us to discount all of the !votes bar one because they cite essays, but I disagree. Only one delete !vote directly cites an essay, and while you're correct they're not policy, essays are often cited at AfDs and taken into consideration with the close. This is a par-for-the-course AfD, and the delete close was a proper reading of the consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 03:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer and Barkeep49: (edit conflict) Let's dissect the six delete votes.
2 is based on WP:FANCRUFT which is an essay, period.
3 is WP:PERX which fails WP:ATA.
4, 5, and 6, aren't directly based on policy, guideline, or even essay.
There was only one valid vote based on a guideline (WP:LISTN), but even that one was addressed by an equally valid keep vote which brought up another avenue to that guideline: blue-links.
The AFD therefore should've been a deadlock at best. ミラP 03:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I see the delete !voters advancing a policy based reason for why it's not notable. The inclusion by one of an essay merely offers a shortcut to their POV of how policy applies in this circumstance. As such I do see both policy based discussion and enough participants that neither criteria for a relist is met. I've addressed above why I think the delete consensus, rather than no consensus, was the correct close of this AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 December 2019

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

The closer wrote that the Keep comments "only assert but do not identify sources, and therefore must be given less weight." That is simply untrue: I gave three sources, with links to them, and the proposed deletion was even delisted to generate further discussion of my sources. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the closer didn't read the debate. He certainly hadn't addressed the sources or given due weight to them, and so the proper procedure has not been followed. Richard75 (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of reference, the three sources I listed were [14], [15] and [16]. Richard75 (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A huge problem with two of the sources (London and the book) are that one is a blog, and second is a Pedia book from Wikipedia users apparently, making both unreliable. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comment. I'd certainly have been willing to discuss a relisting with Richard75 to allow the AfD to discuss these sources in more detail – if they had contacted me prior to making this review request, as per the instructions. But they did not. So I have to endorse my own closure based on the AfD as it stood at the time of closing. I was in fact imprecise when I wrote that "the" keep opinions did not identify sources: those other than Richard75 did not. This does not change that there was consensus for deletion based on the number and quality of the arguments made: only Richard75 made a policy-based, substantiated case for keeping the article. Sandstein 09:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A tough one. I think only Richard from the Keep side gave some an actual argument (and did offer sources). Being a "subject of several graphic novels" does not matter per WP:NOTINHERITED. The sources and the 1st gay character in British comic books angle didn't seem to convince a lot of editors that participated. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The sources presented during the AfD seem to have received little (or almost completely no) attention so I guess they were ignored rather than found not convincing. I think they could well have been found sufficient. It is a real pity Richard did not seek to discuss this with Sandstein who should have been given a chance to review their close and in this case might have done so. An alternative is to write a completely new article because I suspect (without seeing it) the deleted one may be not at all useful as a starting point. Thincat (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-blame relist. If we can spend a little energy to find some sourcing and keep the article I think that would be ideal. I felt the discussion showed that the character had some claim to notability and that sourcing was available. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist the closing statement definitely isn't fair to Richard75, who did present concrete examples of sources. Two of these clearly aren't suitable but the other one may be. If you want an article to be deleted on notability grounds and someone comes up with sources then you need to address those sources instead of ignoring them or baldly asserting there aren't any. Hut 8.5 12:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The Artful reveiw listed by Richard75 is an excellant source, and no one favoring delete engaged with it. The London Particualr would be excellant, if only it had ben reliably published, but as it stands it is unusable. But with these out there, it seems likely that others will exist, and WP:V quite specifically allows "Sources probably exist" so that argumetn should not have ben discounted. Alternativly, allow draftification if Richard75 or another editor intends to devote significant effort to this. That would allow plenty of time for research into sources, possibly off-line. Another 1 or two sources comperable to the Artful piece would be sufficient, I would think, to establish notability and insert the analysis that editors in the AfD complained was lacking. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I don't think that I agree with the closer, but I don't see a reversible error by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – Only one source that was even arguably GNG-satisfying was presented, and it was the Artful essay. The other two sources were a blog and a Wikipedia book. Aside from that one Artful essay, all keep !votes were properly discounted by the closer. "Sources must exist" is a !vote that is properly discounted, as are "!keep, [claim of importance]", such as "first X...". I don't view the Artful essay as requiring a second relist. First, it's a trade publication, weak for establishing notability because of the narrow audience. Second, it's just one source, and as a delete !voter said, Only a single source seems to be of any importance, but that's not enough for an article. Even if the AfD were relisted a second time, and all the delete !voters agreed that the Artful essay satisfied GNG, the result would still be delete, because we'd need at least two sources to satisfy GNG. The final reason why delete was right here is that if a second GNG source is found, the article can just be recreated, and it won't be a G4 due to the new sources. So no harm in leaving it deleted (no harm if it were REFUNDed to draft or userspace either), whereas a second relisting would have been a waste of time. Therefore, I endorse the closer's discounting of votes and read of consensus. The consensus was: there aren't two GNG sources out there. – Levivich 20:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Sandstein may have been slightly mistaken in closing the AfD with that verbiage, but there's no actual error in the close. Of the sources found by Richard75, one appears to be a blog and the other says "Editor: By Wikipedians" on its front page, and a consensus to delete existed, so I can't vote for on overturn in any circumstance. SportingFlyer T·C 23:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Not a Supervote. This is one that Sandstein got right Lightburst (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Our of three sources presented in the end by the keep side, the book is good but offers only 2-3 sentences; a paragraph if you really want to be charitable. Then there is a 'digital newsletter' ([17], borderline RS) and a blog, the latter not acceptable. That's not sufficient, through if one-two more good sources like the first two were found, I might be convinved to withdraw my nom. I'd be ok with this becoming a soft delete and redirect, though. (ping User:Sandstein for a consideration of this outcome). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: the article at www.theartful.co.uk isn't a digital newsletter. The website does publish a digital newsletter (here it is), but the article I linked to isn't part of that, it's part of the website itself (list of articles here). Richard75 (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The book is not good; it's a Wikipedia book, by Wikipedia Editors (see the first page of the book), published by PediaPress. Those are Wikipedia articles in the book; they are not a reliable source and cannot establish notability. – Levivich 06:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've temp undeleted to fascilitate this discussion. WilyD 10:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - yeah, so here's where I'm at: the only worthwhile source mentioned wasn't mentioned until the very last comment, and it's of plausible but not completely obvious quality (but, quite in depth). I wouldn't be opposed to a re-open on that grounds. But I'm skeptical it's likely to be enough, alone. It'd be far better if someone took ownership of finding at least one or two more worthwhile sources, and it were userified to enable that (but that, of course, can't be forced). WilyD 12:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. DRV is to review the close - not to make further examinations. Not only wasn't the book source not challenged during the AFD, even a delete comment, acknowledged it was a good source. The final source wasn't even challenged by anyone. The closing statement that "do not address this, or only assert but do not identify sources" is clearly false, given all the identification and discussion of sources that went on. This suggests the the person who closed it, didn't actually read the discussion, which raises a lot of questions. Further discussion after closure does indicate an issue with the first source, but that's irrelevant for the sake of a review - as would be finding more sources. Perhaps this editor needs to stop closing AFDs - I can understand missing one response with a source, but there were three different responses over the course of the discussion providing sources - there's no excusing missing three comments! Nfitz (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2019 (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.
Draft:Bass Drops Music Visualizer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The draft page was rejected for being contrary to purpose of Wikipedia and speedily deleted for G3 for vandalism. 36.81.233.137 (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes it was. I suppose speedying it for being patent nonsense and copyright infringement might've been clearer, but "vandalism"'s defensible. —Cryptic 01:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. If not WP:G3, or WP:G1, then WP:G2 (test pages) or maybe WP:G11. The point is, this has zero chance of going anywhere without a complete rewrite from scratch. I've tempundeleted it. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the criteria, G1 explicitly says it doesn't apply to to this, G3 is pretty clear, and although G2 requires you know the motive, it's too much text to plausibly be a test. But, I think, since it explicitly compares two products at the start then proceeds to trash one, and there's zero worthwhile content, G11 probably can be applied. WilyD 06:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WP:IAR - Deletion review is the most process-wonky, by the book place around here - but je m'en calisse, there's no way I can support undeleting that, even if it's a stretch to make it fit any speedy deletion criterion. WilyD 06:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse honestly my first thought was that this was automated word salad turned out by a spambot in order to embed links in it, except there aren't any. It's not a clean fit for any speedy deletion criterion but it should be clearly be deleted and I don't think G1 is much of a stretch. Hut 8.5 12:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G3. I'm not going to debate the finer points of whether having section titles that are sentences takes this out of G1 territory or not, but this checks the "vandalism - yes" box, or rather scribbles all over it. The edit summary adds a little doodle of a cherry on top. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly endorse G3 I don't like "streching" any CSD, and there isn't or should be any such thing as IAR speedy deletion. But "vandalism" is content posted with intent to harm the projedct, qand it is hard to argue mthat this can possibly be intended to help. It really should havbe been brought to MfD, where I would certianly have suported deletion. If this actually is a copyright issue as Cryptic hints above, the source should be stated and that would then be clearcut, as speedy deletions should be. WilyD's argument for G11 has some weight also. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on overturning the speedy deletion. Rejection was warranted. I am not sure what this page is, but it is not a draft, and it is stupid, and it should be deleted at MFD if it goes to MFD. This is not MFD, and I am not sure that any speedy criterion applies. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – Man, I've been fearless and tried to read this multiple times. It's not G3, it's G10. Or, maybe it's G11. I'm pretty sure it's attacking the subject of the article and not promoting it, but then I remember the days when "bad" meant "good" so I may be misreading the slang. It's one or the other though, and while we could update the deletion rationale in the log as "G10 or G11, depending on whether, e.g., 'spit it' is a positive or negative expression", but with this article, what's the point? – Levivich 21:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse WP:G3 certainly qualifies as a reason for deletion here and even arguendo it doesn't, there are other speedies that could apply (G10 in particular.) Not suitable for even draft space. SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G3 This is nonsensical garbage that belongs on 4chan or Reddit, not in an encyclopedia. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 December 2019

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

This was speedy deleted A7 some time ago. The deleting admin User:Just Chilling has not edited since July so I have not tried to resolve with them. I recently noticed that this artist has an entry (albeit short) in Mitchell, The Dictionary of British Equestrian Artists. That would have been enough to overcome an A7 if it had been known at the time. I don't intend to do much with this page (other than add the source) but an alternative to a standalone article would be to repurpose as a page on the Clark family of artists, of which there were a large number all doing animal portraits. Many of them have entries in the source I cited above. SpinningSpark 17:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wigwagcreative: (original page creator) SpinningSpark 17:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore I don't think the deleted version is a great A7, to be honest. While the prose doesn't contain anything which particularly indicates he was successful or anything like that it did link to a few sources including [18] which suggests he is a significant artist. Even apart from that I don't see a problem with restoring it if someone wants to improve it. Hut 8.5 17:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wigwagcreative never did anything besides creating this and William Albert Clark (AfD discussion) in September 2015, so I don't know what you expect pinging them to accomplish. The only person involved with this page who's still active is User:DGG.
    If you don't expect to do anything besides add a source, I've got to endorse. This hagiography didn't make even a smirking nod toward NPOV; while there's sentences that could survive unchanged in a minimally-acceptably-neutral article, no whole paragraphs would. It might or might not have gotten deleted if tagged G11 depending who was watching CAT:CSD that day, but there's no way it wouldn't have been speedy draftified, and I'm actually kind of dumbfounded you would want to restore it in that state. —Cryptic 17:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a few stray adjectives, but this isn't written in a promotional style. It's just a bullet-point biography. That DGG didn't tag it as G11 is probably the strongest proof possible that the tag would be wholly inapplicable. WilyD 17:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore The statement in the deleted version that Albert regularly painted portraits of the show’s prize winning animals is a weak claim of significance, but together with the entry in The Dictionary of British Equestrian Artists I think it is enough. I will commit to removing promotional language if this is restored. A separate page on the family might be a good idea, but that is not for this forum. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There truly is nothing in the article that indicate[s] why its subject is important or significant. I probably would have brought this to AfD instead of using A7, but I can't really fault the A7 call. If somebody wants to write a new article about the subject, I'm fine with that. If they want the current text userfied, I'm OK with that too, but honestly, I think WP:TNT would be better. Not to mention that it was created by a literal WP:SPA, who, based on the username, is probably a PR agency, possibly https://www.wigwag.co.uk/creative. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've temp-undeleted for discussion. WilyD 06:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the A7. There is a credible claim of significance, and that is sufficient to overturn the speedy deletion. History is a noise filter. If there is existing documentation of someone who lived more than a century ago, that is a credible claim of significance. Not expressing an opinion at this time as to biographical notability, which will be the issue at AFD, but we aren't at AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn WP:A7 clearly does not apply once you get past the lede. I'm not sure it survives an AfD, though, and would recommend restoring and then taking to AfD to discuss its overall notability and the COI discussed by RoySmith. SportingFlyer T·C 23:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn WP:A7 was not the proper course. And if the Spinning Spark is a very competent editor and AfD participant. If they think there is a problem, so do I. Lightburst (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, allow recreation - the A7 deletion was perfectly in order, the only sources were galleries selling his paintings, which does nothing for significance. Painting prize winning animals is not an assertion of significance - like, any number of people could be doing that. But an entry in The Dictionary of British Equestrian Artists is enough to overcome A7. Probably not enough for AfD on it's own, but a strong indication there're enough additional sources for anyone who feels the need to improve the article. WilyD 17:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn – A 19th-century artist who is in a gallery, whose work has sold at auction, and/or who is in a reputable dictionary of artists, gets over the A7 line. No comment on whether they are actually notable or not. I don't see the article as being so promotional as to qualify for G11 either. – Levivich 14:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 December 2019

[edit]

11 December 2019

[edit]

10 December 2019

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

The criteria for deletion was blatant advertising. We have taken appropriate measures to ensure All advertising aspects have been removed. The page is purely for information purposes. AshVaidya (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 December 2019

[edit]

8 December 2019

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sydney New Year's Eve 2008–09 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The only reasons given for deletion were along the lines of there being "nothing worthwhile", which is not a Wikipedia policy or a reason for deletion - it seems like they are just alternatives to saying "I don't like it" or something along those lines. The article was sourced and showed there was widespread media coverage of the event. It met GNG. Even if there was some kind of consensus to incorporate the article into the main Sydney New Years' Eve page, deletion was not the answer - the sourced content should be merged into the main article at the relevant point. Bookscale (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)I am withdrawing this as I will put the sources into the main NYE article. Bookscale (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2019 (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.
Draft:Allen Matkins (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

From the closing admin's talk page:

Discussion with closing admin

Hi Ad Orientem. I am writing to you regarding your AfD close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis. No AfD participants commented specifically about the sources I found. I would like to follow the suggestion of the only AfD participant who commented after I provided the sources, who supported deletion "due [to] its state as WP:CORPSPAM" and who said "That's not to say someone can't re-create the article, properly sourced, and which establishes its notability, possibly using offline sources." I would like to stubify and recreate the article with the sources I found. Is that permitted by your AfD close? Would you move Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis to Draft:Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis? Cunard (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @ Cunard I've draftified the page and the talk page. However it is not to be moved back into the mainspace w/o approval from WP:AfC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for draftifying the page. Wikipedia:Articles for creation says, "The Articles for Creation process is intended to assist new editors in creating articles. Articles are created as drafts which are then submitted for review."

