The closer did not properly address concerns raised over WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, & WP:HOAX. The reason why a title could not be found is because the article is essentially an original synthesis. At the very least this article should have been draftified until a proper delimited title was found and OR and SYNTH removed. 4meter4 (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated on my talk page when this close was challenged; concerns over synthesis were not elaborated upon; several participants made substantive arguments that the broader phenomenon of Roman Pagan cults being revived was notable; at least one scholarly source in the article was pointed to, and not rebutted; and article titles do not necessarily have exist verbatim in reliable sources, when they are neutrally describing a phenomenon that is also covered by reliable sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not overwhelming me with its sources, I've got to say. I mean, those are good sources but none of them are specifically about Roman neo-paganism, are they? It does look quite a lot like a novel synthesis to me.—S MarshallT/C 00:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseWP:HOAX isn't just for things that someone can't believe, because there are indeed a bunch of ridiculously strange things on Wikipedia, but requires proving (to a certain standard of proof) a hoax; even if the article was problematic, sources identified suggested it reflected a real phenomenon in some manner. WP:SYNTH AKA WP:OR (seriously; they're the same thing) applies to particular article content; if it can be verified or removed it can be solved through regular editing. It would only become a deletion issue if the entire topic were OR/SYNTH, or if there was otherwise no way to improve the article away from OR/SYNTH, otherwise ATD applies, which is precisely what I understand the closer to be saying here: There's evidence this thing exists, but this probably isn't the best name for it. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, when you say “this probably isn't the best name for it ”, do you mean the prior or the current name? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agreeing with the closer's sentiments that based on the discussion this apparently real phenomenon is best described using another name; I have no opinion as to what name that might be. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the history of titles for this page, and they were broadly terrible. I support the closer's NOGOODOPTIONS-justified choice of Revival of Roman paganism, subject to a formal RM and clear consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - a reasonable close under the circumstances. My only hesitation is that there will be an appetite to renominate this and going though the motions of a renaming discussion only for that discussion to give reasonable justification for renominating it for deletion seems pointlessly bureaucratic. Given that seems an inevitable outcome, perhaps someone should just be bold, rename the article, and renominate it for deletion so that sources can be properly assessed in the context of a title that better reflects the idea (which is worthwhile, synthesis or not). St★lwart111 02:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. RENOM gives two months moratorium on renomination, which is enough time to discuss the title, the title concerns are a major reason for the unstated “no consensus on deletion”. DO NOT encourage a bold rename. The closer already did that reasonably, and if you look at the long history of the article, you’ll see a history of many unsuccessful bold renames. There is no uncontroversial rename to be done. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and my comment above should have had a question mark rather than a full stop. It was a genuine question. But I understand the reasons for not doing so too. I still think we should generally avoid pointless bureaucracy, but if there is support for a little bit of bureaucracy in the hope it will produce a better outcome, I'm not opposed to it. And I concede WP:BOLD is probably the wrong thing to invoke if reversion is a certainty. St★lwart111 04:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Vanamonde probably didn't do themselves any favours with the waffly closing statement and invoking IAR for no reason, but the outcome is still correct. The purpose of AfD is to decide whether an article should be deleted and there is clearly no consensus to delete this article. What its name ought to be is a subsidiary issue best left to the talk page. As for the nomination here, it's a little rich to criticise a closer for not "properly considering" your three-word !vote. If you thought the article was irretrievable SYNTH or OR, you should have made a case for that in the discussion. – Joe (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Quite right, laugh. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus; renaming was not discussed or supported enough in the AFD to close that way. This will not prevent a rename taking place following discussion on the talk page or pursuant to WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was though; Ealdgyth, Chiswick Chap, and Æo all clearly suggested renaming, and their arguments were more substantive than those of the "delete" side. Even if you argue there wasn't clear consensus to rename, there certainly was consensus against deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No there wasn't. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I probably would have closed it as NC, or maybe relisted this for another week, but I can't find much to object to with the actual close. The only really important decision a closer has to make is whether to delete or not, and I don't see how this could have been closed as delete. I certainly would have down-weighted the "Simply not notable at all" argument from a user with 87 edits. And "Delete as WP:SYNTH" with nothing to explain why it's synth isn't the best of arguments either. I note that this has already been renamed, to Revival of Roman paganism. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Ismael Belkhayat – List at AfD. Either endorsing the speedy or listing at AfD would be defensible. I'm going with the later partly because it's the more conservative option, and partly because it will produce a more authoritative outcome, whichever way it goes. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a moroccan entrepreneur page. While creating it I made sure to be written in a neutral point of view and not to have a promotional tone. All the press sources are quality ones (if you have an idea about moroccan medias you'll agree with me). Most of them are in french language, but there are also some in english and arabic (and no Wikipedia policy requires english references). I don't see any reason for deletion. I discussed with the deleting admin and she referred me to this deletion review page without giving any explanation. Art&football (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Speedy deletion was not done outside of the criteria, and it is disputed as being outside of the criteria (I don't see any reason for deletion). Administrator acted within discretion. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just need an explanation for this. Sources are independant and in-depth. No promotional style. Why do you see it's not done outside the criteria? Honestly, did you check the article?--Art&football (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to your question of Why do you see it's not done outside the criteria?, it is because the deleter cited WP:G11, while finding that there is "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Since G11 says that an article can be speedily deleted when it involves unambiguous advertising or promotion, a speedy deletion done based on a finding of unambiguous advertising or promotion means that it was done based a relevant criterion. Whether promotion is ambiguous or not is something an administrator decides. Whether there is promotion at all so that it could be deemed ambiguous or not is maybe something that can be questioned, and I would say that there is certainly an appearance of promotion, for the following reason: In relation to the substantiveness of content, the quantity and quality (at a first glance) of references looks like WP:REFBOMB. This is characteristic of promotional articles. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining and clarifying. However, I already know the given reason for the speedy deletion but what I contest is the reason itself. Where did the deleting admin see an unambiguous promotion in the article? Every honest editor here that can check the article will say that there is nothing promotional ! Also, you said <<there is certainly an appearance of promotion>> and that shows that you're not sure and I'm sure there is nothing promotional there. And, if there is nothing promotional, the page shouldn't be deleted ! And you shouldn't vote endorse ! Really, I can't understand !--Art&football (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as providing a clear WP:REFBOMB signature for a new article by a fairly new editor. Although the article doesn't contain promotional language, it comes across as a CV intended for publicity purposes, with a list of references (many of them redundant and unnecessary) that appears to be there in such quantities for the purpose of giving the subject the appearance of notability. @Art&football: what is your association with that subject? Is it you or someone you know, or someone who hired you to write the article? Nevertheless, after looking at some of the sources I think this is salvageable. @Athaenara: if it's OK with you, I am willing to restore this to draft space provided the author agrees to submit it for review and refrain from moving it to main space. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Anachronist (talk·contribs) First of all, I have no connection with the subject. Second, I have chosen to insert different sources for each info so the editor who doesn't understand arabic for example can read the english or french press article. And they are all quality and not put to show coverage or to create a superficial appearance of notability ! I hope you've understood.--Art&football (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made no judgments about the sources; that's a concern for notability, which isn't the issue here and not the reason for deletion. I stand by my view that it came across as a refbombed CV. You don't need three citations on a single short sentence about a single mundane fact. In one case I saw you had four. Just one quality source is needed to verify a single assertion. Just as you can spoil a gourmet culinary dish by adding too much of one ingredient, you can spoil an article with redundant sources. While English is preferred, the language doesn't really matter. If the article is restored to draft space, your task would be to cull out the redundant citations to leave only the best ones. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should be rather... happy about the pending offer to move this article to draftspace, and take it as a very serious, and by far the most plausible, path for this article to ultimately (conditions being met) be kept. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anachronist (talk·contribs) I made several sources for each info as I'm really sure that there are reviewers who can delete the page just because they don't understand french or arabic. This happened to me before.--Art&football (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a temp undelete, please? Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This would just be a process for evaluation so non-admins can see how promotional the tone was. It's not really like a reversal. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy list at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On review of the temp-undeleted version. It look and reads like a CV, so I understand the G11. It is heavily WP:Reference bombed. Given so many references, it is usually better to send to AfD. The existence of the native language Wikipedia article, fr:Ismael_Belkhayat, I think should be a rule to use AfD.