I am not a new editor. I do not have a conflict with the subject. Would you explain why recreation must require approval from WP:AFC? Why am I not permitted to move the draft back to mainspace when I believe it is ready?

Cunard (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cunard... Because the article was just deleted at AfD and yours was the only comment favoring keeping it. I want another set of eyes on that page before it is moved back into the mainspace. Absent that, this could be reasonably seen as an end run around AfD. Sorry but that is a condition of my draftifying the page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the draft. At the AfD, I presented some offline sources that I noted I did not have access to. I requested the sources from Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and have used them in the draft rewrite.

Allen Matkins represented Blackstone Real Estate in Blackstone's $43 billion purchase of Equity Office Properties Trust (now called EQ Office). It has the largest group of real estate attorneys in California, which aside from the federal government of the United States was then the biggest owner of office area.

The closing admin wrote that approval from WP:AFC "is a condition of my draftifying the page". I am not listing the article at AfC since it is generally used by new editors and editors with a conflict of interest. I am instead listing at DRV to ask the community for permission to restore the article.

Restore to Allen Matkins or Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis.

Cunard (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow restoration sources in the article show it meets NCORP, which isn't surprising as it's a major US commercial real estate law firm. – Levivich 06:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should have listed the article at AfC. I have no idea why you have such a dim view of it. The article still feels heavily promotional to me, and I can't access the sources to confirm WP:NCORP is met, so I'm not sure I would have accepted it. SportingFlyer T·C 08:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation in mainspace. I have no opinion about the outcome of the AfD or the article itself. I'm commenting here narrowly on the requirement to get an AfC review. Effectively, Ad Orientem has salted the title. Looking at WP:SALT, I don't see that this meets the criteria for salting, which is, for bad articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. If the participants in the AfD felt the need for salting, they would have said so, and then the close could have reasonably included that. That's not the case here. Sometimes I'll salt a title as part of a close even if it wasn't explicitly mentioned, if it's clear that the salting criteria apply. That's not the case either. Also, looking at WP:DRAFTS, it says, If you are logged in, creating a Draft version first is optional. So, this idea of requiring an AfC review before an established editor can re-create a non-salted title has no justification that I can see. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really do not see any problem with requiring an article to pass AfC before it gets recreated in mainspace. This article was deleted on WP:NCORP concerns, and looking at the sources, I'm not sure which WP:THREE would allow it to survive another AfD. The title is not salted and there is nothing preventing the user from creating the article straight into mainspace, and it would likely survive a WP:G4, but it would also likely be taken straight back to AfD on WP:NCORP grounds, which is a waste of everyone's time. AfC can take awhile true, but I've pretty much always provided a review on request if pinged on my talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 01:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not restore still fails WP:NCORP. I cannot access the vast majority of the articles, but many of the types of sources used in the article tend to be written off company press releases, are closely related to the company, or are not significant coverage of the company (ie so and so gets hired.) Happy to review WP:THREE, though. SportingFlyer T·C 01:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, and forbid re-creation in mainspace without meeting WP:THREE. I read a promotional company summary that is WP:Reference bombed. It was properly deleted at AfD, to reverse that, a proponent should be required to show three (not more than three) notability-attesting, WP:CORP-meeting, sources. When that is done, put it through AfC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 10 pending DRVs right now, and 3,475 pending AfCs, why in the world would we ever send anyone to go stand in the queue with 3,475 articles to seek recreation, rather than having that done at DRV, where the queue is 10? Why would we add to AfC's workload like that, when we are perfectly capable of handling it here? – Levivich 02:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because this DRV fails WP:DRVPURPOSE. At best it falls under #3, but this isn't "significant new information," it's just an article that was deleted, draftifyed, and then improved. The options were either take it to AfC to ensure it gets peer reviewed and will pass another deletion discussion, or be bold and create the article knowing there will likely be another deletion discussion. DRV is for reviewing errors in the deletion process, and but this DRV is essentially AfD part two. SportingFlyer T·C 04:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is absolutely normal for an editor to come to DRV for permission to recreate a draft said to be improved, to avoid possible G4 deletions. I have participated in quite a few such discussions. If WP:DRVPURPOSE doesn't explictly specify that as a valid reason for a nom, it should, becauae that has been teh standing practice for years. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow recreation in mainspace and trout admin AfC isn't a required process nor should it be. There was no basis for WP:SALT, so yeah, this is just an out-of-policy decision. Nothing prevents another AfD (or speedy if someone feels it qualifies as a recreation). I'll admit I'm not thrilled with the sources in the article, but that's AfD's job, not AfC. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Here are three sources about Allen Matkins:
    1. Pritchard, John, ed. (2007). The Legal 500 United States: The World's Largest Legal Referral Guide. London: The Legal 500. pp. 688, 692, 697–698. ISBN 978-1-906854-06-5. Retrieved 2019-12-09.

      Click on each page numbers' link to see the text.

      This is a new source that was not presented at the AfD.

    2. Armstrong, Jason W. (2011-02-23). "Riding the real estate roller coaster: an inside look at how Allen Matkins rode the industry's highs and lows and retained its leadership position". The Los Angeles Daily Journal. 124 (36). Daily Journal Corporation. ISSN 0362-5575.
    3. Randazzo, Sara (2010-11-23). "In cross-complaint, equity fund disparages Allen Matkins' work". The Los Angeles Daily Journal. 123 (227). Daily Journal Corporation. ISSN 0362-5575.
    Sources with quotes
    1. Pritchard, John, ed. (2007). The Legal 500 United States: The World's Largest Legal Referral Guide. London: The Legal 500. pp. 688, 692, 697–698. ISBN 978-1-906854-06-5. Retrieved 2019-12-09.

      The book notes in the editor's note: "The Legal 500 United States is a guide to 'the best of the best' - the pre-eminent firms in the world's strongest and most competitive markets." The book notes in the introduction:

      The Legal 500 United States is a guide to commercial law firms in the US.

      Each chapter falls into two distinct parts: the editorial section and the directory section. The editorial section is a mixture of factual information and commentary. ...

      All editorial comments and listings are completely independent and no firm has been able to secure its inclusion within the editorial sections through payment.

      The directory section is made up of professional cards based on information supplied by the firms and approved by them prior to publication.

      Allen Matkins appears in the editorial section and not in the directory section.

      The book notes on page 688:

      Allen Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Mallory LLP is described as "one of the best" for land use matters.

      The firm acted as lead land use lawyers for Google in respect of the negotiation of a 40-year lease over 40 acres of unimproved land from NASA, and the entitlement of up to 1.2m sq ft of offices and research and development facilities. The practice provided strategic advice regarding NEPA and CEQA compliance and assisted in-house counsel in managing the legal team and liasing with the business team.

      [three more paragraphs]

      The book provides two paragraphs about Allen Matkins' "representation of builders and homeowners" on page 692.

      The book notes on pages 697–698:

      "The best real estate law firm, pound-for-pound in the business", Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP's 91-attorney Southern California real estate practice has a superlative reputation in the region. Strong on both the transactional and financial sides, the group is recognized in particular for its expertise in the representation of developers.

      For example, the firm represented Lincoln Property and ASB Capital Management in connection with the acquisition, financing, development and leasing of the Campus at Playa Vista. Work included advising on the acquisition of approximately 15 acres of developable land and nearly 1m square feet of FAR, an acquisition loan, a construction loan and a 600,000 sq ft lease to Fox Media Interactive. This has been one of the highest-profile developments in Southern California over the past 25 years.

    2. Armstrong, Jason W. (2011-02-23). "Riding the real estate roller coaster: an inside look at how Allen Matkins rode the industry's highs and lows and retained its leadership position". The Los Angeles Daily Journal. 124 (36). Daily Journal Corporation. ISSN 0362-5575.

      The article is 43 paragraphs long (with 12 of those paragraphs about other law firms with real estate practices). The article notes:

      With the state's largest dedicated group of real estate attorneys, Allen Matkins long has been considered a leading force in California's commercial real estate industry. The Daily Journal sat down with the firm's leadership to assess how it has navigated the wild swings in the market over the past few years, to serve as a barometer of sorts for the state's legal real estate industry.

      ...

      The firm also has seen huge transactions fall apart. In October, Natsis, partner Michael McFadden and associate Crystal Lofing represented an investor consortium known as California First in its purchase of 11 state office properties for $2.3 billion, which would have been the top deal in the U.S. last year had it closed as scheduled.

      ...

      At the height of the boom, Allen Matkins was at the heart of a rash of giant portfolio acquisition deals. Those included one that grabbed headlines across the nation: Natsis' representation of Blackstone Real Estate in the mammoth private equity firm's $43 billion acquisition of Equity Office Properties Trust, which at the time was the largest owner of office space in the U.S. other than the federal governnment.

    3. Randazzo, Sara (2010-11-23). "In cross-complaint, equity fund disparages Allen Matkins' work". The Los Angeles Daily Journal. 123 (227). Daily Journal Corporation. ISSN 0362-5575.

      The article is 14 paragraphs long. The article notes:

      Problems with Allen Matkins first arose when Burlingame Capital counter-sued Qmect in a state court action Qmect filed against the investment firm. Burlingame Capital accused Allen Matkins attorneys of failing to serve a crucial defendant with a copy of the complaint, leading to the dismissal of the defendant from the case. Burlingame Capital asserts it never authorized Allen Matkins to drop the defendant, Basem Zakariya, and that the omission meant the Judsons could not collect on a $4.8 million judgment awarded by the court.

      The next alleged error came during the bankruptcy of Kids Connection, when Allenn Matkins failed to obtain the appointment of a court-appointed trustee on behalf of Burlingame Capital, which was a creditor in the bankruptcy. That led to the continued failure of Burlingame Capital to collect on the $4.8 million judgment in the earlier case, even as the company spent another $1.5 million on legal fees.

      ...

      Throughout Allen Matkins' representation of Burlingame Capital, which ended in July 2009, the Judsons claim the firm regularly used deceptive billing practices to inflate and pad their bills.

      The cross-complaint details what Burlingame Capital views as five methods Allen Matkins attorneys used to charge unconsionable fees for their work, including overstaffing their matters, charging "impossible and improbable amounts of time" for tasks completed, charging to correct their own mistakes, and sending duplicative bills for the same task.

    Regarding The Los Angeles Daily Journal, this 1985 article in the Los Angeles Times notes (bolding added for emphasis):

    The Los Angeles Daily Journal, along with the legal community it covers, has grown up.

    Three years shy of its centennial anniversary, the Daily Journal, with a statewide circulation of 21,000, is the largest newspaper in the nation serving the legal community. Most observers also consider it the best.

    The five-day-a-week newspaper, which sells for 25 cents, has become required reading not only for lawyers and judges but also for public officials, journalists and others who need to know about changes in law and local government.

    According to this 1997 article in The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Daily Journal is "a century-old staple for lawyers and judges", and Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway acquired The Los Angeles Daily Journal in 1977 in an investment fund he controlled with Rick J.P. Guerin. Munger is the chairman of The Los Angeles Daily Journal's parent company Daily Journal Corporation.

    Cunard (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I would have preferred to recreate the article directly instead of list the draft at WP:DRV or WP:AFC. But I decided to respect the closing admin's instruction that I not recreate the article myself. WP:AFC says, "The Articles for Creation process is intended to assist new editors in creating articles." I am not a new editor so I do not think AfC is the right process for this article to go through.

    I do not consider the article to be promotional. But I welcome comments about which parts of the article are promotional.

    Cunard (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • “WP:AFC says, "The Articles for Creation process is intended to assist new editors in creating articles."
      That, is a lie.
      AfC is for waylaying inept spammers of promotion and junk. However, AfC is, I think, a good option for a quick re-creation of an AfD-deleted topic with a promotional concern. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - G4 clearly doesn't apply to the new draft, so there's no cause to prevent someone from creating a new article. If someone genuinely believes the new draft fails WP:N, they're free to avail themselves of Af. Attempts to forbid main-space recreation unless it meets some editors personal standards are incredibly inappropriate. WilyD 13:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have read the above discussion and after looking at the page, I am satisfied that it is sufficiently different from the deleted version that recreation should not be precluded. Some concerns have been expressed and editors are free to send the new page to AfD. Further, some have suggested that I was attempting to de-facto SALT the article. I respectfully disagree. Cunard requested that I userfy the page, which is not required but is often done on a courtesy basis, and is almost always regarded as within the discretion of the deleting admin. I chose to do so requiring only that the page be reviewed at AfC before being moved back into the mainspace. My reason for this is that Cunard was the only editor favoring keeping the original article at the AfD discussion and I wanted a second set of eyes on any revised page before it was sent back into the mainspace. That is hardly salting and I do not believe it an especially onerous requirement. It is also one that I have imposed on other similar occasions w/o controversy. If there is a consensus here that I have exceeded the bounds of administrator discretion by making userfication of deleted articles conditional on this or some similar requirement, then I apologize. In the future I will avoid such controversy by declining all requests for userfication except in those cases where there is a clear consensus for that outcome in the AfD discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but this feels more than a bit like "I'll take my ball home if you won't let me do what I want". You have discretion on userfication. And you can take that ball home if you feel it's appropriate. But yes, requiring AfC before you do so does exceed your authority. "However it is not to be moved back into the mainspace w/o approval from WP:AfC." is just a bit too much of an imperial decree. I don't think that's within an admin's remit. Hobit (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been a huge fan of userfication except when the AfD calls for it, which is one of the reasons I typically make it conditional. So yeah; I am taking my ball home. There is no shortage of other admins who are fine with userfying deleted articles. But I am no longer one of them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough though sorry to hear it. Hobit (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. So we'll be needing yet another rule, then, about when it's appropriate to be obstructive about userspace copies of deleted material to good faith accounts in good standing. Off the top of my head, I think copyvios and BLP issues no, everything else yes. Sysops are elected to help appropriate content get written.—S Marshall T/C 03:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow restoration. AfC ois not, and never should be, mandatory. Any autoconfirmed user can create a title in mainspace, or move a title to mainspace from userspace or draft space, unless the title has been salted, or is sufficiently similar to a previously deleted article that G4 applies. This has not been salted, and IMO is not sufficiently similar for G4 to apply. It is not, and should not be, within the authority of an AfD closer to require additional conditions for a new version, or a return from draft. Of course, being moved to mainspace it is available for a new AfD if anyone chooses to nominate it, which going thoguh AfC might make less likley (or doing more work while out of mainspace). I express no view on how this would fair at a hypothetical future AfD, but if an editor chooses to run that risk. s/he is free to. Trout closer for trying to impose a rule without any consensus for such a policy. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow restoration -- there's no reason to use AfC. I've rejected/deleted many law firm articles at AfC or NPP on the grounds of clear and obvious promotionalism--they typically resemble an advertisement listing cases where they managed to get their clients large amounts of money.. The current article in draft is not in that class. It's a straightforward descriptive article, without puffery. just as would be expected from anything Cunard writes. (I don't think the original version was promotional either: it was not CORPSPAM, there was no reference bombing, but there was perhaps a failure to clearly meet WP:NCORP. I would probably have voted to draftify, not delete. )
But Cunard can shortcut this. All they need do is submit it. Submitted drafts are not reviewed in any particular order, and at AFC several reviewers (including myself) are making a consistent effort to identify and approve the clearly good ones as soon as possible after submission--I try to spot a few every day. Someone is very likely to quickly approve this one. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this discussion has not been closed and consensus looks fairly clear to me, I have boldly moved the draft into the article mainspace. Yes, I'm involved. Sue me. This has dragged on long enough. If anybody still has issues with the page, WP:AfD <<< is that way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping Cunard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 December 2019

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

Asking for a relist (I am also okay with delete if that is what the majority decides), considering it was relisted only once, and I don't think the AfD was in a state that consensus was never going to develop. Especially with a very weak keep argument and two delete votes (including the nom) citing WP:GNG. So I don't think the close was justified as the nominator's argument was never refuted properly and even got some support. The AfD closer declined my request at User_talk:Ritchie333#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mitto_Password_Manager, hence I am here since I have noticed this AfD and wanted to give my own comment on that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not clear to me whether your issue is that you believe thsi AfD should have been Deleted (and not kept via No Consensus), or, whether your issue is that regardless of the outcome, it should have had a 2nd Relist? Britishfinance (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Britishfinance Honestly, both (though not in any outcome, but relisting in this specific outcome). I believe that the AfD shouldn't have been closed as no consensus here, that is the main thing. At minimum it should have been relisted (which is where I am settling at, since I wanted to comment there). But I also can see a (weaker) delete consensus here. I am leaving up to community to decide either between status quo, or those two options mentioned in the final relist/deleting the article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Thanks for that. It seems like a very borderline case in any event, with low participation and nothing after the 1st relist? Even a delete would really be a weak one, and therefore the article could be easily refunded in any case. Thus, keeping the article and seeing if anybody can fix/improve it is a sensible outcome? There is no rush here, and no apparent UPE/PROMO aspect (which can be a reason to tighten-up on even borderline cases)? I wouldn't sweat this one, imho. Britishfinance (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the consequences of the decline in numbers of active Wikipedia editors is that some AfDs don't attract much comment. We tend to respond to that by relisting them, and some closers' approach is basically "The relisting will continue until participation improves." I don't see that -- there's an arguable case for relisting low-participation BLPs of marginal notability, but relisting articles about products several times? That's not a good use of volunteer time which is an increasingly rare resource. And that's why WP:RELIST says Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended. I'd be minded to endorse.—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (I'll strike all and restart and !re-vote for clarity )*Overturn and Delete*Endorse: (as !Weak keeper : also edit conflict with S. Marshall + MOTD) at AfD. Context: My memories of this time is the nom. and others presenting a significant number of AfDs (some such as this one not pre-tagged for any issues) ... as many can reasonably deduce I keep a somewhat informal and disorganised watch on the Computing / Software prod/AfD queues to determine perhaps if anything is going through that perhaps shouldn't and sort of Triage. If its a goner per the community or the author been stupid with their sources ..... then likely let it go. maybe keep vote any relatively okay or leave it to others. And then we have the inbetweeners. And then we have the inbetweeners. Like this one, but different ones are different. The first points to check for sources are those in the article, and at a glance they look at least possibly above pathetic. Try them out and one gets walls and deadness. So per WP:BEFORE C.1 there should be an attempt so fix this, and probably best to mention in the nom. that one has tried rather than the good old: Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. and leaving any other mug who tries attempting to do the same things. Actually source recovery on this one was to quote 'a dog' which meant I'd spent more than enough time on it and as I couldn't be bothered to try further. Hence weak keep. The relist discussion was let run for 7 days and nobody participated. I note on the closers talk page the DRV nom. had a comment to make but has as yet withheld it whereas placement on the article talk page or disclosure on the closer's talk page may have been more appropriate rather than waiting for discussion to evolve hear first. No-one attempted to clear or address the the source Walled from the EU ... On that basis 'no consensus' was probably a viable outcome; perhaps the better of perhaps several possible outcomes where if someone was particular interested the article could have been tagged for a notability concern and brought forward again to DRV in a couple of months time as practice for AfD no consenus closures allows.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete or relist – when there's (IMO) an obvious PROMO concern and an obvious dearth of what might be SIGCOV sources... the objection raised by the nom and delete voter was that it doesn't meet NPRODUCT or GNG, and that didn't seem to be addressed at all, like with sources put forward. Seems like a delete or soft delete, and there's little harm in relisting it a second time. – Levivich 06:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:Its me and and my fucking mental health that can be harmed by being fucking dragged back to fucking AfD all the fucking time. I've become WP:UNCIVIL and taking a 24 enforced break and someone can fucking block me for that. Fucking block me for 24 hours if you like. Where's the ducking harm in that. Thats why fucking have the fucking 2 month fucking break. I've changed to overturn and delete on that basisDjm-leighpark (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC) On reflection after completion of my self-imposed sort of break after my sort of Victor Meldrew triggered by the "what's the harm in that" I will strike my comment as uncivilly inappropriate. The thought of ending up researching this article if necessary on when relisted circa 14 December 2019 to replace the rotted sources did not fill me with relish as can be gathered.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There's nothing wrong with the close at all. I don't completely understand why the closing admin didn't reopen this lightly attended, validly no consensus AfD after someone came in less than a day after the close saying they wished to comment, but it's not so egregious to overturn, and there's a very good argument against reopening no consensus AfDs because more discussion is needed. That being said I have no trouble with a relist now, considering it will likely lead to further discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 07:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No problem with the closing - proper reading of the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: For the following reasons:
  • At the time of nomination there were no notability problems flagged on the long standing article page [19]. Per WP:BEFORE C#3 the nom. is expected to tag the page or otherwise notify the community of problems and allow opportunity for the issue to be addressed. This was not done. The AfD nom. therefore was out of procedure.
  • It is perhaps a blindingly obvious failure of WP:BEFORE section D checking for sources not to point a nominator at the existing (and sometimes also thoughtlessly removed) article references and sources as one of the most obvious places to look for article references. While ignoring of trivial links is not an issue failure to either try to fix/mark or mention that certain sources are no longer available at nomination is to say the least probable best practice and failure to this a possible lack of diligence searching for sources.
  • Failure to address the fact an identified source could not be seen due to GDPR issues.
  • Concerns per WP:DRVPURPOSE reason Deletion review should not be used:#1 (because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment) was attempted to be achieved by inappropriate Deletion review may be used: #2 (if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;) whilst the required closure discussion: (": when you have not discussed the matter with the user who closed the discussion first …) was to say the least somewhat short and looked more of a tick of the box than an attempt to avoid DRV … and it is unclear if the comment to be made could equally and simply have been made on article talk page.
Overall the no consensus close allows time for the article to be improved and notability issues addressed if people wish to do so which otherwise has not been given and allows for re-nom to AfD in a couple of months if appropriate. Re-listing circumvents the WP:BEFORE C#3 giving people time and opportunity to act on it if they wish outside of AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - okay, I was pretty inactive as a new parent; Is there now some perceived hurdle to just renominating an article with a recent AfD closed as 'no consensus' that had low participation? WilyD 09:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding, and I am working from memory and cannot locate the precise point, is that it is bad-form to relist non-consensus AfD closures within about 2 months and consensus closures within about 6, and to best belief there is somewhere that is stated but the old memory can play tricks. And whether there was a minimal participation mentioned at such a point or elsewhere I recall not. To state the obvious were this get re-nom'd immediately I would probably invoke a speedy keep on WP:BEFORE C#3 not having being followed (not that I've seen that point raised before) if that template (or equiv) for a couple of months. hopefully someone else will find this however I am over by RL edit budget for today already and need to self-enforce breaks. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm Wikipedia:Speedy Keep says it's an appropriate response to "nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion", which is more in line with my expectations (and certainly not the case here). WilyD 10:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep: … your probably right. Definitely arguable speedy keep could not be used because C#3 wasn't done unless arguing nomination was "obviously frivolous or vexatious" because C#3 was ignored. I'm attempting to rush answers as I was attempting to do A before B and now B has to be done earlier and I cannot do A at all and actually have a few rushed minutes.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#If you disagree with the consensus simply says: "If you think that an article was wrongly kept after the AFD, you could wait to see if the article is improved to overcome your objections; " with no indicator of an appropriate wait time. The essay, Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion (WP:RENOM) is likely where my suggested wait for of 2 months no consensus keep XfD's and 6 months for consensus keep XfDs comes from. The time for no consensus keep renom's has some suggested variability with the level of participation. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I closed as "no consensus" because of the three comments, the nominators was WP:VAGUEWAVE and could be discounted, while the other "keep" and "delete" !votes cancelled each other out. Since nobody else commented after a previous relist, I closed as NC per WP:RELIST : "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - okay, probably not how I would've closed it (I probably would've chosen SOFTDELETE), but it's fine, and as good a guess at any on what to do with low participation. If someone really wants it deleted, they can re-nom it. If someone really wants it preserved, they have a bit of a chance to fix it up. It's not terribly pressing, so no worries. WilyD 11:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The question is whether No Consensus was a valid close. In my opinion, it was. A Relist would have been valid, and I think that Delete would have been valid. But I don't see how No Consensus was wrong, or how a Relist was mandated. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen With such low participation, a second relist would have been appropriate. There are editors who sometimes comment at AfD who look for multiple relistings so they can help break deadlocks.
alternatively, it can be renominated a little sooner than usual. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 December 2019