At AfD, it may very well be deleted, but AfD discussions have purpose beyond just deciding whether to delete or not. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a notice prominently displayed on my talk page says, "ANY reliable administrator is free to reverse ANY administrative action I have taken, whether page protection, page deletion, user block, or anything else." I meant it when I wrote it and I mean it now :-) – Athaenara ✉ 03:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy list at AfD per SmokeyJoe. I agree about the reference bombing, cross-language article, and that AfD is a better venue to hash it all out. I agree it's a borderline G11, I do not agree it is unambiguous. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: I don't believe AFD is the right venue and would waste the community's time. I think it should be draftified for improvement, as I suggested above. The subject appears to be notable, and AFD is basically a referendum on notability, so AFD would simply confirm the notability of the topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think listing at AfD is an excellent idea, and I think also I should undelete two other articles Art&football created on the same day (00:33, 15:11, and 22:59 UTC, 16 September) for Belkhayat companies: Chari.ma and Sarouty.ma. It was the Sarouty page, which had been tagged for speedy {{db-g11}} deletion, which drew my attention to Art&football's pattern of editing promotional pages about commercial subjects of marginal notability. I felt at the time that all three pages should go: they came in as a package deal, they should leave the same way. – Athaenara ✉ 05:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(I mean for inclusion of course in the "Speedy AfD" suggested above.) – Athaenara ✉ 06:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you just should've said it when I asked twice in your talk page but you preferred not to explain. Anyway, I expected this way of thinking. However, you should know that when I finished the entrepreneur page, I saw that 2 of his companies were also eligible, so I said why not? (especially I like writing about this field). Also, I don't agree with the "marginal notability". This is only your point of view. Thanks anyway!--Art&football (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you tell me why did you blank the entrepreneur page please? Thanks in advance--Art&football (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's standard practice with temporary undeletions for the purposes of deletion review discussions on the English language Wikipedia. – Athaenara ✉ 12:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The image in the deleted article is a copyvio of the one from this page and needs to be removed during the AfD. The article is flagged as a rough translation from French, which is accurate. Many of the references listed are of poor quality. At the AfD, Art&Football should be ready to explain why he thinks sources like this are reliable. In my view its chances of surviving AfD are not very good.—S MarshallT/C 12:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. One can get too serious about image copyvio. Commons have a process, let that process play out. See commons:File:Ismael_Belkhayat.jpg. It's 2 or 3 days into their 7 day process. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello S Marshall (talk·contribs), Thanks for sharing your opinion. First, about the link, I'm really sure that when you saw MediaMarketing as a title in the link you shared, you automatically thought that it's promotional. I can ensure that it isn't. This offline and online magazine gives regurarly short bios like this about moroccan CEOs and entrepreneurs. Second, this source isn't reliable ? Like many in the article? Third, all sources are from independant and trusted medias in Morocco (LeMatin, Lesecos, Lesiteinfo, L'economiste, Finance News Hebdo...I hope you've a moroccan friend to ask:) Fourth, I found several other sources but didn't insert them as they are not reliable...I'm aware of the importance of sources. Fifth, we'll see in the AfD.--Art&football (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know someone is checking these things, S Marshall. The current image with that name is tagged for deletion on Commons and a check of "what links here" there turns up the talk page of a now-blocked user who had previously uploaded it in March this year. I agree with SmokeyJoe about letting the Commons process play out. – Athaenara ✉ 12:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even more interesting, at Commons:User talk:MehdiKass#Deleted content, Chari.ma, DizzyDiddy, and Abdou diop show up: they're all in Art&football's editing history here on the English language Wikipedia as well. Please, @Art&football: can you tell us, was MehdiKass another account you used? Was User talk:MehdiKass your talk page locally? – Athaenara ✉ 13:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I found him editing a morocco related page and I discovered he is moroccan too so I checked his contributions. --Art&football (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Send the bio to AfD It is primarily descriptive, and does not use promotional language, so it not a speedy G11--though it is significantly promotion. I see no point in sending it to Draft--on the available information, he is not notable.
Endorse speedy for Chari.ma and Sarouty.ma, which I think are hopeless.
And send to spi for the relationship between this user and MediKass, (who is already blocked for using WP for advertising) DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