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

Good faith close at XfD was delete (no additional comments). Under scrutiny on talk page closer had seemingly ignored the notable claim for the article per WP:NACADMEIC of a national level honour National professor of psychiatry and neurosciences; the national level here being key; with no delete !voters disputing that claim, these !voters ignoring the claim but focusing on other matters. While I personally move this claim was sufficient to keep I would anticipate and expect that with no prior relists the appropriate practice would have been at a minimum to relist and pointing out the unanswered point. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, Tachs, Rocky 734, Fowler&fowler, David Eppstein, RegentsPark, and Whjayg: Notification: DRV raised for AfD for P. B. Buckshey you were involved in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 December 6. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my reading, that discussion implies that Wikipedians didn't quite reach a consensus on whether Mr Buckshey passes a notability guideline, but agreed to delete the article on the basis that the text was intolerably promotional. I presume that there was no non-promotional version in the history to restore. The way I understand what I've just read, I think the consensus is that you could, maybe, potentially have an article on Mr Buckshey, but we won't restore that article on Mr Buckshey. Personally I think it would be preferable if you could make an article at Purushottam Buckshey rather than using his initials and I would recommend submitting a draft rather than putting it directly into the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 20:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as AfD closer. I made it clear in my close that there was no prejudice against refunding to draft. I would consider that a reasonable resolution to the objection raised here as well. BD2412 T 20:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: (edit conflict) Your offer of no prejudice against refunding to draft is appreciated but is a distraction from scrutiny reveals a good faith but ultimately inappropriate close of the AfD which is what this here to discuss. It is important for the community to discuss that particular point. This was raised by DGG as a test case. DGG had this as a test case I specifically requested: " experienced closers/relisters only please and comments to be left in either case" .... NOT DONE! If we went for the !vote counting then its 4+nom for delete and 3 keep. So you are at risk of a supervote accusation and giving precedence to snipe voting. And are you having that the article was intolerably promotional? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your case needed to be made to the participants in the AfD, who were not persuaded to this effect. BD2412 T 21:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as the nom. in the AfD) If somebody wishes to try a draft, there is no reason why they should not. Whether they succeed can be judged when the draft has been written. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Wikipedia page, National Professor, is about an honor in Bangladesh granted to a handful of the nation's academic luminaries. In India, there used to be a scholarship "National Professor" granted to academics after retirement, a much-claimed honor, I might add, as hard evidence of the awards by India's University Grants Commission seems to be lacking, until recently. It was apparently made more democratic in 2013 and began to be called "Emeritus Fellowship". See Category Emeritus Professors in India It is granted for two years, after retirement, paying $400 per month in salary, and approximately $800 per year in a travel/research grant. India's University Grants Commission invites applications every year. At any given time, there are no more than 100 fellowship holders in the sciences and a similar number in the humanities. (See here That means, on average, 100 new awards are made every year to retired teachers in Indian universities. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. A discussion that should have occurred on the AfD and why a relist would have been the appropriate course and the question of whether WP:NACADEMIC is satisifed by this award.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the people listed in that category such as S. N. Bose and Jayant Narlikar are very notable. But if I had a dime for every person in India who has claimed their advisor or father (usually) was a national professor I couldn't help amassing a small fortune. It is the sourcing that is the problem. Is there an announcement by the University Grants Commission awarding Buckshey that fellowship? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken part in only a handful of AfDs, and no reviews of AfDs, I can't add much to the legalities of the closure. I support the closure on the basis of what I have seen by way of the sources. The National Professor claim, even if it is verified in the manner I have asked above, will not change my assessment. The main problem is that we have not the foggiest notion of what Mr Buckshey contributed to psychiatry, only a list of his awards, real or alleged. That is not encyclopedicity. I will also not take part in further rehashes of Mr Buckshey's notability, as my time is limited, and it will be better utilized in creating pages for those of clear notability. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler; Thankyou for your input on this matter and it perhaps demonstrates why this test case AfD was perhaps closed early. On the two sources identified identifying the national professor the major one likely in my opinion got his date of birth incorrect and while I would have expected it to accurate I perhaps might not care to bet my clothing on it if anyone challenged it. The other which confirmed it, a citation from paper presented at a peer reviewed IEEE mentioned the national professor so might have expected some accuracy: I will note this was removed from the article by a !voter which may imply they had a need to hide this evidence, though that might be regarded as a point of straw. We continue to not be on the same page as to Buckshey's notability, you possibly looking more for a contribution to the science of psychiatry; I perhaps might be looking more for the introduction of technniques and medications from his UK training to the Delhi area ... but there were only glimpses of that in sources so far. Additional offline Bibliographic sources may have indicated a little more but I would need to do up to say London to access. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support close and allow draftification. It is not true that the close was without comments. I think the AfD closure was within the closer's remit, although if I were doing it myself (for an AfD that, unlike this one, I had not commented in) I would have probably judged it as no consensus and likely relisted instead of closing. The closer suggested using the draft process to clarify potential notability that was not fully clear at the time of deletion. This suggestion of using the draft process seems to me a much better choice than overthrowing the close without first clarifying these issues, and also better than trying to hash them out here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support closure Special pleading is not convincing (I did not take part in the AfD). Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe: While you did not take part in this AfD you made this comment in another of test cases [20] to this closer of this AfD and the other one and accused me of WP:Wikilawyering in the content of failure to attribute which is somewhat of an issue. As regard the pleading, a somewhat emotive word. If you specifically can justify it was inappropriate for me to bring this DRV then please feel free to say specifically that. The AfD was of an unusually long length and brought as a test case by a nom of very good standing and I am very concerned the closure was at the least not best practice and did not seemingly stand scrutiny well.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by a test case? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
To quote the Afd nom: "There are many other individuals in medicine in the same situation-- see. I am nominating two other individuals, considering this and the adjacent AfDs as test cases.". All three cases appear also to have the Padma Shri in common also, which also means India is common in all three also.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn and relist – I'm not seeing how a closer finds consensus to delete in that discussion. The opinion was almost exactly evenly divided. Participants did not agree about whether the Padma Shri, or any other award, met NACADEMIC. Seemed like the arguments on both sides were policy-based. The national professor point was raised somewhat late and not addressed. The AfD had never been relisted before. Divided, policy-based opinions with no prior reslists = relist. I note the other two similar AfDs were both relisted. – Levivich 22:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support closure - The article was deleted according to proper processes. Do not see why we should discuss it again. If you want to rewrite about it, do it in "draft". - Jay (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (as DRV nom) n terms of the additional discussion required of the national professor/WP:NACADEMIC there has been fruitful input by Fowler&fowler above and following that discussion which was absent from the AfD and I am pragmatically minded unless something new parachutes in a relist would now not be beneficial on this point. While the closure did not discuss the Padma Shri as directly as sufficient or not as a national award I have not raised the DRV on that matter and I am minded to recommend anyone specifically interest in that to discuss at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Kumar Bhalla or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Prakash Singh which are currently open. Understandably delete voters are mostly siding with closure, a more neutral has at least raised eyebrows with the closure. The discussion had here is usefully in any mainspace re-presentation of a draft, and as I may be prepared to work a draft at some point or certainly prepared to steward same I suggest an overturn and draftify vote is appropriate. The right to work on any reasonable draft is pretty much universal anyway.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - It appears that either Delete or No Consensus would have been a valid call by the closer, so Delete is a valid call. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Delete was a valid reading of the consensus here, and the offer to draftify the article is a sufficient remedy for anyone who wanted this kept. SportingFlyer T·C 07:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist – I'm not seeing how a closer finds consensus to delete in that discussion. I did not participate in the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- If I were the closing admin I would have probably closed this as "no consensus", or relisted it, but "delete" was also possible given that the participants who said that really did take an in-depth look at the sources and made some pretty convincing arguments. Reyk YO! 07:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would again like to remind peoples, the reason I took this to this to WP:DRV was the lack of discussion or consensus on WP:NACADEMIC C#2 re: national professor which can be sufficient for an article in lieu of WP:GNG and which had a right to be taken into consideration. I stand by discussion on that point was insufficient and I am reasonably certain was not accounted properly by the closer (who at all times has acted in good faith and most respectfully) which is why as nominator on that crucial point I maintain overturn. Discussions have occurred on this DRV about this point and following those discussions I am not personally prepared to hold WP:NACADEMIC C#2 with the sources I currently know of with combination of the possible issues around the national professor and the required strength of such sources. As I am prepared to hold stewardship of the draft and occasionally seek better sources that may arise from digitisation or otherwise I have requested draftification (pointless asking to draftify unless someone is prepared to steward it) Obviously sources may arise and I feel WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC can now be satisified in which case mainspace is possible or it remains in draft until I or elseone forget to fettle it. A point about those who say I should be grateful for the closer's offer to drafity …. I find such comments condescending as I am perfectly aware I have a almost a right to ask for draftification so to be asked to be grateful for an offer of something of which I have a right does not help my humour … but what I really do appreciate is the closer making it clear to refunder's that the exercise of that right to draftification should be given without hindrance. I am also surprised some non-admins participating im the discussion had not asked for a tempundelete to cross check the AfD discussion with the article and its historic versions ( An example is where I was picked up for having WP:SYTHENTIZED. I review I particularly noticed a problem sentence in the lede supported by two citations that were inappropriate to synthesis; the problem was addressed in later revisions by splitting into two precise sentences; this would not be obvious without a tempundelete. About the only other reason I could see claiming a no consensus delete was failure to meet WP:BEFORE C#3 by saying tag with say Template:BLP sources, however as that is to be avoided on stubs that can't reasonably be done. After that ramble can I particularly ask any people still requiring a relist to indicate what they hope to achieve from such as re-list. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse In the absence of agreement or understanding about the nature of awards, it was reasonable to look for the basic criterion for WP:PROF, impact on the profession (which , after all, is what awards are supposed to be based on)--and there is no evidence of any significant scientific contributions. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG If the closer had offered this evidence early in my scrutiny on the closure on the closer's talk page it would have been reasonable not to have raised the DRV; it is however for the purposes of national professor award somewhat dependent on discussions that have occurred post-AfD in this DRV. This to a degree is a moot point, and there is an argument I needed to have fully understood and has had better sourcing for the national professor award before utilizing it but as things stood at the time of closure those matters had not apparently been accounted in the discussion or the closure. While your initial nomination had mentioned WP:PROF(WP:NACADEMIC is a subsection thereof) I am reasonably certain that national professor was not present in the article at the time of nomination and therefore you would likely not have considered it at that point. As was noted the article was (frenetically) improved during the AfD but that is understandable perhaps as the article had not been pre-tagged for issues per Template:BLP sources. (pragmatically I would not have monitored that myself having been alerted to that AfD through a watch of the creator's talk page for some tentative reason now almost forgotten - and removed shortly after your raise of a further AfD on 7 December 2019 ). I would need a temp-undelete to verify some comments here as working from memory plus a wayback archive. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it was not in the article at the time. A category note has been added to Category:Emeritus Professors in India asserting it to be an especially important award, but the note is unsourced. Looking for a source, I find National Research Professor on an government site, [21] but I have not yet found an indication it is the same thing . There's a list at [22], in which he is not included. I haven't checked further. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for checking. That source was likely removed by a delete !voter about 3 revisions back, who may have inconsistently removed the source (now I am guessing on that point and should have spotted it at the time). That said it was a citation to an interview by a paper presented at an IEEE conference where the paper presenter has interviewed P. B. Buckshey and had referred to him as national professor in the citation of the interview. It it only the second online document that I have found where he was so referred. I observe the document your have found is entitled "National Research Professor" as opposed to "National Professor" - again I have no clue to the significance thereof. Should this return to mainspace on the basis of WP:ANYBIO, as per how other AfCs seem to be closing, the national professor claim may need to be suppressed at present without additional sourcing.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 December 2019

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

I believe that this page was incorrectly deleted as a copyright violation. It was tagged in error by a user who claimed that it was an unambiguous copy of the entire content of "The Atlantic" online newspaper. However, if you review the contents you can see that the only section that was copied from The Atlantic was a paragraph blockquote from a Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, which was properly attributed to the original source United States Reports which contained the dissent. All other content was original prose by me and was not copied or closely paraphrased to the original source. I would like to request a review of the deletion. If I inadvertently copied anything without proper attribution or if the admins or other editors would like to see any other changes I am completely supportive of making any changes but I do not think that it is necessary to delete the entire article. I attempted to reach out to the closing administrator several times but my comments were removed without response or acknowledgment and I received hostile messages on my talk page from others. Omanlured (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been dropping contents from this revision into Ctrl+F of the alleged source article and I can't tell what the copyvio is. The only things similar are the blockquotes and these aren't even by The Atlantic to begin with. Overturn. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced by the close paraphrasing argument laid out below. After checking some paragraphs against the article, I can't find any close paraphrase at all. The behaviour of other editors is not on topic in a deletion review, we only review the propriety of deletions and other deletion discussion outcomes here.It is indeed correct to first ask the deleting admin for commentary, but I don't see this as a dealbreaker. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amending my comment: Omanlured did in fact ask on Anthony's talk page first with a very reasonably worded and civil comment that Michepman then removed with the summary "DO not harass the closing admin ". Omanlured then readded a similar comment here that was removed by Michepman again with an accusation of harassment. Then Omanlured opened the DRV and notified Anthony. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, the talk page behavior by Omanlured is not at issue here and cannot be discussed. The importance is to properly follow WP:COPYVIO which was not done here. The closing administrator observed the copy violation material and deleted (ref the edit summary provided by Anthony which has a link to the direct source of the copied material). Unfortunately I don’t have access to the deleted article so I cant personally do the side by side comparison with exact quotes from memory but it was clear to both of us that the authors of the article copied too extensively from the sources and failed to include the proper attribution. Michepman (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm not seeing any copyvio either. User:Michepman tagged it, and User:Anthony Bradbury deleted it. Could either of you please point out what you think the copyvio was? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your responses. For what it's worth, judicial opinions cannot be copyrighted in the US (an issue which incidentally is related to litigation currently pending before the US Supreme Court). I could understand if the excerpt contained copyrighted annotations or analysis, but the text I used was cross-referenced directly to 568 US (which can be read at the bottom of page 2 and the start of page 3 here and I included that citation at the end of the paragraph using the syntax found in Template:Cite court. Omanlured (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn can't see any copyvio. The "At the Supreme Court" section does seem to be paraphrasing part of the Atlantic piece but I don't think it's close enough to be a problem. I ran it through a copyvio detector and all it found was the Breyer quote. As noted above this is in the public domain and even if it wasn't that still wouldn't qualify the page for G12 speedy deletion, since it could easily be removed. Hut 8.5 19:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, clearly not unambiguous. Who tagged it? Michepman (talk · contribs), on a quick inspections, seems to need a severe warning for removing a reasonable post on the deleting admins usertalk page, and for their posts at User talk:Omanlured. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please review Wikipedia policies on harassment, tendentious editing, as well as the required talk page notifications per WP:Warning. Michepman (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per nom. Clear copyvio issues which persist even to the earliest diffs. As a reminder, please review WP:COPYVIO — close paraphrases and copying large tracts of text can create problems for Wikipedia’s licensing of content and has to be deleted quickly to remain in compliance with both copyright law and Wikipedia’s official guidelines. Ctrl+F searches are not sufficient grounds to overturn a decision by an experienced administrator, and IMHO it is problematic that there was a rush to open this discussion without giving the closing administrator a chance to weigh in. Michepman (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Michepman: I'll repeat my request above; please provide specific examples. What sentence, phrase, paragraph, whatever in the deleted page is a copy (or close paraphrase) of the "The Atlantic" article, and where does it appear in the original? I'm pretty hard-nosed when it comes to copyvios, but I'm just not seeing any when I look on my own. Your specific guidance would be useful. If you can demonstrate to me that a copyvio exists and can't be easily fixed, I'll be happy to change my !vote to endorse. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: - Unfortunately, I tagged this article for speedy deletion yesterday and did not copy it down anywhere before it was deleted by an administrator. As a non-admin I do not have access to deleted articles and cannot directly reference/compare the exact contents of the deleted articles. I recommend waiting for the closing admin to stop by and provide additional context before jumping to any hasty conclusions. Michepman (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Michepman: Now that I've temp undeleted, I'll reiterate the above: Which "large chunks of the article were taken directly from The Atlantic without proper attribution", specifically, and I'll raise you what on earth led you to label this as "harassment", twice? —Cryptic 12:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know how non-admins can take part in this deletion review when we are being asked whether there was copyright violation when the document in question has been deleted due to the alleged copyright violation. It appears that multiple administrators, who have seen the deleted document, agree that it was not copyright violation. What I can see, based on the the history of reversions of User talk:Anthony Bradbury, is a blatant conduct issue in the form of talk page guideline violations, but this is not a conduct forum. So can someone tell us what the purpose of this deletion review is? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am confused by the statement above by User:Michepman. They say: "IMHO it is problematic that there was a rush to open this discussion without giving the closing administrator a chance to weigh in." Unless I have misread this, it is Michepman (or a troll editing from the compromised account of Michepman) who prevented a discussion with the closing administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon - I appreciate your concern but it is important to (as you stated) avoid derailing the discussion by entering into a discussion of user conduct. This discussion should remain focused on the topic of WP:COPYVIO and WP:SPEEDY and should not digress into areas relating to userspace interactions. And for what it is worth, if you lack subject matter expertise or are not familiar enough with the original article to weigh in, there's no need to comment at all. Michepman (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't see direct copying or close paraphrase here. The quote from the previous US Supreme Court dissent is direct, but it is marked and attributed as a quote from the opinion, which The Atlantic also quoted. It has bveen established since Wheaton v. Peters 8 Pet 591 (1834) that there is no copyright in Supreme Court opinions. This is now merely an instance of the rule that works of the US Federal Government have no copyright protection. As to the other parts of the article, i have compared the last versin of the deleted article with the article from The Atlantic. Several sections, particularly the section "Legislative activity" and "Kahler murder case" cover much the same set of facts, presented in a natural (chronological) order, as parts of the Atlantic article, but without detaild simialrity of sentence structure.
    The closest paraphras is in the section of the deleted article "At the Supreme Court". This includes the paragraph:

    Kahler's argument is that the M'naghten rule represents the codification of a legal concept that goes back all the way to Medieval common law and should be considered part of the due process of law.[2] His argument asserts that, for centuries, defendants were held culpable only when they were able to distinguish between right and wrong and that people who were legally insane did not have the capacity to do so.[11] The state's argument emphasized the importance of federalism, allowing states the autonomy to make their own laws within the framework of the state and federal constitutions. The state also noted that the definition of insanity has varied in different ways throughout history and that one version (the M'naghten rule) should not be viewed as an inherent aspect of due process.[2][11]([2] is a citation to the Atlantic article, and [11]] to an article in SCOTUSblog an official publication of the Court, and so public domain)

    The corresponding section of the Atlantic article reads:

    Kahler’s brief suggests that M’Naghten was not a newfangled Victorian notion, but rather a codification of common-law principles that go back to medieval English law. If that is so, it is easy to conclude that it must be a part of “due process of law.”

    That may be a bit close, and perhaps should be reworded, but is not in my view enough of an issue to simply speedy delete the article. I rather suspect that the automated copyright tool highlighted the SC quote, and this raised its "percentage chance" significantly. I have observed in many pages tagged for g12 that the automated tool does not recognize and exclude text properly marked as a quotation. Userds need to allow for this.DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The tool won't run on a delted article, so i cna't check what it might have said without doing an undelete. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would favor a temp undelte, but perhaps there is a practice agaisnt doing so for an alleged G12. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if it's codified anywhere, but I'm personally reluctant to do it unless I'm completely convinced it's not a copyright problem. I mean, I did it yesterday, but only after confirming it was an error where the other source copied Wikipedia. WilyD 05:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Multiple admins, including myself, can't find even a prima facie case for copyright infringement here, but directing users to google caches is somehow preferable? No. I've temp undeleted. —Cryptic 12:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be unusual for there to be no record on the web of any version of a deleted article and Google presently obliges.[23] So if that is not infringing copyright then WP:G12 did not apply. Looking at the comparison presented above considering pagiarism, I disagree with the comment "may be a bit close, and perhaps should be reworded". It is not close and need not be reworded. Thincat (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close paraphrasing is an issue I didn't really grok until Rlevse so dramatically illuminated it for us all. I'm delighted that there are Wikipedians patrolling for it because it's potentially a big issue on Wikipedia, which is rightly very source-oriented and so there's a temptation to follow the sources a little too closely. Well done to them! They're doing important work that I very much value.

    I have read the deleted article linked by Thincat above and compared it with the alleged source article and I don't see close paraphrasing. But, crucially, I can only see the one revision and I don't know how big the history is. It's important that all the revisions are checked.—S Marshall T/C 10:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, any copyright-infringing versions should be deleted. But G12 only leads to article deletion if all versions are infringing. I understand that G12 article deletion might be used WP:IAR as an emergency measure, prior to a careful look but then such an investigation should then be started (and certainly not impeded) by the person placing the G12 or the deleting admin. Thincat (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • With reference to the preceding comment, I as deleting admin clearly have in no way impeded the process, although an editor who edited my talk page might perhaps be accused of doing so. In view of the significant expressed opinion here in favour of overturning my deletion, I raise no objection and make no argument against doing so. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although I note what Thincat says, I think the sequence is important here. It would be significantly unfortunate if a copyright-violating revision were restored as a result of a DRV and therefore before the article could be restored, the restoring sysop would need to check that there are no copyvios in the history. I wouldn't want the G12 overturned until we had that assurance.—S Marshall T/C 11:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Anthony Bradbury: No, No, no, my apologies. Rather, I was regarding the edits made (not by you) to your talk page (diff and diff) as impeding discussion. Thincat (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Already made an overturn argument above; I am putting another post here so that it is next to S Marshall's) One way to go about this - if close paraphrasing is still a problem - would be to recreate the page with {{subst:copyvio|2=url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/question-heart-kahler-v-kansas/599497/}}, undeleting the previous history and open a WP:CP investigation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that Cryptic's restored the article history, I can see that the whole thing is clean. We aren't looking at a close paraphrasing issue here. Speedy close the DRV as overturn and restore. Michepman's behaviour in this demonstrates that he's in need of support and direction from a sysop, which should be pursued in another venue.—S Marshall T/C 13:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore The only copied text - which does appear to be copied from the Atlantic because of the "but..." (which ignored the "in Idaho") - is clearly not a copyright violation as others have noted. Should be restored. We will all miss sometimes at tagging copyvios, hopefully infrequently, but I'm concerned about the fact the user who tagged this as a copyvio doubled down at the DRV for not recongising their mistake. SportingFlyer T·C 15:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily overturn and restore – G12 is for unambiguous copyright violation. Even if it was close paraphrasing (and I don't believe so), it's certainly not unambiguous. Also, count me among those who would appreciate it if an admin had a word with Michepman about tagging an article, repeatedly removing the author's posts from the deleting admin's talk page (with false accusations of harassment!) and an instruction to go to DRV, then arguing in the DRV that the author should have discussed it with the deleting admin first. What's unambiguous to me is that this is bad faith behavior that violates a number of our policies. I hope we don't see that again. Oh, and hats off to Omanlured for maintaining collegiality and patiently following the process through what must have been a very frustrating experience. Thanks for writing the article, Omanlured! – Levivich 19:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @Levivich:! I am just glad that the article is salvageable. When I was restricted from communicating to the admin directly, I started reading the deletion rules but was unsure of the nuances between "request for undeletion" and "deletion review"; I figured I had a 50/50 chance of choosing the right option haha Omanlured (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – "The judgement of the Administrator of Appeals is reversed and the article is restored for further editing consistent with this opinion." BenbowInn (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn. Looking at Michepman's talk page, I think you can make a good case that this was a bad-faith nomination, though for what reason I can't fathom. There's clearly no copyright violation here. Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn and restore – G12 is was not an appropriate course. Lightburst (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn though I suspect this article would probably fail a regular WP:AFD if submitted. 107.77.202.56 (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be fine at AfD. The Atlantic article which this was supposed to be a copyvio of represents significant coverage of the case. Even without it US Supreme Court decisions are very likely to get some coverage/commmentary. It would only take 1-2 legal journals to run articles on it to pass the notability standard. Hut 8.5 19:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect this comment from an IP was just trolling, but in case anybody thinks there's not enough WP:RS, here's a few more:
I tried to cover both sides of the political spectrum, but the One America News Network article that google found, now 404's. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Examining this version of the undeleted article, the last before Michepman began to allege possible copyvio, I also found no copyvio regarding the Atlantic article—DESiegel's example of possibly slightly close paraphrase strikes me as pretty damned good summarizing of a legal point—and running Earwig turned up short phrases and the indented quotation from the Supreme Court ruling. Indented quotations are as good as quotations in quotation marks, and the footnoting looks fine. I conclude that the article was nominated in error as copyvio and should be restored. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Close Multiple admins and experienced non-admin editors have looked at this and given an opinion. So far the only editor who indicated endorsement of the deletion is Michepman, who tagged it as a copyvio, and who has still not pointed out just what passages s/he felt to be copyright issues, although the text has now been availabe for 4 days (since 6 December), and Michepman posted [24] indicating awareness of that temp restoration later that same day. I would really like to know what in the tagged revision led that editor to place the tags. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 December 2019

[edit]

3 December 2019

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

Speedy deletion: Lack of diligence alleging WP:G12 which I allege is incorrect and WP:G11 very dubious also ... especially given previous discussion and outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASLite which this overrules. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The talk page should also have been checked and that should have had a link to the AfD discussion which should also have been checked ... (only a saint would likely bother to check it but thats whats its there for). I'd be surprised if this didn't survive "unambiuous" G11 (though one person's feature is another advert) ... one might have a concern G11 might be being used too readily in the draftspace used by the newbies? Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would have a tiny purpose of checking the Template:Old XfD multi was on the talk page but it would likely impact the result of this DRV. Quite frankly the likely problem is the admin forgetting to restore the talk page in the likely event of an overturn! Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's only been the one AfD, which is mentioned in the listing here already. WilyD 05:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly missing my very miniscule point I was trying to make ... had the previous AfD not been mentioned on the talk page there would have been less reason to WP:TROUT peoples for missing it ... it should have been mentioned on the talk page page and contribution forensics may have indicated it (haven't checked) ... and am I that perfect not to have missed such a thing ... probably not. Per say [25] XFcloser places :Template:Old Afd multi on the talk page and (actually have now checked contriubtions) and XFCloser was used but contributions actions on the deleted talk page are not visible but the placing of the Old AfD/XfD multi template on it can reasonably be assumed. Thankyou. Only a we point only and I think I've now satisified myself at least talk page was likely not given due diligence but that's a minor point but perhaps a lesson learned as they say. And now talk page retrieval not required as point otherwise made albeit somewhat disproportionately in the end.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Djm-leighpark. I confirm that the notice of a previous AfD and a link to that discussion was present on the talk page when that was deleted. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 07:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OVERTURN speedy deletion. The "source" page says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASLite was the original source which makes it clear that this was a backwards copy, and disposes of the G12. The deleting admin should have caught that. As to G11, the tone is a bit promotional, but a simple rewrite would have dealt with that, and a recent AfD which could have been closed as keep, and was closed as move to draft suggest that multiple editors did not see this as too promotional, and thus not an uncontroversial deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I closed the AfD with a move to draft result only a few hours before these were speedy deleted. The G12 claim is a non-issue for the reasons already cited here. My G11 assessment is identical to that of DES - not ideal but also not so flagrant that any AfD participant saw fit to comment on it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, and Keep in Draft, as per User:Barkeep49 - The G12 was a good-faith error, but an error nonetheless because of the reverse copyvio. The G11 was clearly out of line, since there had already been an AFD. If this had been just a G11, I would say that the deleting admin had been grossly negligent. As it was, I will only say that the deleting admin was mistaken on the G12. Do not List or Relist or anything. The AFD was properly closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks: To be clear as DRV nom I'm not challenging the AfD outcome just suggesting return to draft. Thanks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a good-faith error. A good-faith error is when, after due diligence, you end up making a reasonable, if incorrect, call. There's no way anybody who did due diligence on this would conclude G12 applied. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am sorry that I tagged a 13-year old page for speedy deletion based on assumptions. I thought that this page was a copyright violation from another website, but it turned out that the other website actually copied the information from the Wikipedia page. Thus, it is the other website that I described when putting the page up for speedy deletion that committed copyright infringement, not the page itself. Also, if a page may be written like an advertisement (but I am not sure) - I will tag the article as such rather than requesting deletion. For now, I will take a temporary Wikibreak from requesting deletion. Thanks! Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 19:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing your actions. To be clear the HandWiki was not a copyvio as it had good faith attributed content as coming from Wikipedia. I must admit I was slightly concerned in G11 is being used a tad too much in draft (not just you), and might be putting off a proportion of newbies where improved pathway tagging and educating might be better. But beyond the scope of this DRV.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I will go back to requesting deletion (which will be when I am ready), I will not just look through draft articles. Instead, I will look through the creation log more generally and I will be more careful to make sure that articles are blatantly promotional before requesting G11. As I said before, any article that may be promotional (subtle promotion) will be tagged instead of deleted. Thanks! Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 07:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Train of Knowledge - In my opinion, you made two minor good-faith errors. The first was small, and was in the G12 tagging, which really was a complicated situation, because it was a reverse copyvio. The second was medium-sized, and that was the G11. You shouldn't have tagged it for G11 if it had been recently through AFD. The larger error, which was still a good-faith error, in both cases was by the deleting administrator. So don't worry, but look at the history before tagging things, and know that you are the first line of protection of the encyclopedia from crud, with the admin being second. So don't worry. You didn't do anything wrong, just made a mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2019 (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.
List of Forgotten Realms deities (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The sourcing for Deities in the Forgotten Realms satisfies WP:LISTN and the closer may have too narrowly construed the text of this guideline. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm involved as I !voted, but did you discuss this with the AfD closer before coming here? I was curious what they had to say and can't find the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 10:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I've only recently begun participating in AfD discussion and this is the first one that I am nominating for review. I posted the suggested template notification to the closer's talk page. Insofar as the closer did not appear to address WP:LISTN in the close I posted here. Typically, how often does a closer reverse a decision based on a talk page discussion? And if so, how often is the article renominated? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AugusteBlanqui: Upon closer inspection, it's not a requirement (I thought it was? Question for elsewhere: should this be a policy discussion to make it mandatory?), but it's highly recommended, as it gives the closer a chance to review their close and potentially explain themselves further. Reversal's unlikely if the closer considers the close was proper, but the goal is to avoid a needless DRV. Renomination depends on how the article is ultimately closed and the essay WP:RENOM and is separate from the DRV process. Hope that helps, happy to answer any other procedural questions you might have. SportingFlyer T·C 11:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The longstanding consensus is that it should not be compulsory to approach the closer before listing a DRV. Firstly because some editors, and particularly those who're unfamiliar with Wikipedia, find sysops intimidating and that's a disincentive to get decisions reviewed or explained; and secondly because as a matter of principle, the person who made the call shouldn't be the gatekeeper for a discussion about whether they made the right call.—S Marshall T/C 12:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse- Should have been closed as delete even before the relist because there were literally no arguments made for keeping. The usual "keepormerge" without explanation, "it's got blue links", and "It's valid" are not arguments and were quite rightly given no weight. Reyk YO! 11:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • question Is it incumbent on the closer to assess the original nomination or just the arguments for keep? If only the latter, doesn't nominating articles for deletion potentially create a lot of work for "keep" editors particularly if the original nomination was specious? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's something you should have asked the closing administrator before bringing it here. But generally yes, the closing admin should take into account all the opinions in the discussion. In this case it was clear that the delete !voters made better arguments. Reyk YO! 11:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. An AfD where the "keep" side failed to express their only strong argument. This was a navigational list that clearly satisfies WP:CLN. In other words, because you can have Category:Forgotten Realms deities, per policy you can have a list that duplicates it. But this wasn't said. The close was in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus was wrong on policy; therefore the correct DRV outcome is relist as a defective discussion.—S Marshall T/C 12:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in there does it say a category necessitates a list? It seems to simply to defend the idea that you shouldn't delete a list on the argument it has a category and vice versa. I don't think anyone put forth that argument, and consensus can otherwise say a list is unneeded per that page. The category is also on its way out, having been gutted to I believe literally a tenth of its former size. It will be gone shortly. TTN (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or maybe the majority of the articles simply aren't notable. It's not impossible for a potential notable article to be overlooked, but I'd doubt that's the case. Maybe if a certain group of people actually took heed to the concerns from 2014 and made any attempt to actually fix their space... TTN (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above editors are contending that you're creating so many AfDs that you're overwhelming our normal deletion processes. I've just checked a random sample of the recent AfD logs and I feel there does appear to be a high proportion of deletion discussions about role-playing games, which to me implies that what we actually need is an RfC to create clear principles governing the whole topic area. Personally my feeling is that beating up the D&D nerds is a mistake. Fictional topic fandom is a major source of new editors for the project, and I think that the shrinking number of Wikipedians is a bit of a concern. In any case they aren't doing any harm. Perhaps this deletionist zeal might be better aimed at poorly-sourced BLPs?—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally stopped at the request of someone wanting to clean up the space, but I am fairly doubtful on the completion of that campaign regardless. But I'll still participate in those started by others. The largest problem in them being against these is that they've had well over a decade to attend to these, and the majority of these are just outright not notable. Complaining that one or two may be overlooked is pointless when they could just be brought back after sources are provided. TTN (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, now that the article has been tempundeleted and I can see what it was actually like, I have to say that the argument that the list is navigational is... not convincing. For a navigational list there sure is a lot of unsourced plot summary of redlinked or nonlinked entries. At best this is a crufty fandump cunningly disguised to look navigational. Reyk YO! 12:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the point of making a navigational list in its place, actually. A purely navigational list would be useless but also pretty harmless. But keeping the edit history of this one in place would be a bad idea since in my experience the D&D fans sometimes like to sneak back when nobody's watching to restore, for instance, crufty articles that have been converted to redirects. Reyk YO! 18:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per the suggestion of S Marshall. I think there may be some room to reconsider for a Keep, but perhaps more importantly I suggested a smerge to the main parent article and at least two editors said that was worth exploring, but the closer did mention taking that into account in their close, so that is another possible outcome. BOZ (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I don't think S Marshall's argument applies here. If this had been a straight delete on the basis of the category existing, that would be a pertinent argument, but the very page he links to says that "At the same time, there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia." Otherwise, there was no strong evidence of passing list notability or establishing the article as a proper fork. TTN (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or Relist. The closure seems a bit like a supervote and does not tally with the opinions expressed in the discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A list article is valid if it aids in navigation, that one of the purposes a list article can have. Claiming my argument, that it had a lot of blue links to other articles, is invalid because some of those links are now redirects are at AFD, is wrong since the closer didn't click on all the blue links, otherwise they would've found that not all of them are up for deletion, and even those who are might not be deleted. The list shouldn't be nominated unless all the things linked to have already been deleted. I have gone through Category:Forgotten Realms deities and erased all the categories on the pages that were just redirects. This helps identify which of the blue links in the article link to actual articles and not redirects. Note that most of those left are not being nominated for deletion. It is a supervote to ignore all those who gave valid reasons for keeping it. Dream Focus 13:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Some of those in the list article that are valid blue links are not listed in this one category but instead Category:Dungeons & Dragons deities. If there is a bot that can just take every link on that list and then say which ones are redirects and which ones are not, that'd be helpful. At any rate, there are enough valid links easily verified in the first category to justify the list. Dream Focus 13:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/analysis as AfD closer As for the bluelink !keep vote, of the 282 bullet-point deities, 138 (49%) were linked, and of these only 30 (10% of total) were actual articles (i.e. not redirects) and not up for AfD at the same time. At the rate that Forgotten Realms currently experiences AfDs, I expect(ed) hardly any stand-alone article to survive. On my perusal of the List before deletion, all references either only proved the existence of individual fictional deities or in-universe info about them (WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:PRIMARY WP:PLOT, as noted by delete !voters), which in my eyes means WP:NOTABILITY is not satisfied. In my closing notes, I solely focused on why I therefore discounted the keep !votes, leaving the delete recommendations speak for themselves. I have no vested interest in this AfD or the list itself, so go ahead and do what you need to do with this AfD/List. – sgeureka t•c 14:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment On the one hand WP:CLN validates a list with blue links/categories; on the other hand WP:LISTN potentially validates a list without blue links (disputes will come down sources) so it seems like a list that addresses both (one perhaps more than the other) is a useful contribution to Wikipedia. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing CLN does is says that lists/categories can coexist, and that it's seen as a beneficial on a general basis. It's not an argument that a page should/needs to exist because a category exists. As per the quote I posted above, consensus can say that a list is unnecessary. Though if we want to do a bare-bones, blue link only list that can nominated again if/when the category is deleted, I'd be fine with that as a compromise. TTN (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CLN seems like a "no brainer" for keeping a list article and I suppose the argument will come down to how many articles justify a category. Regarding WP:LISTN, when I review WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and consider the ubiquity of D&D content (deities, monsters, settings, character classes, and more) in popular culture then I still consider there is a valid argument to be made for this (and similar list articles) whether or not a category exists.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse and Yuck. I would have !voted to Keep the list, but I didn't take part in the discussion. I would have closed the discussion as No Consensus, but I am not an administrator. However, the appellant appears to be re-litigating, not arguing any error by the closer, and I don't see an argument that Delete is an obvious error. So Weak Endorse. I don't know what the basis of this appeal is. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of this discussion seems to be re-litigation of the AfD, with four of the seven distinct !voters so far having participated in the discussion. I'm not explicitly voting as I also participated and I agree with the close, but I don't see why delete would have been an invalid conclusion here. SportingFlyer T·C 03:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I voted keep in the AFD discussion on this article. I wasn't aware of the WP:CLN policy per User:S Marshall above), or I would have referenced it directly, but I believe I tried to put forward the spirit of that policy by the argument I supplied in the discussion. I went back and had another look at the article pre-deletion, and for the most part it is simply a list of, exactly as it says, the various fictional deities in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, and I would agree that the vast majority, if not all of them, are not independently notable. However, they are all perfectly valid search terms which would lead an interested user to the Forgotten Realms campaign setting. I would consider that to be inherently notable; it's huge, it's been written about and played in for somewhere close on 30 years, and (I checked) it contains significant coverage in secondary, independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Could this list be reproduced there? Yes, presumably - but it would unnecessarily clutter the article. Could you redirect the individual names to the Forgotten Realms article? Yes - but you'd lose the context, unless you incorporated the list again. As such, my argument is that this is a subelement of the Forgotten Realms setting which is large enough in and of itself to justify a separate list article, per WP:LISTPURP. If there's a problem with the content of that article, fine - edit it. I'm not necessarily convinced that any individual entry in the list needs more than a single line anyway - but I am convinced that it should not be summarily deleted. (Also - thanks to User:AugusteBlanqui for bringing this to deletion review.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or Relist. The closure is a supervote. The assessment of the AfD participants !votes was not correct. Lightburst (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment: I concur with and support User:S Marshall's suggestion of an RFC on the topic of role-playing games, and suggest it be extended to fiction in general. The multiple failures of this project to produce usable guidelines for writing articles about fiction are at the core of the arguments to delete (and save) articles like this one.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's vast range of guidelines and essays about notability as it applies to fictional topics is akin to scripture, in that somewhere in the labyrinthine mess of rules, you can find support for almost any position. This has come about because editors simply can't agree about how notability applies to fictional topics. It means that any RfC on fictional topics in general will inevitably lead to a "no consensus" outcome. But it might be possible to get consensus on how best to deal with role-playing games. With RfCs, the more specific the topic the better the outcome.—S Marshall T/C 12:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 December 2019

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Protests of 2019 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Articles for Deletion discussion was closed as no consensus (and thus kept) with a untrue and inaccurate closing statement on the basis of a so-called 50:50 split headcount (it was actually 8 delete with 1 merge vs 4 keep votes). Beside that, I feel no proper weight was given to the arguments with consideration of reviewing the sources used. Discussion with the closing admin is HERE (started by another user) for further info, which is not much responded to. I suggest an overturn. Cold Season (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be invoking point 1 if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly - but Ritchie333 explains that the 50:50 split was metaphorical. For a !vote, what counts is arguments, not pure numbers of !votes. The lead of the present version shows that prominent journalists and academics at reputable universities in both the English-speaking and French-speaking world claim that the Protests of 2019 are a topic of human knowledge. Some of the deletion discussion participants - Wikipedians - disagree with those external sources. An argument one way (pro-deletion) is that it is WP:OR to agree with the sources; the opposite argument (pro-keep) is that it is is WP:OR to disagree with the external sources. Surely we can agree that Ritchie333 has accurately summarised our lack of agreement on this point?
My worry is that this falls under point 5 of arguments that don't justify a deletion review: to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion. Boud (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer that there was no consensus either to delete or to keep. I am assuming that the appellant wants the close changed to Delete, but it doesn't matter, because No Consensus is valid. If there is disagreement about the wording used by the closer, it isn't worth the argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I understand the frustration of the nominator as I would have likely !voted delete in this AfD on OR/SYNTH grounds, and I think delete would have been a stronger close here, but multiple closes can be valid in a discussion and no consensus was a valid close here. This was especially outlined by the discussion on Ritchie333's talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 02:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse On the "keep" side we have DGG (not exactly unknown for making good arguments to delete) saying "(BBC, The Independent, The Guardian) all talk specifically about he connections between the protests. That's enough evidence for a genuine topic" while on the "delete" side we have "Fake news!" Although this is cherry picking, it does easily demonstrate that you cannot close an AfD on numbers alone. This reminds me of the time somebody complained about me advocating violence after I said "DYK should be taken outside and shot". Good grief. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep - the delete arguments consist entirely of variants of "I don't like it" or factually incorrect assertion that it's OR not based on the sources (any examination of the sources will reveal this to be false, which DGG pointed out fairly early on). The keep If there are bits of OR in the article, they can be pruned (as with any article). Note that the discussion was advertised here and possibly other places, making a straight headcount particularly dubious (and of course, I'm always suspicious of discussions where a factually incorrect argument gets repeated, as it was here). WilyD 09:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. XfD isn't a vote. In this case, each side had equally strong arguments, and thus, there is no consensus. InvalidOS (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse on the basis that the closer weighed the strength of the arguments, and did not count the votes (!votes). This is as it should be. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the numbers are weighted towards deletion but not massively so and several of the Delete comments don't state valid arguments at all. The main question in that debate was whether the sources cover the subject as a coherent topic, opinion was pretty split on that question and neither side had a knockdown argument. A no consensus close reflects that. Hut 8.5 21:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse You shouldn't waste time with deletion review just because you didn't get the result you wanted. Nothing wrong with the close here. Dream Focus 23:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Most of the delete !votes were simply nonsense and may have resulted from WP:CANVAS or other inappropriate motives. I'm sympathetic with the argument from WilyD that it should be overturned to keep, but ultimately I consider it a waste of time to discuss whether it should have been closed as no consensus or keep, as the effect of either is the same, and will not do so. If we discount the nonsense !votes, consensus clearly wasn't to delete. Smartyllama (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I opened the AfD, and questioned Ritchie on the close. See, I agree with his explanation. Though there were more delete!votes, many of them were a standard "delete per X" - and the same goes for the keep!votes. This ultimately means that there was effectively one argument for each side. Though I do feel some of the comments attached to votes (see: "fake news!") were made with the belief that no more needed to be said on the matter when it looked quite SNOW, we can easily open another deletion discussion, because, yes, my concerns about OR and SYNTH have not been assuaged by new sources - but that is not an argument to challenge a close, so I do not think there is much to argue on the close front, Ritchie's reason made sense. Kingsif (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Lightburst (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse-ish - I think the close was a fair assessment of the consensus at the time of the close, even though I would have preferred a re-list to get closer to a better consensus. It's perfectly acceptable to re-nom this article in the new year (e.g., next summer) if no-one is talking about these protests as linked then on possible grounds of it failing WP:LASTING. I think, for a supposed year-long event, if no-one is talking about them in following years then the impact was clearly not lasting, and I expect that this will likely actually be the case. FOARP (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Ryszard Walkiewicz – No consensus. Numerically, it's 11 overturn to 7 endorse (or thereabouts, I'm bad at counting). That's no consensus. In terms of arguments, I'm not sure that I should attempt to weigh them as much in a DRV as I would in an AfD, and in any case I would have little basis for doing so. People disagree about the relationship between specific notability guidelines and the GNG, which is a notoriously difficult topic, and not one in which I'm comfortable with deciding by fiat who's right. For lack of consensus at DRV, therefore, the closure is maintained by default. (A third relist doesn't seem useful to me here.) Sandstein 12:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ryszard Walkiewicz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is the reverse situation from the recently closed Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_November_20 Ernesto Alcati DRV, where consensus was clear a historical article with potential non-English which passed a sports SNG should be kept even though WP:GNG had not been definitively established. As I noted in that DRV, whether WP:GNG was met was not disproved by any of the delete !voters. Here, consensus to keep this article about a Polish footballer from the 1950s was even stronger, as Mr. Walkiewicz did make several appearances in modern sources, and whether WP:GNG was met was not disproved by any of the delete !voters. The closer applied their own interpretation of policy, which was that none of the keep !voters demonstrated WP:GNG was met, see here for the response. This misinterpreted my !vote. As I noted in my vote, we delete articles which meet the footy/sports SNG when it is clear the presumption that WP:GNG-qualifying coverage exists has been overcome. This is very easy to do with current players, but as I noted in my !vote, we cannot tell if he passes WP:GNG without looking at contemporaneous sources. This is nearly impossible for me to do given the era and the language, but the !votes which mentioned this difficulty were discounted by the closer for not demonstrating any sources where the presumption was challenged. None of the delete !voters performed a search either, and the nominator did not mention WP:GNG. Furthermore, the article itself was perfectly fine, with a number of distinct albeit short mentions in modern sources. For examples of a situation where historical articles have failed the WP:GNG presumption, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Adams (1920s footballer) SportingFlyer T·C 11:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - I am the closing admin for this AfD. The key point here from the statement above is we cannot tell if he passes WP:GNG. I'm not sure where the accusations that None of the delete !voters performed a search. This seems to be completely unfounded. Furthermore whilst the article did contain a number of distinct albeit short mentions in modern sources, these were either in primary sources or were mentions by name, and little to nothing else, certainly nothing to satisfy GNG. Finally to then list examples where articles have been kept despite not demonstrating GNG seems to strange, WP:NFOOTY, as part of WP:NSPORT is merely a presumption of GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT is quite clear on the sourcing required under the presumptions of the various SNGs within NSPORT.
To add further clarity on me deletion decision, the below as from my own talk page outlining my assessment of the keep votes and why I felt that their strength was so weak as to not support a keep conclusion:
Let's review the keep votes, so you can be in no doubt about my conclusions regarding the weakness of these:
  1. Sporting Flyer - keep vote that does not cite any sources to support GNG. Vote actually acknowledges inability to find sources. Singularly fails to deal with the challenge put in place that the presumption of GNG is not met.
  2. Lightburst - again just a "meets NFOOTY" keep vote, no attempt to deal with GNG. No sources cited to indicate GNG in this instance.
  3. Nfitz - again just a "meets NFOOTY" keep vote, no attempt to deal with GNG. No sources cited to indicate GNG in this instance
  4. OLLSZCZ - a discussion of GNG, but not in any real way to address the subject, just a theoretical conversation on the nature of GNG which adds nothing to this specific discussion. No sources cited to indicate GNG in this instance.
  5. Alexh - no policy cited. In fact the statement that this player was playing in a non-professional period seems to indicate NFOOTY failure, let alone GNG.
  6. Smartyllama - statement of passing GNG but no attempt to support this with any sources. No engagement when challenged.
To reiterate for the third time, NFOOTY is not a guarantee of notability, it is a presumption. This was challenged and even though the AfD was relisted twice, nothing was presented which even begun to support GNG. This should be unsurprising to almost everyone as the player played only a very small number of games, so I am not sure what sources editors would expect to see to support GNG for someone who had such a minor impact on the game. Fenix down (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I explicitly rebutted the nominator's presumption that the SNG should be higher than just one game, even though that's clearly what WP:NFOOTY says. The nominator did not discuss WP:GNG at all, or even if they had performed any sort of WP:BEFORE search. I also explicitly noted WP:GNG is difficult to determine for this article as he's noted in several modern sources, but not substantially. I could only find digitised Polish newspapers online through the early 1930s. My point, as it stood in the AfD, is that it's very difficult to determine whether he meets WP:GNG, and we give the benefit of the doubt - the presumption, as you will - to non-BLPs who meet SNGs from outside the English-speaking world when WP:NEXIST isn't disproven (especially in light of the fact he has been mentioned in modern sources), and I've noted a recent DRV where no consensus existed on this exact point. This viewpoint should not have been discarded. SportingFlyer T·C 12:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- there seems to be a misconception that meeting an SNG permanently exempts the subject from the usual sourcing requirements. That is not so. It's merely a rebuttable presumption that the subject meets the GNG-- when challenged, you do actually have to come up with the sources. And it's no use reversing the burden of proof by trying to claim that people who looked for sources and couldn't find any have an obligation to prove they actually looked. Good close. As for a good way to proceed from here, generally the best thing to do with sportsperson stubs amounting to only statistical entries and no biographical information, is to merge them into a suitable List of XYZ footballers or the like. Reyk YO! 12:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to make clear I'm not trying to get this article "exempted from sourcing requirements forever" because it meets a SNG. The fact the player has been mentioned by modern historians makes it likely there's contemporaneous sources from the 1950s in Poland, but nobody in the discussion has access to those sources. If someone had been able to search those sources and yielded nothing, that's a clear delete. As it stands, we're deleting a valid article because the sources about him on the internet don't rise to our modern standards, even though there's enough modern sources to write a valid stub. SportingFlyer T·C 13:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might not be the intention, but it would certainly be the effect. The AfD was open for three weeks. That should be enough time to procure sources if they actually exist. If that's not long enough, how long would you suggest? Three months? Three years? An indefinitely prolonged exemption from WP:V and WP:GNG might as well be a permanent one. Reyk YO! 14:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you suggesting I do, learn Polish and raise money for a trip to search the Warsaw library to definitively prove or disprove this person's notability? I've tried to find newspaper archives to search from the time period online and haven't been able to search, and I don't know Polish anyways. The subject has been mentioned in five modern online sources, WP:V is met, the SNG is met, the only thing we don't have is a definitive answer on whether he's notable because of his era and the part of the world he came from, but the consensus acknowledged this and still voted to keep. This is an edge case just like Alcati last week, and typically in edge cases, we've defaulted to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 15:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm writing too much on this, so I'm unwatching this discussion. Please ping me if you have any further questions or responses. SportingFlyer T·C 15:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was sourced - why say otherwise? Personally, I didn't over those weeks spend hours trying to research further, as it seemed clear that there wasn't the consensus to delete during the discussion. Nfitz (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (!voted delete in AfD) – this player played in one professional game. There are no GNG sources. That's a delete. It doesn't matter how many editors !vote "Keep, meets NFOOTY", all those !votes get discounted, because they ignore WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. In response to SF's question above, "What are you suggesting I do, learn Polish and raise money for a trip to search the Warsaw library to definitively prove or disprove this person's notability?" I would say what we're supposed to do is delete this article. Obviously it's not worth a trip to Warsaw to investigate a player who played in one professional game. These barely-pass-NFOOTY-but-no-GNG articles are routinely deleted at AfDs (and "NFOOTY keeps" are routinely discounted), so I'm not sure why this article is different and worth DRVing. There were two relists by two admins, each of whom noted that GNG wasn't being addressed by keep !voters. I'm not sure how this could have gone any other way, given the extremely, abundantly clear guidance at WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and the FAQ at WT:ATHLETE, that meeting the SNG but not meeting GNG = delete. I really, really don't understand why some editors !vote to keep articles about football players that played in one game about whom there is no sourcing to be found. Why is it so important to give every damn footballer their very own page in the encyclopedia? I don't get it. – Levivich 15:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My recollection was there were several sources in the article. However the article isn't visible. Can it be made so, for the purposes of this discussion? Nfitz (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support request for temp undeletion as always, but going off of this mirror, there were five refs in the article. Two were statistics websites [26] [27], two were just his name in a list of players [28] [29], and the fifth [30] had one sentence about the subject, "Gdzieś z Trójmiasta przyszedł Ryszard Walkiewicz", which translates to "Ryszard Walkiewicz came from somewhere in the Tri-City", and that's it. None came even close to being WP:SIGCOV. – Levivich 17:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Consensus was clearly to keep at the AfD. DRV is not supposed to be a rehashing of AfD arguments. The question is did the closer judge consensus correctly, and the answer is clearly no. If the closer disagreed with the consensus, they should have !voted. Smartyllama (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Above editor !voted keep in the AfD. – Levivich 17:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus. I disagree with User:Smartyllama in that I don't see a consensus to Keep, but I don't see a consensus for anything. In particular, I don't see a consensus that GNG wasn't met. I see a lack of consensus that GNG was met, but Delete requires a rough consensus to Delete, which isn't there. I respectfully disagree with the endorsers, because I think that they are relitigating, and are saying that GNG wasn't met. That isn't the question, which is whether there was a consensus on GNG, which there wasn't, either way. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus - exactly how in depth sources need to be is somewhat subjective, and there's no consensus in the discussion whether they're adequate or not here (and really, when we're looking at the kind of records you get with sports, this is a common source of non-consensus). If you ever thing your close is being bold, you really need to be confident you're synthesising the discussion into an outcome everyone can live with; not just choosing one side you personally find more convincing. WilyD 08:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (and I !voted 'delete' at the AFD) - good close, GNG clearly not met which is well0established as being more important than passing WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keepno consensus. Much of the discussion above is rehashing the AFD, not looking at the closure. I feel review of the keeps above, misrepresents my keep discussion, falsely claiming that I just said "meets NFOOTY", and ignoring my discussion of GNG. Consensus in the closure is that WP:NFOOTBALL was met. The article was nominated on the basis it didn't mean WP:NFOOTBALL with no mention of GNG. Only two people endorsed deletion, with the first also claiming that WP:NFOOTBALL wasn't met, and making the first mention of GNG, but not giving any indication why GNG wasn't met; the second concludes that WP:NFOOTBALL was met, but says that GNG wasn't met, with no indication what they looked at to conclude that. There's a lot of time necessary to search for foreign-language sources from a player active almost 70 years ago - personally, I never even started to do that, because I never saw any consensus to delete the article, and there are sources in the article to meet any WP:V,WP:RS, WP:BLP, or WP:NOR concerns. Nfitz (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing from Overturn to no consensus to Overturn to keep. Dream Focus makes a good point below, and several Keep votes were clear that subject specific guidelines were met. Nfitz (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not about rehashing the arguments at AfD. Many people here don't seem to get that. The question for this DRV is not which sources are reliable, it's whether the closer correctly judged consensus. That is the only question that people here should consider, and I'd encourage whoever closes this DRV to disregard other opinions. Smartyllama (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any discussion in the AFD that any commentators expressed concerns about the reliability of the sources - nor was it mentioned in the closing statement. If that's a real concern, then there's no prejudice against a future AFD (or even relisting) - it doesn't validate the closure as being correct. Nfitz (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus I think that close crosses the line between reading the consensus and taking part in the discussion. Subject-specific notability guidelines such as NFOOTBALL are supposed to create a presumption of notability, and WP:N makes it clear that topics shouldn't be deleted on notability grounds if sources are likely to exist, and that notability is based on the existence of sources rather than the current state of the sourcing. It is reasonable for the Keep proponents to rely on NFOOTBALL as creating a presumption of notability. It is a notability guideline, after all. Whether it should be a notability guideline is a separate question that isn't for an AfD to decide. Determining whether the subject here actually does meet the GNG would require searching of 1950s Polish sources, and there wasn't any indication that anybody had tried this. Hut 8.5 22:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn WP:NOTABILITY clearly states an article is notable if it passes the GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines. It has never had to do both. The subject specific guidelines would not exist if the GNG had to be passed no matter what. If most people believe the article passed the appropriate subject specific guideline, then it should've been closed as KEEP. This is clearly a supervote. Dream Focus 23:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this completely incorrect, NSPORT is very clear that the standards in each SNG are mere presumptions of GNG. Specifically WP:SPORTCRIT is key here and clearly states A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject. Passing an SNG is merely a presumption of notability. Wider GNG still needs to be shown, especially when challenged and we were not even close in this AFD. Fenix down (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "presumed" on the notability page links to Rebuttable presumption. You are assuming the presumption has been rebutted because no one demonstrated sources, but it hasn't. You noted here that "if you can't find sources, you shouldn't be voting keep," which I strongly disagree with in this instance. As an example, if this were a Polish politician stub from the 1950s that passed WP:NPOL and WP:V from modern sources but not quite WP:GNG because 1950s sources are difficult to find, the presumption the politician is notable hasn't been disproven if nobody does a source search at AfD. I also admit it's rather rare to be in a position where you can't search for sources, which makes the consensus of the AfD even more important. SportingFlyer T·C 11:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is incorrect. In your example above, WP:BASIC, clearly noted at the start of WP:NBIO, is key, you can't just ignore it and jump to a later section that is clearly governed by an earlier one. Furthermore, per WP:NRV, Notability requires verifiable evidence. If you can't present sources to verify notability then the subject is not notable. It is not up to editors to prove a negative. Fenix down (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That fails to note that the same FAQ (Q1) then goes on to note that "They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them" - and given the time to fly to Warsaw and search 1950s newspapers, we would suspect to find additional soruces. The page also notes that "These FAQ answers reflect the decisions found in the talk page archives. Please feel free to change them in light of new discussion.". Nfitz (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that this is the only endorse !vote so far that actually commented on whether the closer judged consensus properly rather than simply rehashing the arguments at AfD. I agree with Nfitz's rebuttal, but at least you used DRV for its proper purpose. I hope the closer treats the endorses with appropriate weight. Smartyllama (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – If a player played 50 years ago, editors vote "keep, meets NFOOTY" and argue for an "inaccessible sources" exception to GNG as they are doing here. But if a player is playing today, editors vote "keep, meets NFOOTY" and argue for a "young and ongoing" exception to GNG, as they just did there. They just want a stand alone page about every pro footballer, period, end of story, secondary sourcing be damned. Arguments that meeting an SNG is sufficient ignores all of our notability guidelines-GNG, NBIO, ATH, etc. If a closer isn't allowed to discount such votes, that ignores NOTAVOTE and turns Footy AfDs into a mere head count. The argument that playing in one game means we can "presume" there will be sources is complete BS, we all know it, and it's been shown to be false in AfDs time and time again. Has there ever been a one-game player who been shown to meet GNG? So long as editors are allowed to put forward statistics websites and suggest they count for notability, or vote keep just because a player meets nfooty by having played in one game (or two)—and closers aren’t allowed to discount such votes—then Footy AfDs will be a completely pointless exercise. – Levivich 13:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: @Levivich: As Dream focus has stated: The subject specific guidelines would not exist if the GNG had to be passed no matter what. Professional athletes are known for their participation in competitive professional sport. They are not un-notable because they have not generated press. SNG is a hurdle which has been cleared and the majority of editors have stated this in the AfD. In any event we are here because the XfD closer has rejected the will of the many editors who have participated in the AfD - we have an actual policy which was ignored WP:CONSENSUS. The article can be nominated over and over again, but in this case, the closer incorrectly gave the article the death penalty. Closer claimed I'm going to be bold and close this as delete. It is ok to be bold, but it is not ok to go against our very clear policies. Lightburst (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is absolute nonsense, WP:SPORTCRIT is quite clear what is required, as I have already noted above, namely: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. An SNG is a presumption that at a certain level players will have achieved sufficient success that the level of coverage they have received will satisfy WP:SPORTCRIT, it is not a substitute in any way for GNG. This is further supported by the statement in the Applicable policies and guidelines section of NSPORT, which says categorically that: the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. If this cannot be shown then the player is not notable. We absolutely do not assume notability on the basis that sources must exist. Fenix down (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely - it says "should".; it doesn't say "must", and allows us to apply WP:COMMONSENSE in these rarer cases. Meanwhile WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators says "Administrators must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached". I'm not convinced that the closing was impartial, and correctly judged the rough consensus. Nfitz (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just semantics. WP:NRV is clear: there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. There's no wiggle room there, if you cant show sources demonstrating notability the subject isn't notable. In that sense "should" equates to "must". Fenix down (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    NRV never becomes applicable - at the top of that page (WP:N} it says "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". N is met through the path to the right, not the path below. Nfitz (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're also cherry-picking your quotes from WP:DGFA. You have ignored the statements, Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability [specific section chosen by me for emphasis]...) These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. Basically, if you can't show sources exits to support notability, it doesn't matter howm many "keep, meets SNG" votes there are, they count for nothing. Fenix down (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You cherry picked the consensus - above you described the keep votes, choosing to ignore all the bits that defied your biased opinion that the article should be deleted. You then cherry picked the delete votes to ignore that 2 of the 3 deletes (including the nomination) falsely argued that NFOOTBALL wasn't met! The only valid delete in the debate, simply said "a bare NFOOTY pass (like one game) is not a reason to keep an article when there's a total failure of GNG". That you find a strong argument there, given all the counter-points, easily demonstrates that you failed to be impartial - invalidating the close! And not for the first time either, looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Khalvan. Nfitz (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, as noted above I did what was required and assessed the strength of the arguments. Now there may end up being consensus here that my assessment was wrong and that's fine, but that's completely different from cherry picking. Fenix down (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lightburst: There are no "very clear policies" about this. Strictly, there are no policies at all. WP:N is a guideline. Generally, the fundamental question is: can an article be kept at AfD if it's only shown to meet an SNG, but not shown to meet GNG? Some say yes, some say no. I think the existing guidelines, including WP:N, NBIO and ATH, and the ATH FAQ, are clear that the answer is no. I think our policies NOR and V are clear that articles must have secondary sources. But there are like 5–10 editors who are regular NFOOTY AfD voters who disagree, at least in part–who feel that, under certain circumstances, an article can be kept even without any GNG sources. I'm on the other end of the spectrum: I would have us speedily delete any article that doesn't have two arguably-GNG-satisfying sources, because I think verification is the most important thing, and much more important than broadness or completeness. I wonder if it's time for an RfC.
      Specifically, as it relates to this DRV, the question is: can a closer discount !votes that do not address GNG? Can a closer discount !votes that assert GNG is met but do not provide any sources as evidence? I think the answer to both is yes. – Levivich 17:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Levivich: Ah... the five pillars. referring to WP:5P5. I was referring to WP:CONSENSUS This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. the XfD closer ignored in favor of their own bold delete. That is why we are here. Again apply the actual policy of consensus to this deletion review - the closer ignored the different interpretations of GNG SNG and cast a WP:SUPERVOTE more accurately a Consensus-reversal supervote which says... There are several varieties of supervote, all of them problematic except the last one:. (by the way this closer's supervote is the first one) Should the closer of this review also go Bold and ignore the actual wp:consensus policy? Lightburst (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @LB: All bold emphasis is mine. The WP:CONSENSUS policy says:
          1. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
          2. A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised.
          3. Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
          4. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
        The WP:DGFA guideline says:
        1. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.
        2. Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions.
        Put that together, and I see a policy and guideline that strongly support the notion that if a topic cannot be properly sourced, !votes to keep can be discounted by a closer, and no WikiProject can make an exception for itself. At the top of this DRV, the closer indicated six !votes that he discounted for being contra to PAGs, because they were arguing to keep an article based on the topic passing an SNG, even where there were no GNG sources to be found. I think that's a valid weighting of !votes per the CONSENSUS policy and DGFA, N, NBIO, and ATH guidelines. – Levivich 18:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Levivich: I understand your point here. What about your other point? There are no "very clear policies" about this. Strictly, there are no policies at all. WP:N is a guideline. This directly contradicts. For every policy there is a competing policy, guideline or essay. One point I will continue to make, is deletion is the equivalent of the death penalty. The article can be nominated infinite times, but it got the death penalty against consensus when you state WP:N is a guideline. However WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can and does change. Local consensus in the AfD and here is against your position. Lightburst (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The part the many editors ignore in WP:N is it is SNG or GNG not both

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

  1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
  2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Lightburst (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LB: "Presumed notable" doesn't mean "is notable", and the word "presumed" is linked to Rebuttable presumption, which means it possible that something that is "presumed notable" might not actually be notable (the presumption is rebutted). So right there, meeting those two criteria doesn't mean it has to be kept. I think it's not "a very clear policy" because it doesn't say exactly how that presumption is rebutted. But a "keep meets NFOOTY" !vote is a vote to keep based on the justification that meets the WP:ATH guideline. So we should look at the ATH guideline, and not just at WP:N, to see how the presumption is applied, and how it can be rebutted. The answer to whether ATH applies is in ATH, not in N. And ATH says Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb ... Again, that's not very clear. It basically says that meeting the criteria doesn't mean shit, and failing the criteria doesn't mean shit, you're on your own, good luck! Thanks, authors of ATH. (Athholes.) So, I think we can argue all day long about the vague meanings of our notability guidelines, but boy would our time be better spent drafting new language and having a vote on that. As far as this DRV goes, I think that a closer can properly discount a !vote that doesn't address whether the article can be sourced in compliance with the core content policies. So when core-policy-compliance is challenged, "meets [SNG]" is not a valid justification, because SNGs aren't core policies like V, NOR, and BLP (if applicable), etc. An article that meets GNG would meet all those core policy requirements–that's the point of GNG–but that's not true for an SNG. – Levivich 19:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Enough with the walls of text, the incivility, and the WP:BLUDGEONING. Getting more aggressive isn't going to help your case. Smartyllama (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What User:Levivich is an "Athholes"? Sorry, I'm not able to parse it, what I can only assume is a typo ... no reference in the OED. Nfitz (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You really didn't gather that it's a pun on "assholes", or are you just sea lioning? – Levivich 21:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't crossed my mind we were into name-calling and blatant violations of WP:5P4 ... which seems ironic as we ponder enforcement of non-firm rules as per WP:5P5 and a close that violate WP:5P2. Perhaps if I sell the movie rights of the encyclopedia, I can go for the quinfecta. Nfitz (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The above discussion is a classic example of what should not happen at DelRev - people trying to make it a second AFD. The only question here is whether the closer assessed the consensus properly. The contention, never fully addressed, was that GNG was not met. GNG not being met, the close was appropriate. This was a borderline case but calling it as being on this side of off-side was within the ref's margin of appreciation. FOARP (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure FOARP how you get delete out of that discussion. The nomination didn't mention with GNG or express any concern with the sources, erroneously pointing to other issues. One of the two deletes wrongly identified NFOOTBALL as the issue, and simply claimed GNG not met, without discussing any of the sources in the article. The only other delete also claimed that GNG wasn't met - but didn't discuss any of the sources. If GNG was really the issue, there needed to be more discussion of that in the AFD other than name checking a policy without discussing the sources, or looking for more. Nfitz (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz - I saw the AFD and was minded to vote keep. However, after doing my WP:BEFORE I saw there really were no sources that I could find that would show WP:GNG beyond those already cited (which did not really do it as they lacked WP:SIGCOV), but I didn't vote delete because it seemed possible that someone else would find them. TL;DR - I was sympathetic to the Keep position and might have voted that way. However, this isn't a second AFD, it's a DelRev, and the only thing to be decided here is whether consensus was read properly. The closer seems to have found the delete arguments more convincing that the delete ones, they explained why they found them more convincing - and boiled down to its essentials its because WP:GNG was not shown and that's basic policy, whilst WP:NFOOTY is just a guideline. FOARP (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP Though WP:GNG (general notabilty guideline) is also a guideline - this is confirmed at the top of that page WP:N. You may be thinking of WP:V, which was surely met with the 5 references. GNG is on the WP:N page, which near the top, notes that "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: (1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". While not meeting GNG, it does meet the sports guideline to the right (i.e. WP:NFOOTBALL on WP:ATH). Nfitz (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - you are correct that WP:GNG is also a guideline. However, it is a higher-level guideline, and WP:NFOOTY states that it only creates a presumption. The closer appears to have been satisfied that this presumption was rebutted. FOARP (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The discussion really goes to two things. One did the player pass WP:GNG as the keep voters didn't bring any references to the table when that inital discussion started. The references that were already in the article were what you would WP:PRIMARY resources as all of the references were statistics and not news resources for this player. Yeah the player might of pass WP:NFOOTY but WP:GNG is usually the main reason for these one game players. Secondly, was the closer right in closing this as he went pass the WP:CON and judged the votes in what he thought was the correct decision. Personally I am on the fence here as I would of voted delete in the original vote because I but with the possibly of what has come out then I am not so sure. HawkAussie (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Primarily due to my concerns that the closing admin is not neutral in matters like this. They have previously expressed a point of view in line with said close and this looks like a WP:Supervote. Following a spate of similar closes earlier this year, I raised concerns about this behaviour in private and requested that they refrain from closing these types of AfDs (which they do on a regular basis and almost always in this manner) due to the supervote issue, but this suggestion was not taken on board. Number 57 17:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Overturn because I think the closer is biased" is begging the question a bit, isn’t it? Can you comment substantively on the close—e.g., how !votes should have been weighed by the closer, and the two points raised by HawkAussie above? Thanks. – Levivich 17:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Number 57 explained their reasoning quite well, it's clear they thought this was a supervote and that the closer was biased. You, on the other hand, need to learn not to WP:BLUDGEON or we may need to escalate this once this DRV closes. You have shown repeated tendencies to bludgeon both here and at the other AfD. But this isn't the place to discuss that, ANI is, so that's all I'll say on that matter here. Smartyllama (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, and a poorly thought out one at that. If anyone tries to go to ANI purely on grounds of WP:BLUDGEON, with no actual indications of uncivil behaviour, I'll be voting against. Why? Because it essentially criminalises being in the minority in an argument. If it were simply about repetition then I could accept that, but it goes beyond that to forbidding a single editor discussing with multiple editors and responding to each in turn. It is against the spirit ofWP:NOTAVOTE in that it potentially prevents a single editor discussing with multiple others. FOARP (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no consensus (leaning keep) in the discussion. This is an SNG vs GNG issue which we've not really settled. Count went toward keep, I don't think delete was a viable outcome. Hobit (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 December 2019

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

Consensus was not properly reached based on arguments provided.

On & after 22 November 2019:

  1. Reliable References were added to the article such as from The Verge, The Washington Post, Ars Technica and others.
  2. Article was updated with content from the mentioned reliable sources,

With reasoning for deletion: 

"This product isn't notable and it only serves to mirror what's on phonearena, and it's best such thing remains on resources where it's a better fit."

No longer seeming valid.

I suggest to undelete article. 0xSkyy (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse The close was squarely within the closer's discretion. Only one editor offered a rational for keeping the article and that rational was questioned by at least one participant. --Enos733 (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I recognize there might be a slight question of whether the closer became involved in the discussion with the comment "And I am leaning towards deletion at this time, I would have deleted the article yesterday but wanted to give other users the opportunity to respond to the references which you have added," after relisting the article. --Enos733 (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Enos733:, I disagree that closer became "involved". I believe the closer posited that they're inclined to delete at the moment, based on the discussion; and re-listed the discussion to give opportunity for additional input that may shift the consensus. So I believe they were correct to uphold the existing consensus in absence of additional inputs. Graywalls (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, with the explicit expectation it'll get renominated. Article was massively expanded (including a lot of additional sources), after which one editor argued keep, and one kinda equivocated about the quality of the sources. Previous participant's arguments (which were mostly "per noms") wouldn't carry through to the expanded article (though, I could certainly see a new AfD ending in a merge/redirect to List_of_Xiaomi_products#Mi_Pad_Tablets). WilyD 08:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I was one of the first delete !voters who should apparently be discounted because we didn't !vote twice?
Sorry, but I still see no reason why this is a notable product. There are many tablets, I'm still not seeing anything to distinguish this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a discussion, not a vote. If one makes an argument, and circumstances change, and the argument no longer applies, then it no longer applies. When the number/depth of sources is substantially improved, old evaluations of whether WP:N is met don't apply any further. WilyD 13:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " first tablet from Xiaomi." might carry it. But that's the only reason I can see. Everything is a "first use of next-gen processor" or "popular with userbase". Now, are Xiaomi enough for this significance, and is this enough for its influence on Xiaomi? "First tablet built by Foxconn" would be notable, as would be "first Android tablet" but Xiaomi are a brand, not a mega-corp like Foxconn. Is MIUI enough for notability here?
I'd also note that I wasn't swayed at all by the added sourcing (and why I didn't change my !vote). I never had a problem with the WP:V of what was claimed, and that's what the extra sourcing reinforced. Rather it's still the question "Is Xiaomi's first tablet inherently notable, for being first?" Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andy Dingley, we are quick to say that lists of accomplishments or distinctions, in the absence of significant coverage, do not satisfy the GNG, and generally do not demonstrate notability. The flip side is that coverage sufficient to satisfy the GNG does establish notability, even if the topic is soemwhat routine (and arguably the trademark dispute makes it not routine). But had the above view bene expressed in the AfD after the sources were added, the closer should have considered it. But it wasn't. If this should be overturend and re-listed, such a view could be expressed then. But it wasn't in the AfD we are now reviewing. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OVERTURN to no consensus or even to keep. In the comment dated 8:03 pm, 21 November 2019, Graywalls attempted to set a higher bar than the GNG, and so that user's views should have been discounted, as this does not conform to policy. No one in the discussion fvoring deletion engaged with the sources added during the course of the discussion -- this seems to be a WP:HEY situation. 0xSkyy seemed to misunderstand the nature of notability in the comment dated 6:54 pm, 22 November 2019, But the sources added during the discussion and listed in the comment of 10:08 pm, 23 November 2019 (the last substantive comment, but a full week prior to the close) see to do a fair job of establishing notability, and no one gave any reasons why these sources were not sufficient, or indeed wrote of having read these sources at all. The non did not mention any WP:BEFORE search, and one must wonder whether a reasonable BEFIRE search wouldn't have found at least soem of these sources. The Time, story, the Mashable review, the Android Authority review, the Eurogamer review, the review by The Verge, the PC Mag story, and the Reuters. and 9to5Mac stories on the trademark dispute together make a decent case for notability, and no one in the discussion addressed that case at all, although there was plenty of time after those sources were added to the article. Since the AfD nom was based entirely in lack of notability, and the three further delete views (all the same day) did not discuss added sources at all, or indeed make any further comment after the sources were added, those opnions should be discounted. The nominator, Graywalls, did comment further, but mostly to opine that reviews were not sufficient (contrary to the GNG) without indicatign what else would be needed, or engaging with the sources (like the Timne story) that are not reviews. But even if the views of Graywalls are not discounted, the early delete supportes who did not reengage should be, leaving 1 delete view and one keep view, and no reasons given why notability is not established. The relisting by ST47 specifically said ... 0xSkyy has added some references to the article, and more input would beneficial., but no new commentators, and no significant further comment was provided. Under tjhose circumstances, the clsoe was not within the reasonable limits. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is probably too strong. There's very little participation after the article was improved - a potential re-nomination should be left open, given the very small headcount, which is better served by a no consensus outcome. Since the current article is essentially undiscussed, that there was an AfD shouldn't restrict the possibility of discussing the new article, going forward. WilyD 09:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- It seems that even after the expansion participants were unenthusiastic. I don't see any compelling reason to consign early delete votes to the shredder; this is clearly not a WP:HEY situation. And I don't want to encourage, even indirectly, the practice of drip-feeding sources into an article at AfD just to invalidate previous votes. Reyk YO! 17:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Participants weren't unenthusiastic, Reyk, they were silent. No one came back to the AfD discussion and said "I've looked at the new sources and I still say Delete, and here is why." WP:AFDDISCUSS says: Experienced AfD participants re-visit discussions that they have already participated in. They are looking for new facts, evidence or changes to the article which might change their initial conclusion. In this situation, strike through your previous comment using ... (if you are changing your mind) or to explicitly comment "no change" to confirm that you have considered the new evidence but remain unconvinced. That did not happen this time. WP:AFDEQ says: If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out reliable sources, ... and later If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, ... If early comments are taken at full weight in the face of added sources, and early comments not reconfirmed after significant sources are added are used to form a consensus to delete, there is far less incentive to improvce articles during AfD discussions, which I thought was considered a particularly good response to an AfD. In this case the article went from one cited source to 24 citations, including some highly reliable sources with more than trivial coverage, during ten days of AfD discussion (15-24 November). If that isn't a WP:HEY it must be approaching one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Reyk: For your convenience this is: Before Article Improvement and this is: After Article Improvement, and the following is the stated reason for deleting the "Before Article" from Graywalls: "This product isn't notable and it only serves to mirror what's on phonearena, and it's best such thing remains on resources where it's a better fit." WP:HEY 0xSkyy (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • OVERTURN to no consensus or even to keep- Graywalls used WP:GNG on the original delete discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xiaomi_Mi_Pad to argue for deletion.
    • AnandTech is a hardware review site with fair amount of credibility, true source of hardware specs would obviously be the original Manufacturer/Company and it uses reliable sources, in this case The Verge hence "Source: Xiaomi via The Verge".
    • Actually it was not cite stacking, it was merely a placeholder for future content - which was added, as can be seen in the last revision Mi Pad Last Readable revision. Graywalls had arbitrarily deleted content previously suggesting to cite sources. As can be seen in: Special:Diff/927749845 ( So, it became necessary to defensively cite sources ).
    • Also, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
    • And How about coverage from Reuters Reuters Article and 9to5Mac 9to5Mac Article again "noting" the topic. Maybe Reuters isn't reliable, as per Graywalls, who knows ?
    • Also, tablet computer is a computing device - a finished product which can be directly interacted with for its utility unlike "processor cooling". And whose main utility is in direct interaction.

0xSkyy (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Cryptic: For your convenience this is: Before Article Improvement and this is: After Article Improvement and the following is the stated reason for deleting "Before Article" : "This product isn't notable and it only serves to mirror what's on phonearena, and it's best such thing remains on resources where it's a better fit." Please reconsider. 0xSkyy (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist We have a relist left (only relisted once), a WP:HEY of over a dozen sources, the delete !votes were before the WP:HEY, two of the delete votes were per nom. I don't personally think a pre-WP:HEY !vote should be discarded. There's not really much of a discussion on the new sources in the article. There's no consensus to keep, and it's probably too soon to close as a no consensus. Why not let this one run another week, pinging all of the delete !voters again? From what I can tell, it doesn't look like they were pinged properly in the initial discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per the Flyer of the Sporting. It's been HEY'd with sources like [31] (in the news section), [32], [33], [34], [35], and over a dozen others. These new sources should be reviewed/discussed; although the closer tried, there wasn't much discussion after the first relist (except between author and closer), and so a second re-list should be tried. – Levivich 06:14, 8 December 2019 (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.
Starsight (novel) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is not asking for undeletion—I'm just here to ask that the revision history be restored. I messed up, and got the page deleted then made it again as a redirect, rather than changing it to a redirect, so the old content is hidden now. Thanks (sorry if this is the wrong place)! DemonDays64 | Tell me if I'm doing something wrong :P 20:26, 1 December 2019 (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/2019_December&oldid=928543109"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy