Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 October

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 2022 Deletion review archives November 2022 >

31 October 2022

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

The article had made some significant improvements towards the end of this process (most of which was accomplished after the "delete" votes - pointed out by the last "Keep" comment). In the interest of WP:HEY and close to fulfilling general notability its the hope it can be moved to draft - improved some more and submitted via AfC. EricFishers11 (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EricFisher, as the deletion review author, you do not get to post a second vote in favor of your proposal. This is considered double voting, which is not permitted.4meter4 (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. EricFisher has a disclosed WP:COI as a paid editor on this topic, and I still have not seen any evidence that significant independent coverage of Early Warning Labs as a company exists anywhere (including the WP:REFBOMB addition of many sources during the AFD). The source analysis from the AFD demonstrated that no sources have been found that pass WP:ORGCRIT; even the ones introduced during the discussion. The final keep commenter did not produce any evidence that the sources pass WP:ORGCRIT, and vaguely asserted that it passes SIGCOV without actually interacting with the sources with any form of analysis, or engaging with our policies in regards to organizations. The detailed source analysis is the only assessment of the sources which actually engaged with them in any meaningful way. As such, WP:HEY does not apply, nor is there any policy based reason to overturn this close as there was a strong policy based argument for deletion backed by majority consensus.4meter4 (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am usually willing to give an editor acting in good faith a userspace copy of a deleted article, but I am not willing to do so here. EricFisher not only has a declared COI, he has become too invested here, posting more than 30 times to the AfD. I am therefore not convinced that allowing draftification will be a net benefit to the community, and I would suggest that EricFisher spend their time elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest partial block of EricFishers11 from this page to avoid the bludgeoning present at the AfD. Star Mississippi 00:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, and partial block if necessary. Despite the bludgeoning and refbombing, no actual evidence of passing GNG has been produced. I am not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a combative COI editor who evaded AFC after the initial rejection of the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would it be appropriate to make DRV off-limits to COI editors? That is, if an editor has a COI on a deleted article, they would not be able to object themselves, but would have to convince a non-COI editor to open the process, in which they themselves would be unable to contribute. I'm thinking this doesn't happen often enough to prompt such a rule, but maybe we should consider proactively enacting it to minimize wastes of time. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer to handle it case-by-case - it's just one more (albeit very minor) incentive for such users not to disclose a COI, as EricFishers11 has done, and as we want them to do. We shouldn't make a pre-emptive rule banning all such users from DRV any more than we should be pre-emptively blocking EricFishers11 on the theory that they might, in the future, become disruptive. —Cryptic 03:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      just to be clear, I support COI editors being able to weigh in, but anyone would be on the precipice of a bludgeon block for that conduct. Star Mississippi 13:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as an obviously accurate reading of the consensus. Numerically, there are three keep votes, out of which one is from the article creator who has a COI and another is from a single-purpose IP. Discounting these votes would give just one keep vote and all other eight votes being delete. Further, the delete side is obviously stronger, pointing out that the sources are a collection of interviews, routine coverage, and reviews of its products which fail WP:CORPDEPTH in detailed source assessments. In contrast, the keep votes rely on weak assertions of WP:POPULARITY, and WP:ATD along with a vague WP:BITE accusation, with the creator WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion 19 times. Given that the topic is non-notable and no additional refs meeting WP:NCOMPANY has been provided, I disagree with allowing a recreation via AfC, and it is clear that the closing is accurate and the DRV is unnecessary. VickKiang (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the "delete" votes had both the quantity (8-2 excluding a "keep" vote posted by a single-purpose IP) and substance, particularly the source analysis table (though I do believe the CBS source was incorrectly dismissed, one RS is generally not enough to satisfy GNG). I oppose a partial block of EricFishers11. Frank Anchor 12:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I concede on this EricFishers11 (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @EricFishers11 your comment is unclear - are you wanting to withdraw the review or just agreeing with the points made directly above? Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdraw will be fine - I dont want to waste anymore of anyone else's time EricFishers11 (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - A paid editor who is attempting to slam an article down the throats of volunteer editors. Wasting time despite plenty of experienced editors advising them on what they need to do to improve the original draft. The close was fine and I would also recommend salting in mainspace as history shows this type of behavior will likely result in future attempts at the same. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a reading of the consensus by the closer. The analysis of references by User:4meter4 is conclusive; thank you, User:4meter4. The appellant is wasting the community's time, as they did by arguing at the AFD, but that is a conduct issue, and DRV is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original AfD. However, I don't think that Eric is wasting my time, or that they should be blocked. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2022 (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.
Bobby Witt (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Some time ago, I made a successful AfC/R request for Bobby Witt (disambiguation) to be created as a redirect to Robert Witt, before I decided to turn it into a dab page featuring the baseball players Bobby Witt Sr. and Bobby Witt Jr. However, Buidhe contended that the dabification was inconsistent with our policies in a PROD. The rationale was:

Not a suitable dab page, one item is clearly the primary topic while there is only one other entry (see also's don't count). This situation should be handled with hatnotes per WP:ONEOTHER

Buidhe soon sent the page to AfD (partially at my request), where I !voted a "BLAR [...] to Robert Witt" to restore the status quo. Meanwhile, Devonian Wombat argued to keep the dab page due to the two Witts being "close enough in important" to warrant a dab page. After the AfD ran with (edited 05:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)) two relists and nearly three weeks, Star Mississippi closed the AfD as "no consensus" on September 2. Soon after, Buidhe BLARed the dab page to Robert Witt "per suggestion at the AfD".

I have recently brought the issue back up at Talk:Bobby Witt (disambiguation), where I proposed a DRV to solidify consensus for Buidhe's BLARing. Buidhe contended that the dabification was inconsistent with our policies, while Star Mississippi noted that they were "happy for a DRV" with more detail.

I actually lean towards dabification, but since the point of DRV is to debate the AfD itself, I wouldn't !vote (yet) here. Thank you for your time. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Disambiguation, "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed". The closer should have ignored the suggestion to keep a dab page at the current location, as it's not compliant with policies and guidelines. If this is to be a dab page it would have to be at a different location. I can't really endorse the close as it does not make this clear. (t · c) buidhe 05:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should the BLARing be reversed? I personally say yes (as with the existence of both George Brett and George Brett (disambiguation)), but I hope that the closer can also address the discussion, as a whole, as it relates to the BLARing. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 October 2022

[edit]
  • Kai Cenat – Original deleting admin has undeleted the page, and there have been no !votes to endorse, so we're done here. The article has been separately listed on AFD again by someone else, and that's where the discussion will continue. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kai Cenat (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was speedily deleted via G4 despite not being substantially identical to its deleted version, containing multiple new sources dating after the previous deletion discussion and citing new notable award nominations. G4 did not apply and a new AfD should've been opened. I'm getting tired of the clear bias this community holds against influencers no matter their notability. Célestin Denis (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. It is very soon after the AfD’s clear consensus to delete. Don’t boldly recreate within six months, that is blatant disrespect for the consensus at AfD. If you want to make a case of WP:CCC, do it by discussion with the closing admin, and/or request WP:REFUND to draftspace and present the new sources there. If there really were multiple new sources, of quality, present WP:THREE of them. Link them here or they are presumed to not exist, or to be brief mentions, or junk. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or, they were already in the article. Version deleted at afd, version g4'd. Only one source is shared between them; most postdate the afd; and the first one I clicked on, at least, looks gng-satisfying at a glance. —Cryptic 05:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Why would User:JBW delete the redirect at Draft:Kai Cenat? This further hides User:Célestin Denis‘s edit history that shows he did the right things.
      Speedy undelete and allow nomination at AfD, as a reasonable contest of a G4.
      Apologies for the typical harsh reaction to yet another YouTuber. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing wrong with deleting Draft:Kai Cenat - it was only the leftover redirect from moving into mainspace, and the mainspace title had just been deleted. Completely mundane G8. —Cryptic 06:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Is it? Well maybe it shouldn’t be. Much “cleaning up” of draftspace by deletion is pointless as cleanup, and hides evidence.

        18:14, 28 October 2022 Célestin Denis talk contribs moved page Draft:Kai Cenat to Kai Cenat (Before the inevitable speedy deletion for "recreation of a deleted article" nonsense, please take notice of the source included and the fact that the article is not similar to the deleted version. Subject should pass WP:GNG, create an AfD if you think otherwise.)

        Deleting the redirect made it hard to find record Celestin’s use of draftspace, although the move log remains.
        —- SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        And leave it sitting there reading "#REDIRECT Kai Cenat {{Redirect category shell|{{R from move}}}}"? Deleting that wasn't "cleaning up draftspace", it was cleaning up a broken redirect, the sort that were almost the entirety of the old R1's use case before it was merged into G8. If this were otherwise a good G4, then moving the recreation back into draft instead of deleting might've been merciful but by no means required. I'll restore the redir if the mainspace version is undeleted here, because why not, but this seems to be a pretty outlandish tangent to get worked up over. —Cryptic 06:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Draftspace redirects pointing to the location of the deleted mainspaced draft? Let me call it a half-baked idea. Emotions don’t convey well in text posts, I am not worked up. You’ve answered why JBW would delete the redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and trout the deleting admin for not checking similarity. That's fine work improving from the AfD'ed version to the G4'ed, and speedy deletion was indeed an affront to someone trying to do the right thing. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know I'll be blasted for saying this but all of these CSD G4 deletions could be avoided if you would just submit your draft to AFC for review. Recreated articles that are approved and moved to main space by an AFC reviewer are usually not tagged for CSD G4 speedy deletion. I know it's slower than moving your draft to main space yourself but it's what I recommend to editors who want to create an article that has been deleted through an AFD decision. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfC process works fine for everything but social media influencers. My experience has shown me that AfC reviewers tend to take a look at draft articles on social media influencers and decide not to make a decision because of the known bias the community holds against such articles. No one wants to face the blame coming with allowing such an article to be in the main-space knowing that sooner or later someone will open an AfD. For that reason, I think it is better to directly move the article in the main space while defending that its presence to be justifiable. Otherwise, there's an infinite cycle of perfectly notable YouTubers being stuck in the draft space as I've seen happen numerous times. Célestin Denis (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention that in the case of a topic already having a previous deletion discussion resulting in delete, reviewers will tend to base their judgement on the previous community established consensus and be extremely hesitant towards its acceptance. Célestin Denis (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true. I think you’ve done the best you could do. You improved it in draftspace. You mainspaced it yourself (You’re are allowed, AfC is optional, and they are reticent to contradict a recent AfD). When someone tagged it for G4, you contested the tagging at Talk:Kai Cenat. When it was deleted, you approached the deleting admin. You gave him six minutes to respond (that’s maybe a bit short isn’t it?) and then you brought it to DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I doubt the subject has actually got more notable in the two months since the AfD, but the article was a significant improvement on the AfDed version and shouldn't have been speedily deleted. The AfD wasn't exactly well attended either. There is no requirement for anyone other than very new editors to use AfC, and AfC submissions can be rejected by a single person who can apply pretty much any standard they like. Hut 8.5 08:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Hut 8.5, aren’t WP:COI editors required to use AfC? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess so, but so what? I don't see any suggestion the OP has a COI. Hut 8.5 09:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just checking. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 October 2022

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

This article was written like a listcruft of the shortest rivers, which means a subject of the shortest river is Roe River, which means a little of WP:LISTCRUFT. 180.214.232.91 (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2022 (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.
902 (PTV Bus) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Weren't enough sources to establish notability, this problem was addressed and resolved however the deletion still went through NotOrrio (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me see if I'm reading this right? NotOrrio created Route 902, Victorian Bus Route; it was brought to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 902, Victorian Bus Route; after about twelve hours, NotOrrio, clearly discouraged, redirects it and tags it {{db-author}}; and about a day and a half later, the afd is speedily closed on that basis. So far, so - well, not really "good", but no procedural problems, anyway.
    Meanwhile, a few hours before the first afd close, NotOrrio tries to start over with more sources at 902 (PTV Bus). It's brought to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/902 (PTV Bus) a day later (now well after the first afd's close), the nominator of the first afd tags it G4, and it's speedied.
    Clearly the G4's incorrect: this article's never had a full afd, even the abbreviated one wasn't closed as delete, and it was closed that way at the author's apparent request which had plainly been withdrawn by the act of recreation (not to mention bringing it here for review). Plus, the later version of the article had ten sources to the first version's three, and while I don't think they're sufficient - I'm not seeing any that aren't at least one of self-published, primary, or tangential - they still need to be examined at afd. Overturn and send it back. —Cryptic 06:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I don't agree with Cryptic. There was unambiguous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 902, Victorian Bus Route to redirect. The fact that, as a result of NotOrrio trying to game the system by saying that they were accepting deletion, and then quietly re-creating it, that consensus was acted on earlierthan would otherwise have been the case, does not in any way detract from that consensus. The discussion was in effect closed as a SNOW close, and the consensus was not invalidated by that. Nor do I see it as remotely reasonable to thing that the closure can be invalidated by what Cryptic calls NotOrrio "withdrawing their permission" for the closure. What a wonderful license to disrupt deletion discussions we would be granting if we were to accept that as a procedure: "Oh dear, I see that this discussion isn't going my way. Never mind, I'll give "permission" for the discussion to be closed, and when that's been done I'll withdraw my "permission", and that will mean that I can bypass the discussion, and get my way, despite consensus against me, unless editors waste their time with another discussion". And make no mistake; this is just one of NotOrrio's many attempts to disrupt deletion discussions. There have also been removal of AfD notices from articles, blanking of AfD discussions (at least twice) and changing the AfD notification on an article's talk page to say that a discussion had been closed as "keep", despite the fact that NotOrrio knew full well that the discussion had not been closed. I see letting NotOrrio find they can get away with this kind of disruptive behaviour, and "withdraw" their "permission" for a discussion to be closed in line with its consensus, as utterly unconstructive, and I am greatly disappointed to see an administrator endorsing such a view.
  2. On the other hand, ten years or more ago I learnt that arguing in a deletion review about whether a G4 deletion is valid is scarcely ever worth while, because there's such a huge diversity of opinion as to how much difference there has to be between the two versions of the page to invalidate it. For that reason I shall restore the deleted article, and it can be reconsidered at AfD. I shall therefore reverse my closure of the second deletion discussion. JBW (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The operative part of G4 is "substantially identical to the deleted version" so no, it was never a valid G4 in the first place if Cryptic's summary is remotely accurate. ONE additional source invalidates a G4 and requires a new AfD, no matter how trivial, and gaming the system should be treated as a user conduct issue rather than inappropriately applying G4 to a not-substantially-identical new article. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • JBW undeleted the new version and relisted the second afd, so you can look for yourself. For my part, the main issue isn't the additional sources - they don't address the reasons for removal presented at the prior afd, so I'd normally view a g4 as within discretion - but that the article wasn't deleted at its deletion discussion, as required by the very first sentence at WP:G4. You can't G4 an article that's never been deleted before. Redirecting this version too, or reopening the old afd, or starting a new one was what was called for. —Cryptic 06:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There appears to be an open AFD. Does that address the issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 October 2022

[edit]

27 October 2022

[edit]

26 October 2022

[edit]

25 October 2022

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

AfD debate was 3x Keep, 2x Delete, debate focused on notability. Since deletion the subjects book has been a WH Smith Bestseller for 8 months per images on the subjects Instagram (www.instagram.com/carlreader), and further press coverage has continued to be received. It should be noted that one of the delete votes was based on the inability to verify offline citations and coverage, despite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offline_sources . Dd4314579 (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apols - for clarity - 2x Keep, 1x Comment confirming notability, 2x Delete. Dd4314579 (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if this is an appeal - The nomination is a third Delete, and the close is a valid conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Instagram is not a reliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Recreation subject to AFD if new reliable sources are included, or Allow Review of Draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources were analysed in the debate and found wanting. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD was properly run and closed. An appeal to recreate requires new sources, and new sources have not been presented. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as an accurate reading of the consensus. Numerically, the vote is technically 3-2 (the deletion nom is a delete vote), with one comment stating that GNG is met. However, Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments (quote per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). In this case, all of the refs provided by the keep votes have been refuted as insufficient. It should be also noted that one of the keep voters is the article creator, with another editor who wrote Comment confirming notability being now blocked. Further, per WP:INSTAGRAM Instagram is not a reliable source, however, IMHO a recreation via draft is potentially reasonable provided that new sources are provided, not just vague assertions of press coverage, WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES, and linking to unreliable sources. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 October 2022

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

The article was deleted at the time for being a travel guide - it wasn't, it was a guide to local historic buildings. I attempted to point out these pubs were as significant to the area as the churches of Rome (well, almost!) but with little success. I now have a source to support my claim that the pubs are significant in their own right.

See also:

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

23 October 2022

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

This article was deleted in 2010, and in the intervening years the subject has crossed the GNG threshold. I have found a few good sources already ([1][2][3]) and it looks like there will be several others. (The closing editor, Courcelles, appears to be inactive, otherwise I would have asked him.) StAnselm (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • With a deletion discussion that old, the title unsalted, and new post-afd sources, you don't need DRV's permission to recreate the article (or anyone else's, for that matter). Or did you want the old content restored? It's four outdated sentences long and unlikely to be useful. —Cryptic 02:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had no idea what the original content was - that's why I was asking for the old content to be restored. It does sound like I should just start from scratch. StAnselm (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above you don't need to come here to recreate it, and if you want to see the old content then we can restore it to draft space without a full discussion here (presumably it would need updating anyway). However the deleted version is only about 70 words long so it won't be much help. Hut 8.5 09:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will just recreate it without reference to the previous article. StAnselm (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 October 2022

[edit]

21 October 2022

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

I have recreated the article with better references and sources. Also cut out the promotional sections of the deleted article. Draft article is in my sandbox. I've included references that address the original AfD concerns including WP:INDEPENDENT sources. I've been trying to get some life back into the WikiProject Amateur radio and this article is about a popular and important program for amateur radio operators. Full disclosure I've participated in this program but am not affiliated with it in any way, just a nerd that likes radio. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 01:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • My initial impression is that most the sources in your draft, while not affiliated with this specific contest, are from amateur radio groups. Better sources would be ones that are from the more mainstream media. The article in The Telegraph is a good example. And I found [1] and [2]. My recommendation is to concentrate on finding these kinds of sources and only rely on the amateur radio sources to fill in specific details. I also see eo:Summits on the Air and fr:Summits on the Air. You should check those to see if they have any good sources you can use. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, the AfD (which I started) was 2 years ago. If you can write a better article with better sources, I don't think you need DRV to give you permission to go ahead. I'm not convinced that the sourcing you've got right now is really what we need, but that shouldn't be a concrete barrier to giving it a try. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @RoySmith thanks for the feedback. It's really hard to find sources for amateur radio content that isn't from an org that's tied to to the hobby but seeing that I didn't find the sources you provided I think I need to take a step back and reevaluate my search strategy. I was going to just be bold and replace the redirect with the article but I noticed that it went though AfD and I didn't want to step on any toes or anything. I'll give it another go after lunch and see what I can find. Thanks for the sources and feedback! Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 20:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Being unable to find sources that are not closely tied to the topic is usually an indication that the topic fails WP:N -- RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Martin, John (1 September 2021). "3 In Your Town: Summits on the Air". Local3News.com. Retrieved 21 October 2022.
  2. ^ Viers, Holly (29 March 2018). "Amateur radio operators invited to Summits on the Air". Kingsport Times-News. Retrieved 21 October 2022.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 October 2022

[edit]

19 October 2022

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

Significant new sources have come to light since the deletion in February 2021, among Which one of the main national french Newspaper [[4]] and a famous Panafrican Newspaper [[5]]. WP:N is now clearly OK. Wik8dude (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation As the initial creator of the page and a participant to the AfD. With the 2 new sources (Le Figaro and Jeune Afrique) the page now meets the notability criteria. Also the page was restored on the french Wikipédia.
Rastapeuplulos (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2022 (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.
Battle for Dream Island (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The web series is popular, and hence otherwise notable. Aside from that, there is an entry of the show at imdb. The discussion is on the main hand, correct. Slaythe (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion and mainspace create prevention. Not notable. IMDB is not a good enough source for Wikipedia. Require re-create requests to use WP:AfC and advise to follow advice at WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsalt one draft, redirect and protect all other draft titles to the one draft (old ones and any new creations that might yet be created). Draftspace must be allowed for drafting, if only to keep the junk out of mainspace, ideally to allow space and time for proponents to gather their best sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Discussion could not possibly have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and salting. Popular =/= notable. IMDB is not a reliable source for any article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this really the earliest afd for this subject? It seems like it's been blacklisted for forever. —Cryptic 13:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but no objection to draft/AfC if an established editor feels consensus has changed and wishes to do so. Star Mississippi 15:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closure, which was both a correct reading of consensus and a correct reflection of the lack of reliable sources:
      • Recommend changing the closure to ECP, which is usually preferred for titles that have been persistently recreated.
      • Like User:Cryptic, I think that the history is longer than this.
      • Comment - This is a title which has a contentious history because we often do not cover popular web series and web battles. If we are failing to cover activity on the web because we do not consider the sources reliable, we should consider reviewing the reliability of the sources to accept more sources or some other guideline change. But that isn't a topic for Deletion Review.
      • This title appears, among other things, to have been created through full protection in January 2022 by a now-desysopped admin. That just illustrates that the title has complex history.
      • Concur that a neutral editor should submit a draft with reliable sources for review by an Extended-Confirmed reviewer.
      • Outcome of this DRV should be to downgrade protection to ECP.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • 1994–95 season articles – There is a clear consenus to endorse the close of these discussions in the sense that StarMissisippi correctly noted consenus per our polices and guidelines. However, given subsequent sanctions about both the filer of this DRV and the person who nominated them for deletion there is also agreement that these AfDs should not be the last words on the topic. Participants are divided behind a "restore if someone wants to" (WP:SOFTDELETE) and "defective discussion needing to be relisted" solution for this dilemna. On the whole relist seems to be the consensus for two main reasons. It is the preferred outcome of more editors and also the preferred outcome for the AfD closer, which is important because were this not at AfD and were instead raised on the talk page of StarMissisippi they could have just done this unilaterally without DRV discussion. These factors outweigh any factors in favor of SOFTDELETE when determining the consenus. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
1994–95 Club Puebla season (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
1994–95 Cruz Azul season (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
1994–95 Tigres UANL season (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
1994–95 Toros Neza season (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
1994–95 Santos Laguna season (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I created the article with 7 sources, 1 user reviewed my article, then another user nominated my article with a false argument that was unsourced. I explained source by source, only another user supported the delete nomination, I explained to him the article is properly sourced, then, the user who nominated my article falsely alleged a violation of copyrights. I explained to him that RSSSF clearly states that info can be used freely if acknowledgments are included. Everybody uses RSSSF as source and I've always included on my articles other sources from journals, publishers, etc. I don't get why they deleted my articles if those had sources included properly. Those articles meet NSEASONS requirements. Also, nomination is flawed, biased, and with false claims of being unsourced even when everybody who reads the article can verify it that is properly sourced with several references. I wrote 200 articles since three years ago and I've never received this false-based nominations by the same user who is clearly not acting in good faith. He nominated to delete my 10 articles with false claims of being unsourced and not reaching any consensus with the same user voting in every AfD. It is unbelievable consensus against my articles is 1-0 in the 10 Afd discussions. The decision to delete was inconsistent with the treatment of the articles for all other NSEASONS and as such appears capricious in nature. The article should be returned to published status without delay.HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not supply all sources. Only after the nomination you started adding sources for the matches. Effectively trying to whitewash earlier copyvio-infringements. And AfD is about the arguments, not a vote. The Banner talk 14:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As everyone can read the user is nominating in a bad and capricious faith, today he is nominating other 5 articles with false claims about being unsourced those articles I wrote since three years ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1981–82 Atlético Madrid season, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1982–83 Atlético Madrid season, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1984–85 Atlético Madrid season, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1985–86 Real Madrid CF season, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1986–87 Real Madrid CF season . Now, you can expect the same user subject B he will be the ONLY user to vote against my 5 articles as he did to my previous 10 artciles, then, consensus is reached according to an administrator and he continues to delete my 5 articles. It is clearly a conspiration against Mexican editors a 1-0 voting in AfD with two weeks of discussion. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation/relist the now-blocked OP's over-the-top behavior was sufficiently distracting that it masked the very low quality of these AfD nominations by an editor who is now on the verge of being topic-banned from the AfD process. Now that it has been established that the editor who nominated these articles for deletion did absolutely zero due diligence, we need to take a more serious look at these articles. Also, there is no basis for a speedy close. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist these, and also WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Correcaminos UAT season and WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 C.D. Veracruz season that were similarly closed by User:Liz. While the closes were reasonable, even the closer (of the first five), notes in one of them that they were a soft delete, and doesn't oppose relisting. Also, I believe that the close didn't fully weight the policy-based arguments of the one objector, and overweighted the sole Delete vote, that conceded that "these kind of articles are notable". Not to mentioned that two of the three contributors have, or about to be, blocked and topic banned. I fully understand why the AFDs were closed the way they were. One one hand, the OP is correct procedurally - but their verbal abuse and actions were unacceptable. Nfitz (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, not all the discussions were closed. Given further time, a consensus to keep formed - for example, see WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club América season. Nfitz (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting one more: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989–90 Real Madrid CF season closed as a speedy keep. Star Mississippi 23:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 C.D. Veracruz season, the fact that the only editor arguing that the article should be kept had just been indefinitely blocked influenced me to close a discussion that I ordinarily would have relisted a second time. That's an oversight on my part but, frankly, the way things are in AFD right now, I doubt that another week of open discussion on this article would have resulted in more participation. There are a few editors (bless their hearts) who seek out AFDs that have been relisted several times to review the articles and discussions and offer an opinion but most editors who participate in AFDs tend to focus on those articles that are newly nominated. What do you do when an AFD discussion has been relisted 3 times and the only editor who has participated in the discussion is the nominator? This situation is unfortunately common in the AFD area these days.
But to get back to these articles, I'm fine with reverting both closures and relisting the discussions if the consensus is that this move is appropriate. These AFDs would all benefit from more attention. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist: I don't think there's much of an argument that the closes violated settled procedure; plainly they didn't. But I think we can agree now that they were bad outcomes, and that the nominations listed above were very likely just as tainted and pointy as the other similar AfD cases The Banner filed, all of which have closed (or will soon do) as overwhelming Keeps. We have two choices here: to do the right thing and restore the articles -- not simply relist the AfDs -- or just wash our hands of The Banner's now-obvious bad faith and worse judgment (and for which he's about to be community tbanned from the AfD process generally). That the community needs to do a better job at AfD has been manifest for years now, and that's a problem beyond the scope of this DRV. Correcting this error is within our grasp, and it should be done without further delay. Ravenswing 02:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Ravenswing. The entire mess was part of an interpersonal dispute between two editors, and probably needs some fresh eyes to get more comments and remove the taint caused by low participation and high emotion. --Jayron32 15:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Ravenswing. Plus, with only a single editor supporting deletion, no consensus or relisting would have been more appropriate. Given the drama that these AfDs have generated, there will likely be more activity with a relisting, and consensus could be more accurately evaluated. Rlendog (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per the immediately above, now that teh dramaz have sorted themselves out. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and allow recreation Discussions were closed reasonably based on the amount of information then available, with one non-banned editor for deletion and none against. Avilich (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as soft delete given the low participation and restore upon request of any non-blocked editor. No prejudice against a speedy renomination for deletion by any non-blocked editor, but the original AfD was so much of a trainwreck on both sides it's probably best to just start over with a fresh one if we want to go that route. Smartyllama (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ANI case has now ended - could someone close this? Nfitz (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but allow re-creation. The AfD discussions were relatively low participation, but I do see rough consensus to delete in them. We're a bit past the point of re-listing given the current situation. That being said, I don't think that the relatively low participation is enough to bar re-creation with additional sources being used. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 October 2022

[edit]

17 October 2022

[edit]

16 October 2022

[edit]

15 October 2022

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

Draft page waiting to add more contexts, no alert, no discussion just being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojvolleyball (talk • contribs) 17:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page was a broken redirect, not the deletion of a draft article. You can find your draft at Draft:VC Nagano Tridents. If you look at the top of the page of any deleted article, you can see the reason why it was deleted. You should also sign all of your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Liz Read! Talk! 18:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot as Liz noted, this was just a broken redirect, which was correctly handled. There's nothing to review and you can work on your draft at Draft:VC Nagano Tridents. Star Mississippi 22:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This redirect was broken as a result of a page move. WP:CSD#G8 explicitly exempts these from deletion, for exactly the reason this deletion review was raised: inexperienced users won't know how to find out where the content they worked on was moved to. Correct handling would have been to retarget it instead. —Cryptic 22:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Cryptic this was not correctly handled, but it is now moot. For future reference redirects such as this must be retargetted to where the content actually resides while it exists somewhere. If the content has since been deleted the deletion log should include a link to where it was deleted from to maximise the chances of it being found by those who want to. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2022 (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.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Stubsensor/20110823/10 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Finished page — Preceding unsigned comment added by SikiWtideI (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:SikiWtideI - This doesn't appear to be a reference to a deletion discussion or a speedy deletion. It is not clear what you are requesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 October 2022

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

Inconsistent with treatment of all other federal judicial nominees. Nomination to a lifetime judgeship is obviously notable. See, e.g., the scores of nominees collected on pages such as List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden, or Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies. This is currently the only page for a nominee to an Article III judgeship to not have an article, and the draft is better than most. Also, if anything, the consensus in the deletion discussion was to keep the article, not to draftify it, which was the position of the only participating editors with experience editing articles related to legal subjects. See also the opposition on the talk page. Iowalaw2 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and keep - The decision to delete was inconsistent with the treatment of the articles for all other United States federal judicial nominees and as such appears capricious in nature. The article should be returned to published status without delay. Valadius (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep - I put this request in months ago so I am not sure why this is coming up now. But I felt then as I still do now this is an obviously notable person. I even tried to add two articles about her on the page, but it was taken out to prevent showing she is notable. I believe her page should be reinstated till however to be consistent with all other pages of any nominee for a federal judgeship by the President of the USA.

MIAJudges (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

just purely speaking to why now, I'm guessing @Iowalaw2 stumbled on the draft when they went looking for an article on Cartwright? As an aside to the discussion, have there been any updated reports on when the Senate is expected to confirm the slate of nominees. I haven't seen anything. Star Mississippi 02:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As to updates, Cartwright has now made it through committee, which practically speaking virtually guarantees that she will be confirmed by the close of the current Congress. And yes, I just stumbled on the anomaly, and was particularly concerned as someone who primarily edits judiciary-related articles that this will set a bad precedent. Iowalaw2 (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus as two three of the Draftify !votes expect that GNG and relevant SNG both need to be satisfied, which is not a policy-based argument. One of the other draftify !votes should have been assigned less weight by an experienced admin based on that account's history of deletion discussion involvement and associated sanctions. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be wrong on timing here, but wasn't JPL's !vote pre-sanctions? Not disagreeing with the rest of your comment here and am neutral on the DRV. I mean yes, his history is long but my re-reading of this AfD is that it wasn't out of line with other !votes whereas the speedy keep was. Star Mississippi 17:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It probably was, but the sanctions are not the foundational problem I was referring to. Rather, JPL's longstanding preference for deletion should cause yet another deletion !vote to be assessed lower weight. For balance, I would expect this of a number of other editors are well known for !votes to keep pretty much anything as well. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes total sense, thanks for clarifying. Star Mississippi 13:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, mainspace the draft. Passes the GNG. 1. 2. The SNG is a predictor of what subjects will probably pass the GNG; having passed the GNG the SNG is moot. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s reference bombed with mere mentions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the close. As in the original deletion discussion, the arguments in favour of keeping the article are based on flawed reasoning - she has not been CONFIRMED to post and therefore it is WP:TOOSOON to presume her notable by dint of her role. As for the 'She meets WP:GNG' above, the first source cited to support that contention is a blog!!! Blogs is not RS. The other argument, "...expect that GNG and relevant SNG both need to be satisfied, which is not a policy-based argument" is very strange reasoning. Our policy absolutely is that subjects need to meet WP:GNG!!! Cartwright, until confirmed, doesn't. That was supported by the draft declines of Praxidicae, Curbon7 and 0xDeadbeef - all highly experienced AfC/AfD hands. Oh, and we don't need to be "legal experts" to reach consensus on this - just reasonably competent Wikipedia editors... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nomination to a federal judgeship is notable in the legal world regardless of the result, which is why every lawyer to comment on every page has opposed and why hundreds of similar articles have been approved for creation without objection. Federal judicial nominations may be obscure to you, but most litigators follow them closely, and virtually all result in substantial press coverage in our world. Even nominees whose nominations blow up, like Matthew S. Petersen, become notable in law due to their nominations. For example, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Iowalaw2 (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm so sorry that I don't live 'in your world' but notability in Wikipedia is not notability in law. Many, many things are obscure to me as it happens - including why people with a specialisation would talk down to the rest of humanity by dint of their membership of a clan or tribe they have self-elected themselves to. Luckily, Wikipedia is a more egalitarian church... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring the rudeness, you objected to the sources provided by @SmokeyJoe but have no comment on nine more from major outlets or organizations? You seem to base your judgment on a bright-line rule that judicial nominees are not notable until confirmed with no evident basis and no support from the many specialist editors in this area. Iowalaw2 (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, "specialist editors in this area". WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and mainspace The arguments for deletion are seriously wrong in thinking the subject must be able to be presumed notable from an SNG. There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that people who are not inherently notable must therefore be inherently non-notable. GNG (people) is based on suitable sources, not the status of the individual. Moreover the GNG (people) basic criteria say notability may be established even from individually slight references "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability ..." (but they go on to say this is not usual).[6] The notability rationale is that "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic."[7] Thincat (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "no consensus" would be a better close than "draftify". A lot of the delete comments are based on the subject not meeting WP:USCJN (an information page drawn up by a Wikiproject with no official standing) or not meeting WP:NPOL (which doesn't mean the subject isn't notable). There was some discussion of sourcing but it wasn't great. It looks like this AfD is being used as a way to deflect any attempt to move the draft back to mainspace until she's confirmed, which doesn't seem right given how borderline the AfD was and the fact that the notability guidelines don't expect confirmation. Hut 8.5 10:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody in the entire discussion cited WP:USCJN. She's not notable until she's confirmed - and the discussion on sourcing was granular and well argued - including a blow-by-blow analysis of the sources. So that's two relatively hard to defend assertions. The argument was that the subject does not meet WP:GNG AND WP:NPOL. And the majority of votes were to draftify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandermcnabb (talk • contribs)
Woops didn't notice my non-sign... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody in the entire discussion cited WP:USCJN - er, no, it was cited several times. She's not notable until she's confirmed - no, she's not inherently notable until she's confirmed, which is not the same thing. the majority of votes were to draftify - numerically this AfD was 5 to 3, which isn't a huge margin, and one of the people supporting draftification has since been banned from taking part in deletion discussions, in part for making large numbers of rapid-fire recommendations to delete things, so I wouldn't attach much weight to that comment. While there was some discussion of sourcing it didn't go much further than disagreement. Hut 8.5 11:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right - 3 times, twice by Curbon7 (I honestly hadn't noticed) - who also offered a detailed refutation of the presented sources - all 17 of 'em, so I don't think there was "some discussion of sourcing" or that it "didn't go much further than disagreement." Because she doesn't otherwise pass WP:GNG, she's not notable until she's confirmed. We're discussing one case here, not inherent notability as an abstract. The discussion was properly closed and can properly give way once she becomes a thing. But right now she's not a thing and therefore has no inherent notability to get her past WP:GNG. This is all getting a tad circular, IMHO... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the "Tiffany M. Cartwright" page, I also believe the "Jorge Alberto Rodriguez" page should also be reinstated. He was nominated to be a federal judge, his nomination has not been pulled & even if it is, the circumstances that would lead to his nomination being pulled would make him notable as the first Biden nomination to be withdrawn. And that's in addition to his career working for the governor of New York even before his nomination.

MIAJudges (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that @Eddie891 draftified it in August. Given that the last AfD is 2018, this could be a case of consensus having changed. (I haven't reviewed the draft, so no comment). You could try for acceptance via AfC, open a separate Deletion Review or wait until this closes and if restored, this could be merit for that one being restored. Just giving you options, not assessing merit. Star Mississippi 17:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will wait to see if "Tiffany M. Cartwright" page is reinstated first. Thanks
MIAJudges (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rodriguez's nomination is in, as far as I know, a novel, sui generis situation, and I think there are reasonable arguments both for creating the article or for redirecting it to the Biden judicial nominee controversies article. Iowalaw2 (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, Rodriguez's article should be reinstated, and then a discussion could be had about whether or not to redirect it to the Biden judicial nominee controversies article if the nomination winds up being pulled. Valadius (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iowalaw2

I already spoke up & they still deleted his page. Perhaps if you can make a request maybe they can hear it from somebody else. I can chime in on the request if you do.

MIAJudges (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You had an issue there in your ping of @Iowalaw2 so just pinging them here to ensure they see your response, although I suspect they're watching this discussion
. Star Mississippi 02:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, I'm not sure why my tag didn't go through but thank you
MIAJudges (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you're welcome. "Gremlins" is my usual answer for random issues. Star Mississippi 13:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There were valid Keep arguments and valid Draftify arguments, and the close was a valid conclusion.
      • As written, in my opinion, the BLP does not pass general notability. A nominee for the federal judiciary will almost always satisfy general notability based on coverage of the nomination by newspapers of record. This draft does not describe that significant coverage by independent sources.
      • The proponents would be better off just to add coverage by the New York Times, Washington Post, and a Seattle newspaper of her nomination, rather than arguing that the closer made a mistake, which they did not.
      • The closer was right not to count at all the Speedy Keep, which is very seldom correct, and usually means, "I don't like this AFD and don't plan to be reasonable."
      • The proponents would be better off to improve the draft than to quarrel with the closer.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support close I agree with Robert McClenon, there were arguments for both Keep and Draftiy and the only other conclusion I can see the closer coming to, as they weighed the consensus of this AFD discussion, is No consensus which seems to be an unsatisfying close to most people and I think might have still have brought us here to DRV. It's important to note that several editors advocating Draftify implied that this was a temporary article move and in time, the article would be back in main space once she was confirmed. Even though some editors have criticized the adequacy of the sources, no one was advocating Deletion of the article. In this instance the closer made a safe and understandable close and I might have chosen Draftify as well. I also agree with Robert that the article will be moved to main space quicker if time was spent improving the article rather than challenging an AFD close that, according to most parties, will only result in a temporary stay in Draft space. However, three different AFC reviewers have judged the article to not be ready for main space so I can't help thinking that rather than improving the Draft so it meets approval, DRV coiuld be seen as a shortcut.
I realize this is all an observation, not a policy-based argument but I don't think the two sides are really that far apart. Two or three more good sources that provide SIGCOV is probably all that is keeping this article in Draft space. Just a note though that the main space page is protected and will have to be unprotected when the article is accepted by AFC. Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is I actually added two articles regarding her & cases she was involved in. They were rejected, presumably by somebody that wanted to keep their point of view the consensus so they can delete her page. The main issue here is consistency. President Biden has nominated 144 judicial nominees & only two are considered not notable. We even have past president's nominees that were never confirmed that have a Wikipedia page. I just don't see how a nominee for a lifetime federal judgeship is not considered notable. I will not understand that for the life of me. I advocate somehow getting the wording changed from Wikipedia to make an exclusion for judicial nominees, but I never got a response. That is the root problem. The wording allows some to question if a federal judicial nominee is notable & the point of many who advocated keeping her page (Just like 142 of the other 143 nominees) is there shouldn't even be a debate & the wording needs to be changed altogether.
MIAJudges (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind attaching them here? I think more than one of the commenters here could support the article w/ better sourcing. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the technicalities of Wikipedia policy, if the issue is just sourcing, keeping it in draft is counterproductive given that it seems that everyone agrees that sufficient sources exist. I would ordinarily be happy to work on the draft but due to its invisibility, the draft has received less work than comparable articles, and I don't see the point of editing an article that has been hijacked by the Wikipedia bureaucracy. I don't know what bad luck this article had to get snagged but once an article has been sucked into this process, it seems very hard to get it out, so it's not worth anyone's while. I also linked nine articles above, though some are in paywalled legal publications so they may not be useful to you. Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a reasonable reading of the discussion. I probably would have closed as no consensus, but this close was well within the typical range of discretion we afford closers. It is clear to me than the subject is likely to have a page, but the current sourcing is weak. This is, in my opinion, entirely a function of: (1) her age - mid 30s is very young for a federal judge, and it looks like she's only been a partner in her law firm since 2018 and (2) the U.S. president's expressed desire to nominate people from less traditional walks of the legal profession, which in her case means the subject has not attracted the attention that a lawyer of her apparent stature normally would receive. I'm almost tempted to be pragmatic and just put the page in main space, but while it looks like she cleared the Senate's judiciary committee, I don't see that she's scheduled for hearing by the full Senate, and at this point she's looking at a lame duck session after the election. If control of the Senate flips she may never take the bench. All of this is speculation of course, but that lack of certainty is precisely why I cannot agree that the article should be in main space. Finally, let me echo others in saying that if we can get better sourcing addressing her as she is now - an attorney, not a jurist - notability would be established. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming this is a good faith worry about Senate process, Senate votes on nominees are only scheduled a week or so in advance, and the consensus in the world of confirmation watchers seems to be that nominees who have already made it through committee face no real risk of not being confirmed. Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus Much of the "delete" rationale is based on the false premise that not passing an SNG supercedes passing GNG, which is not the case. Frank Anchor 14:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xymmax

I added the two articles over a half a year ago & since the article is locked out, I can’t go back into the history to show you the articles. I didn’t save them, but I remember one of the main users that were arguing for taking her page down said I can’t add them. If her article can be reinstated, I will be more than happy to do the research & find them, & likely other notable cases to add to her page.

MIAJudges (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those concerned she is not notable because it has taken her so long to be confirmed, just as a reminder there are nominees who have been pending for a final vote longer the her. For instance, Dale Ho was nominated September 20th of last year & still needs a discharge vote (Do to him being tied in the judiciary committee) then a final confirmation vote. Tiffany only needs the one confirmation vote so she is much closer to confirmation then he is, and Dale Ho is from the majority leaders home state who scheduled the senate votes. Furthermore, doesn’t the president of the United States releasing an announcement on The White House website announcing he is nominating somebody to a lifetime position to the federal judiciary enough to make them notable. In the announcement, the president describes numerous achievements the person has obtained as well. In addition, she has statements from her two home state senators praising her nomination & she testified in front of the senate judiciary committee. I’m just not understanding how that alone isn’t notable enough for a Wikipedia page.

MIAJudges (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse (involved). All of the draftify/delete comments mentioned that the subject did not pass WP:GNG: "Fails WP:GNG," "There is no WP:GNG at the moment," "WP:GNG must be passed. It's far too soon," "these are only passing mentions," "Nominees must meet WP:GNG with multiple independent, reliable sources." Curbon7 describes 17 sources, and suggests that none of them meet the requirement of significant coverage, with minimal pushback. I do not agree with any SALTing of the title, as I think there is an expectation there will be additional RS coverage of the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many more sources have been posted on this thread, which you can read for yourself. I posted nine additional articles from reliable sources above. There is more than enough to write an article without original research, which is the significant coverage standard, especially combined with the sources previously linked such as the extensive Judiciary Committee questionnaire. Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are nominees who can go years and multiple Congresses before they are ultimately confirmed. They have articles published without issue. For some reason this nominee has been singled out for different treatment. Such treatment doesn't make sense. I fail to understand the logic behind deleting articles and locking them as opposed to promoting the spread of information about an individual nominated for a prestigious post. Valadius (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not rocket science. Without the confirmed nomination, the subject does not meet the Wikipedia General Notability Guideline - WP:GNG. If she is confirmed, she is presumed notable, even if she doesn't otherwise conform with the usual standard of notability - WP:GNG. Absent her confirmation, she is not otherwise notable. There's quite a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on around here, IMHO. The Wikipedia General Notability Guideline is quite clear - and you do NOT have to be a lawyer with N years' experience at the bar to judge compliance with that particular standard. I do think that some of the incredibly experienced lawyers around here could use a quiet reading of this Wikipedia guideline - 'law' that perhaps doesn't map naturally to their view of 'order'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your rudeness throughout this thread towards those who disagree with you, you have not given an actual explanation of your position, which I find very confusing. GNG is presumed when there is "significant coverage in reliable sources," such that "no original research is needed to extract the content." That standard is obviously met here, like it is for all similar nominees, which is why this issue has not come up in the entire history of judicial nominations on Wikipedia as far as anyone can tell and why all of us are so baffled. There is no per se rule that nominees are not notable, but you seem to support one. Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the two articles I mentioned above describing two high profile cases she was involved in before her nomination, here are FOUR articles about her that were all written since her nomination just to show as the user above mentioned. It is reasonable to assume more articles will be written about her, meeting the standard to allows her to have a Wikipedia page.

1. (https://vettingroom.org/2022/03/24/tiffany-cartwright/)

2.(https://www.afj.org/document/tiffany-m-cartwright-fact-sheet/)

3.(https://ballsandstrikes.org/nominees/tiffany-cartwright/)

4.(https://civilrights.org/resource/support-the-confirmation-of-tiffany-cartwright-to-the-u-s-district-court-for-the-western-district-of-washington/)

MIAJudges (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While deletion review may be a place to discuss whether "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page," none of these four sources meet our expectations for RS coverage. Vetting Room - "legal blog dedicated to discussing, examining, and analyzing judicial nominations" (Possibly significant, not a new source since the deletion discussion), Alliance for Justice - advocacy group, Balls and Strikes - "sponsored by Demand Justice, a nonprofit organization that works on court reform efforts," Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights - open letter supporting nomination, also advocacy organization. There is nothing wrong with these sources, but they are not likely to be judged as reliable sources - Enos733 (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the blog is unacceptable as a source... JoelleJay (talk) 06:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moot since you've included them here @MIAJudges. But just a quick note, the history is at the Draft, which is open for editing and you should be able to see your contributions. It may be that we need a history merge, but I don't think so. The benefit of having the draft is that when Cartwright is notable (whether confirmation, this DRV or otherwise), all of the attribution/contributions remain. Let me know if you need more information. Star Mississippi 16:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was able to find the three notable cases I tried to add in the history. Here they are, all three removed by somebody trying to advocate she wasn’t notable.

1. (https://apnews.com/article/ba24abde58bc4aa68b34e53fe0a218e3)

2. (https://apnews.com/article/520b11f714974fa9bd0049bf61f1388d)

3. (https://apnews.com/article/homicide-trials-lawsuits-crime-seattle-8d1faeceb47ef33b0cc8469ebcf762f1)

MIAJudges (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb

I respectfully & completely disagree. I too think it’s not rocket science but in the opposite view point. President Biden has nominated 144 people to be federal judges. He has confirmed 84 which means 60 have not been confirmed. Out of the 60, 2 have their Wikipedia pages locked out because they are not notable. One, Jorge Rodriguez nomination is on hold because the judge he was going to replace has since withdrawn his retirement plans.

The other is Tiffany Cartwright. She has been voted out of the senate judiciary committee & is pending a confirmation vote. There are others from the group of 60 that have not even had a senate judiciary committee hearing yet. In addition, there are numerous news articles written about her, I have put ire then a handful of them just on this conversation thread alone. Some of her cases have been major news stories. Plus, when you look at the Wikipedia verbiage, it states that you can consider somebody notable if there is a reasonable expectation that they will have additional news coverage. So between the inconsistencies between this one nominee being singled out compared to the other 58 waiting for confirmation, whether you consider the numerous news articles about her or the fact that she was nominated by the president of the USA for a lifetime seat on the federal judiciary & had a hearing in front of the senate judiciary committee, I too think it’s not rocket science.

MIAJudges (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Respectfully' (And, in English idiom, 'with the greatest respect' generally means 'I am about to be rude to you'...), her cases really, really don't matter. They don't make her notable. I could be the stoker on the Mallard, one of the most notable steam trains in history, but that role doesn't make me inherently notable - notability, in Wikipedia, is WP:NOTINHERITED. The 'Wikipedia verbiage' you refer to is a bunch of guidelines reached through consensus by a community - you might even call that 'verbiage' something that guides people's conduct, social relationships and behaviours - oh, let's call it 'law'. The 'reasonable expectation' that someone would be notable - presumed notable - defined by that 'verbiage/consensus/law' is when they become a CONFIRMED JUDGE. Until that point, any notability depends on the General Notability Guideline - WP:GNG. It doesn't matter whether she's the 58th duck in line to get in the pond - she.is.not.notable.right.now. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Litigated cases with reliable news coverage are relevant to the notability of an attorney. Your point is confusing and I would encourage you to explain more and insult less. Iowalaw2 (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb

I am not sure what "With all due respect" generally means, but as I stated for me it means I disagree with you but respectfully. Now on to your points. Going by what you said, there was no clear consensus that she was not notable. As you can see by this thread, there seems to be more people that disagree with your viewpoint then agree with it so if anything, I would say the consensus is the article should have remained. And I know it may not matter to you when it comes to her being the 58th duck in line, but there simply is no consistency in removing her page when there are 58 other nominees who have not been confirmed yet with pages. It even makes less sense when many of those nominees haven't even had a hearing, let alone senate judiciary committee vote to send their nominations t the senate floor to await a confirmation vote, which is where her confirmation is at. Nobody still after all this time has been able to explain to me why they are notable but she is not. Now let's go point by point in the Wikipedia guidelines.

1. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. - She will have increased significant coverage because she will be marked up for a confirmation vote after the senate finishes their six-week recess. Plus, her rulings over the next few decades will have significant coverage as well. 2. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant - I already included 3 news articles with significant civil rights cases that she was the attorney for. That's just 3 cases I tried to include on her page but it was locked out but there are others. 3. "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. - The articles are from reliable news outlets from the state of Washington.

I guess the best question for you is what else (Besides her confirmation) does she need to be as notable as the other 58 Biden judicial nominees with Wikipedia page? I will gladly find them so we can get consensus.

MIAJudges (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the votes (and remember this isn't a 'vote' - the closer will look at policy, not numbers necessarily) - I count five for and five against. As to notability, as stated above she is not otherwise notable - perhaps the other 58 are? In any case, WP:NEXIST - that other things are is not a case for this thing to be. Whether people have had hearings or not has nothing to do with this specific article. However many cases she was attorney for counts nothing towards her notability - as I stated above. In fact, I'm repeating myself and I'm not sure I'm getting across so Imma stop and let others weigh in - I've stated my case. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb
So I guess we need to figure out the next step. I strongly disagree she is not notable. And no, I can assure you the other 58 are not all more notable than she is. I do not see how multiple articles about major civil rights cases that she argued & have been reported on in numerous news articles do not count towards her being notable. I'm sorry but your argument does not seem to be consistent with the case that allows the other 58 to be notable. Also, I still have not seen how she does not meet #1. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. I am not trying to be hard & honestly when other users usually have a difference of option, I tend to defer but what you are saying just is not showing me how she is not notable. I would like to appeal this. I know other users that are more seasoned when it comes to Wikipedia & passionate about the judiciary probably know what steps to take next such as @Snickers2686 & @Star Garnet so any advice they have I would be happy to escalate.
MIAJudges (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 October 2022

[edit]

12 October 2022

[edit]

11 October 2022

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

Discussion was closed by NAC after two "delete per nom" !votes, which I don't believe constitute clear consensus, considering that none of the !voters appeared to thoughtfully weigh in on the issue. I, the category creator, was not notified of the discussion and have additional points to make, including that the nominator made some clearly erroneous presumptions regarding the nature of the category. (It is not comparable to Canada's Top Ten, but more to Category:United States National Film Registry films.) Even if there were consensus not to keep, the nominator did mention that "a properly sourced article that listed the inducted films would be fine," yet listifying, which would have been a preferable alternative to deletion, was not considered. The closer has declined a request to reopen and relist and asked that this be brought directly to DRV. Paul_012 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist, creator's reaction should have proper weight in the closure. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist the nominator failed to notify the creator of the category. Also, the CFD currently stands at just slightly more than a WP:SOFTDELETE (with only two very basic "delete" votes plus the nom, so getting the creator's input would be useful to potentially get to consensus either way). Frank Anchor 19:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (as closer) per above. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A good NAC-er reverts their close on request and does not send reasonable requests to DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe, in retrospect, that is what I should have done. I can't undelete the category, however, which is why I haven't closed this DRV and reverted the closure. — Qwerfjkltalk 06:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I realise I was unnecessarily dismissive when replying to Paul_012, and I apologise for any offence they may have taken. — Qwerfjkltalk 06:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. I wasn't very descriptive in the first request, so it's understandable. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So beautiful. Thank you both for maintaining the category system. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - There are at least two lessons to be learned, one of which has been learned. The closer made a mistake in not reverting the close to relist, and has learned. The category creator should be notified of the discussion. The second lesson is that it appears that Twinkle makes a mistake in not notifying a category creator (as Doncram and Bearcat discussed). Twinkle should notify the category creator of a CFD nomination (just as it notifies an article creator of an AFD nom, a draft creator of an MFD nom, and a template creator of a TFD nom). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, looking at the deleted page history, Paul 012 was the page creator. But it's the responsibility of the deletion tagger to notify page creators, not the closer of a deletion discussion. In my admin work, I've noticed that admins are more likely to skip page creator notifications for deletions (and I suppose deletion taggings) than regular editors. I think it's because they can move right to deletion while editors tagging an article for all types of deletion often use Twinkle which typically produces a talk page notice in the process of tagging the page. I've thought about bringing this problem up at WP:AN but when people have been admins for over a decade, I think it's unlikely that a notice could get them to change their behavior.
I'll also note that CFD draws fewer participants to deletion discussions than AFD or RFD (though it's not as bad as TFD) so having two participants in a deletion discussion is pretty common. Liz Read! Talk! 20:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. From what Bearcat described, it sounded like this was a bug with Twinkle, but if so it would be a bug affecting only Bearcat alone, since looking at the recent CfD logs, the Twinkle-generated noms by others are generating the user notification as usual. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I've noted that unlike with CSDs where notification of the page creator is strongly recommended, the guidelines state that it's considered a courtesy, not a requirement, at XfDs. I know that oftentimes categories brought to CfD will have been created long ago by long-since inactive users whose talk pages are now stacked with stale notification messages, and it's clearly reasonable to skip the notification in such cases. I can imagine that after seeing many cases like this, some editors may habitually skip the notification and as a result forget to send it in the rarer cases when it would be useful. (Not suggesting that this was the case here though.) --Paul_012 (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paul 012, I think I might be a little notorious for warning new page patrollers when they don't post a talk page notification on the page creator's talk page. I must post a message about this a dozen times a month. But I have been instructed by more senior admins whom I respect that this action is recommended but optional and so a year or more ago I removed the "you must" or "you are obliged to" language out of my notices and just say things like "it's a courtesy to" or "it's important that" to indicate that this is the norm for page taggers and not imply that they have done anything wrong.
Given that half of my edits are to user talk pages (which still boggles my mind), I really think deletion notification is important since editors don't have access to their Deleted contributions. Without a notification, an editor is unlikely to ever know that the page they created has been deleted or what the grounds were for that deletion. Most editors do not maintain lists of all of the pages they have created over the years so how would they notice when one is no longer there any more? We are fortunate to have a couple of bots that work to notify page creators whose articles are PROD'd or at AFD if the nominator forgets the notification but I don't think they cover other areas like RFD, CFD, TFD, MFD or all forms of CSD. Twinkle really does all of the heavy lifting here, once page taggers have their Preferences set and the "Notify page creator" box is checked off (although even Twinkle skips notifications for some CSD categories like G6 or G7). Sorry for this tangent to this deletion review. Liz Read! Talk! 20:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 October 2022

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

This Wikipedia page has been speedily deleted and salted by criteria G4 even though there was significant new information and sources justifying the creation of the page. Célestin Denis (talk)

  • I do think G4 was improperly applied here, as the speedily-deleted version differed significantly from the version draftified via AfD. That said, the cut-and-paste move that created the article this time shouldn't have been possible. I don't know what happened to the indefinite create protection applied in April, but it didn't stop what it should have stopped. The clear consensus of the AfD was to salt against such and article creation, and I think pushing the current version through AfC is the best outcome here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation via AfC - @Célestin Denis: Actually, I was hoping for a more solid argument/explanation on his notability from you, besides just the G4 deletion. I should've clarified it better, but I kind of expected you to also show the new sources that prove his notability as well. Anyway, for all the editors here, I posted this response earlier on the draft's talk page, but for contextual purposes, I'll reiterate most of what I stated.
First off, we already know about the two previous AfDs and saltings. This isn't the point anymore. Rather, the argument proposed here was to demonstrate that this YouTuber in question now meets WP:GNG due to new sources that arose following the six months since said AfDs. In fact, quite a few of these sources existed even during the initial AfDs earlier this year.
Multiple sources prove his notability - Kotaku, Dot Esports, Insider, NME, Inven Global, and even The Washington Post - all reliable per WP:RSPSS, WP:VG/RS and WP:A/S. They each discuss significant aspects of him as a person and YouTuber - from him being one of the fastest growing streamers on YouTube; his popularity originating from clips of his streams posted online; and the multitude (key word: multitude) of incidents he's gotten himself into. WP:BLP1E does not come close to applying for him here, and it would be erroneous to state otherwise.
Second off, I initially had moments of doubt about his notability that I addressed in my response on the talk page, mainly fears that it would descend into a whole bunch of disputes over what Wikipedia is not. After reading Denis' response and the improvements he made to the draft however, I came to realize that those fears were in retrospect a bit unsubstantiated. Perhaps the article won't descend into a battleground over content, and if it does we could always request page protections to circumvent poor edits. Not to mention, Wikipedia houses plenty of articles of problematic individuals all the time that also meet GNG. It shouldn't necessarily be a detriment that decreases the notability of a person, and even though a lot of sources do discuss him within incidents, there are quite a few that discuss him holistically.
Factoring in Denis' good faith edits, I proposed to him to make this deletion review so that editors can come to a consensus to unsalt and allow recreation via AfD - which is my vote now. These sources prove he's notable. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
      • The reason why this got into article space is that the title had been ECP-protected rather than admin-protected, and the editor who copy-pasted it into article space is Extended Confirmed.
      • I don't remember the details of the deleted version of the article and so can't comment on whether the G4 was valid.
      • If the G4 is concluded to have been mistaken, then a strict interpretation of the procedures is that we should restore the speedily deleted article, and it can be taken to a third AFD.
      • The alternative to restoring the speedily deleted article would be to leave the deletion standing by Ignore All Rules.
      • This is a case where the proponents of a subject are working against their own cause by trying to get an article into article space by bludgeoning or by gaming the system. This sort of full court press is too common with Internet personalities and up-and-coming actors, and it makes it less likely that their person will get into Wikipedia, not more likely. The ultras who try to force an article into article space apparently think that they are smarter than the community, but sometimes the community has crowd wisdom.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, I'm fairly sure your first comment is incorrect. If the ECP create-protection had still been enabled, Gameforall should not have been able to create it. They have less than 200 edits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was another creation between the ECP salting and Gameforall's; it's the version that was moved to Draft:IShowSpeed (and that's still there). The mainspace title was no longer protected after the move. —Cryptic 04:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can't see as much as you can, but am I right in thinking that WaddlesJP13's move from mainspace to draftspace is what led to the loss of protection? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually the move from draft to main; as soon as a title's no longer red, its creation protection is gone. Admin privileges aren't needed to see what happened - it's visible in IShowSpeed's logs and Draft:IShowSpeed's history. —Cryptic 05:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That might be my fault, I moved the draft to main-space after greatly revising the draft with sources that are listed as reliable. I also made sure to correct the neutrality within the article. Although a bold move, I proceeded with it because:
A. I thought that the topic's notability would easily be defendable in a potential deletion discussion given IShowSpeed's coverage in reliable sources.
B. I thought that the article would be more likely to be improved if it was in the main space. Editors could be discouraged from editing a page that has been deleted and declined by AfC numerous times. I also thought that the new page reviewers could easily spot inappropriate elements in the article before the page's indexation.
C. I thought that the upcoming AfC review could be biased considering the article's deletion and AfC declining history along with the controversial nature of the subject. This theory turned out to be correct considering the result of the most recent review despite the article's improvement. Célestin Denis (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation via AFC For the record this was gonna get deleted anyway, it was copy/pasted into the article space, however I locked it to prevent that from reoccurring and to preserve the neutrality of the community for when the article clears its AFC period. If we spend the next so many weeks/months CSD-ing this article no one will be willing to give it a chance when it clears AFC. This was a calculated move with a calculated risk designed to stop the fanbase and allow for work towards acceptance in the AFC space, done to preserve the spirit of AGF in allowing recreation via AFC and to preserve NPOV among the community towards whatever new version may be accepted for publication. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the AfD. It was properly deleted. The draft, draft:IShowSpeed, was rejected, by User:Bonadea I disagree with that rejection, as must those above who !vote “allow recreation via AfC” or similar. Revert that REJECT, the topic is plausibly notable. However, the draft is WP:Reference bombed, and this makes it difficult to review. Urge the proponents to follow the advice at WP:THREE. See WP:SIRS. Set up a table on the draft_talk page. This will reasonably allow a reviewer to fairly review. Until this is done, and approved by an AfC reviewer, create-protect the mainspace title. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The draft was rejected after the article was copy and pasted into main-space and nominated for deletion by G4. If anything the draft was declined because of the decision from the admins regarding the article. Célestin Denis (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the subject is plausibly notable why can't the article be moved into main-space where it can be improved? AfC reviewers have repeatedly shown their bias towards the subject which might result in IShowSpeed staying in the draft space forever. Not to mention that the draft version that was declined was the one by the same contributor who went rogue, deleting reliable sources and replacing them with unreliable ones before copy and pasting the draft in the main-space. The current version of the draft, the one made by me and more experienced contributors, doesn't contain the elements for which the draft was declined. I think it's unfair that the perfectly acceptable version of the draft, which was in review for a week prior to Gameforall's reckless actions, was only reviewed mere minutes after the user's disruptive actions. Prior to his actions, other AfC reviewers came forward and said that they were hesitant to let IShowSpeed have an article due to his controversial nature. I'm getting the sense that one of them was waiting for disruption to happen in order to have a reason to decline the draft. No AfC reviewer will want to accept the article due to its history and controversial nature and to be honest, I don't blame them. Reviewers will either chose to move on to another draft or find a bogus reason to decline. Célestin Denis (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe assume a bit of good faith here? Obviously I looked at the history before reviewing and rejecting the draft, it's pretty offensive to suggest anything else. The mere minutes you mention were in fact four hours. Gameforall's version was even spammier than the one preceding it, but since the version prior to Gameforall's contained promofluff like "a rate unprecedented in YouTube history" as well as quite a lot of trivial detail as well as quotes from the youtuber's own vile rants, the draft was both spammy and derogatory. In addition, at least one third of the sources in the pre-Gameforall version were inappropriate. I stand behind my rejection of the draft, given its long and spammy history, but my opinion on that score is worth no more than anybody else's. It looks like there is a pretty strong consensus forming for allowing recreation in draftspace and resubmission. --bonadea contributions talk 20:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Bonadea, I guess you were limited by the template. When you say “Reject the draft”, fair enough, but that’s not what the applied template says, it says “The TOPIC …” [is rejected].
    Maybe we can agree to say that the current draft should be WP:TNT-ed, and any new attempts should not WP:Reference bomb, but should follow WP:THREE and WP:SIRS.
    I see the topic as “plausibly notable”, which is a very low standard, notability is neither demonstrated nor impossible. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the draft certainly needs work when in the opening it gushes "... at a rate unprecedented in YouTube history" with a reference which says no such thing. I tend to lose interest at that point in wanting to try and work out if the rest of the article is just more hyperbole or actually backed by the references --81.100.164.154 (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's hard to review the last deletion of this article without looking at its entire history. An article on this subject has been deleted 4 times in main space over the past six months and the latest draft version, which I assume is similar to the latest main space version, was rejected, not declined but rejected, by AFC reviewers yesterday. I assume that the draft includes the new sources you refer to. I disagree about your stance on AFC reviewers being unwilling to ever let an article on this subject get approval but they can't totally ignore its rocky history on the project. There is no point to "Allow recreation via AFC" when a draft version similar to the deleted main version already exists and it has been rejected meaning that it can not be resubmitted for review. I think it would be difficult to justify restoring this article in main space if it has been rejected by AFC reviewers in Draft space. And, even if it was restored, I predict it would get its 3rd trip to AFD in 2022. Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After further review, I now see that Bonadea and Robert McClenon reviewed Gameforall's version of the draft, not yours, Célestin Denis. I don't think the CSD G4 deletion should be overturned but I agree with SmokeyJoe, I do think it would be ideal to get the draft version's rejection by AFC reviewers to be reconsidered if you have introduced as many changes and improvements as you argue you have. Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @SmokeyJoe, Bonadea, Robert McClenon, and TomStar81: please see the table I made on the talk page. That is the last comment I'm making for anything IShowSpeed-related; I'm done explaining myself. At this point, I genuinely don't know how any editor can objectively evaluate these sources and still reasonably come to the conclusion that he isn't sufficiently notable enough for Wikipedia, outside of concerns regarding potential NPOV issues and disputes over his controversies. But regardless, I'll still assume good faith and accept whatever decision you make about the sources. PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I call these sources as scraping the GNG minimum, and as they are new, they overcome G4. They are not impressively new, so I recommend not considering submission or mainspacing the page before six months after the last consensus to delete. That will be in about a week. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Rejection - I think that the rejection by Bonadea was correct, but, having reviewed the source analysis table on the draft talk page, the current draft appears to satisfyestablish general notability and should at least be reviewed de novo. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Robert_McClenon, you misrepresent the WP:GNG. The satisfying of the GNG is not a question for a particular version of a page. The WP:GNG applies to the topic, and sources that exist. The GNG does not depend on the state of the page, or the current set of references. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but the state of the page is what establishes that the sources exist so that the subject is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There should be a lesson here for fan clubs of Internet celebrities and up-and-coming artists and entertainers. Trying to bludgeon the review process or game the system to get an article work less well than reasoning with the reviewers. Multiple trouts are in order both on this appeal and on the Lana Rhoades appeal, as cases where the proponents were their own worst enemy by creating a history of declines, rejection, deletion, and reviews. I know that they should learn, and I have seen that proponents don't learn. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2022 (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.
Tittytainment (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is strictly not a deletion review, as I do not want to contest the original decision of deletion. However as it is a plausible search term, I propose one of them on this title:

  • Redirect it to The Global Trap
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary
  • Allow recreation, since more sources may exist now, such as this one (in Chinese), but one of the above may also be done until the article is rewritten

I am not sure which is more proper. GZWDer (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those require DRV approval. Feel free to proceed with whichever you think best. Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2022 (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.
Allison Kopf (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A raw reading of the results sees four delete entries, two keeps and usefy, yet the article was closed with a non-consensus. Considering the low quality of the articles references its seems to be a very poorlu exeuted decision. It should have been a delete. scope_creepTalk 13:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as no consensus is the correct call here, though I would not completely oppose relisting to get more input. While there were varying opinions on whether the provided sources were sufficient for WP:GNG, the one thing that was clear is that there was NOT consensus to delete. The second "delete" vote should be dismissed as it misrepresents the rule of WP:THREE as superseding GNG. All three keep votes (not two, as the nom claims, I will assume this was an honest mistake) show there is enough in-depth coverage. The Grist article provided by User:Silver seren was shown to have in-depth coverage of both Kopf and her business. So that's three solid keep votes compared to four solid delete/ATD votes. As close to no consensus as you can get. Frank Anchor 15:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure by Legoktm as no consensus, as a closer needs to consider more than just the "raw reading." Silver seren provided a strong argument with source links and quoted text. I certainly don't think it is enough to be a clear "keep" but at the same time a "deletion" would be an inappropriate conclusion as well. Therefore, "no consensus" is a fair reading of the situation.
Fuzheado | Talk 15:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 October 2022

[edit]

8 October 2022

[edit]
  • Kherson Oblast (Russia) – deletion endorsed. While the AFD was closer, there is an overwhelming consensus here that the closure as "delete" was at this point appropriately founded in policies, in particular those related to WP:NPOV (e.g. content forks) since the presence of the article could lend legitimacy to the fringe viewpoint ("fringe" in the sense that the claim has very little international support) that the Kherson oblast belongs to Russia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kherson Oblast (Russia) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing statement is a supervote.

In their rather brief closing statement, the closing admin simply voiced support to one part of editors and summarily dismissed the entire argumentation of the other side.

My view is that it was wrong to claim that Wikipedia editors have achieved consensus to delete the article or that those dozens of editors arguing for keeping the article did that only as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That was simply not the case as can be seen in the long and complex discussion.

The situation can possibly be explained by the fact that the closing admin has very limited experience of deletion discussions – this was their 6th close ever. Also, I couldn't find, in their editing history since 2013, other situations where they'd have to carefully judge the consensus. Even their participation in past deletion discussions was extremely limited (they participated in no more than two dozen discussions altogether).

Considering how charged the debate was, how many editors participated, and how complex was the argumentation presented, one would expect that this particular discussion would be closed by an experienced administrator. Alas, this did not happen, we have a supervote instead, and hence this deletion review request.

The same applies to the arguably incorrect closures at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donetsk People's Republic (Russia) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lugansk People's Republic (Russia) by the same admin.

I'll be grateful for an unbiased review of the discussion. — kashmīrī TALK 21:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't have taken this to DRV quite yet, as I was still discussing this with the closing admin, but I strongly support overturning to no consensus, per my comments made here. Would be reasonable to have another AfD in a year or so, once we get more details, but there is not a present consensus to delete these articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the Baja California article cited the Mexican government as its main source, it would be deleted too. The Kherson Oblast article cited the Kremlin, Russian government agencies, and Russian state-media, which were WP:primary sources and completely unacceptable for establishing the notability of the subject from that POV and creating a page with that POV name. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument in favour of keeping the article isn't good and the Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China article needs to be deleted for the same reason. It cites the Chinese government in its sources and the independent sources cited (like Source #3) do not support the POV that it is a province of the PRC. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (non admin) there are enough vote to delete.
Panam2014 (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not about counting !votes. — kashmīrī TALK 22:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions are not votes, so that's irrelevant. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 22:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @Elli, but I don't think there's a procedure for the closing admin to revert own close and undelete the article in question. Or, am I wrong? Also, your arguments on Talk require that the other person have a fair understanding of what the article is all about, while from their arguments (CRYSTALBALL, etc.) it appears that unfortunately we are not yet there.
I strongly support overturning to no consensus. — kashmīrī TALK 22:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are allowed to undo their closes, and it's generally good practice to ask admins to consider self-reverting before taking them to DRV. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, never too late to learn. — kashmīrī TALK 23:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose changing the decision. The rationale was clear and reflects the balance of the discussion. A significant proportion of the 'Keep' votes were either pushing a pro-Russian POV, or using this case as a proxy arguments for other situations they viewed as parallel elsewhere. The simple fact is that the two articles under consideration were POV forks, artificially synthesising material about the real (Ukrainian) oblasts in question with information already covered in the exsiting articles about the Russian occupation. Enough already. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    using this case as a proxy arguments for other situations they viewed as parallel elsewhere you have this backwards. It's not even in dispute that such articles exist (or could exist) for pretty much any other claimed first-level administrative subdivisions. Also, these articles existing is not pushing a Russian POV. Russia claims these Oblasts exist as constituent parts of Russia. They have defined territory and governments. Having an article for any claimed first-level administrative subdivision is the neutral thing to do; we can explain that these are unrecognized in the articles on them. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GenevieveDEon That's irrelevant. Most editors have a certain POV and there's nothing wrong with it. The issue at stake was whether the article duplicated an existing topic, and some people argued that it did. The counter-argument – which I strongly support – was that it did not, because this article was about an administrative subdivision of the Russian Federation, while the two other articles mentioned in the discussion are about something else (an administrative unit of another country, and about a war). The closing admin failed altogether to address this point – for instance, they wrongly claimed that CRYSTALBALL was a valid argument, even though the article subject was in existence at the time of closure. — kashmīrī TALK 23:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - The closing admin, Legoktm, correctly assessed consensus when taking the strength of arguments into account. Deletion votes boiled down to concerns over lack of independent reliable sources, POV forking, predicting the future, and synthesizing sources. Keep votes largely boiled down to other stuff exists and "this will exist", which are textbook bad arguments. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did the closer address what you claim apart from WP:POVFORK, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? 77.191.152.45 (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (uninvolved admin). This is a classic case of a discussion that would end up at WP:DR no matter how it was closed. The close was a correct reading of the discussion and the strength of arguments, even without explicitly weighing sockpuppet and SPA participation. I don't see how admins can weigh arguments at all (as they are supposed to) without being subject to assertions that the weighing constitutes a supervote. BD2412 T 02:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the proof that it was a correct reading, when the closer linked only the three policies WP:POVFORK, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the article didn't match the first two and the latter is not a reason for deletion? 77.191.152.45 (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Good rough consensus call. It is the role of the admin to shut down a time sink when it is clear enough where it is going to end up. There was way too much POV. It was not a Supervote. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Correctly based on policy. Not a supervote. Risker (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the proof that it is "correctly based on policy", when the closer linked only the three policies WP:POVFORK, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the article didn't match the first two and the latter is not a reason for deletion? 77.191.152.45 (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse there was more policy-based reasoning in the delete (and WP:ATD) votes than in the the keep votes. I disagree with the closer dismissing many of the keep votes due solely to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, though that alone wouldn’t have changed what was probably a correct close on a difficult AFD. Frank Anchor 04:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you substantiate the claim "there was more policy-based reasoning in the delete"?
    The closer linked only the three policies WP:POVFORK, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the article didn't match the first two and the latter is not a reason for deletion. 77.191.152.45 (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article most certainly did match WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:CRYSTALBALL as was the opinion of many delete votes and the closing admin. Please also note that a deletion review is NOT the place to relitigate the AFD as you are attempting to do here. Frank Anchor 13:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer comment Apologies that my closing statement was too brief, my intent was to summarize how I weighed the arguments, not give the impression that I dismissed one side entirely. I think it's reasonable to weigh comments that are along the lines of "as per the Chinese and Taiwanese precedents" less than votes that specified a policy-based rationale. Once I did that, and tried to ignore SPA votes, a consensus to delete became clear. I'd note that enough comments were reflections on the status now, and I would not be shocked if things change enough in a month or two that end up superseding this discussion. Finally my regret is that there was no proper way to consolidate all three AfDs given that the arguments for/against deletion were effectively all the same, they just saw differing levels of participation. Legoktm (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure of AfDs. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? 77.11.186.231 (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close (uninvolved admin). Legoktm is a respected editor and assessed the situation well, given the contentious AfD and resulting SPA. Portraying the close as a supervote is inaccurate. Reaper Eternal had a good rundown of the issues in play, most notably that WP:POVFORK/WP:NPOVVIEW runs counter to accepted guidelines. - Fuzheado | Talk 06:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPA 77.11.186.231 (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing even remotely resembling a "personal attack" is going on here, not by Fuzheado, or any other participant in this discussion. BD2412 T 19:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't claimed, but a pointer to a policy was made, probably because of concern of violation, at least the violation is obvious. 77.191.152.45 (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Citing WP:NPA in the absence of a claim of a personal attack is specious. As we are already WP:SNOW territory, I'm semi-protecting this page to limit further discussion to verifiably experienced editors. BD2412 T 21:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close Doesn't look to be a super vote to me, reasoning is based on policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the proof that "reasoning is based on policy" when the closer linked only the three policies WP:POVFORK, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the article didn't match the first two and the latter is not a reason for deletion? 77.191.152.45 (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To you the article might not have matched, but to others it did. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 23:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as reflecting both the discussion's conclusion and the preponderance of how worldwide RS'es handle these matters. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse for now I was involved in the AfD. I do think the keep side made reasonable arguments that depending on the next few months, we may need to reconsider this. But for now, solid close. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – This was a hard closure, and would have inevitably ended up in Deletion Review. The problem is that only one of the options is supported by policy, but a numerical vote count would be No Consensus. For that reason, a close of No Consensus would have been a valid judgment call by the closer, but there is no policy-based argument for Keep, so that a close of Delete is better. The close appears to be a supervote, because it ignores the numerical result, but the segment of the community that responded is largely ignoring policy, and we must not ignore policy. The articles to be deleted are content forks, and policy does not allow those. The segment of the community that responded was simply wrong, or, rather, slightly more than half of them, the ones who said to Keep, were wrong. This was the right difficult decision, to ignore the nationalist POV input. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as it failed WP:Reliable sources. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved) - Not a supervote. A supervote would be if the closer had closed it on a basis not argued in the discussion, but the policies/guidelines on which the closure was based were cited repeatedly by those in favour of deletion. POVFORK was cited by Fram, Volunteer Marek, Slywriter, Michael Z. and others. Similarly CRYSTALBALL was cited by AxolotlsAreCool, Knižnik, and Volunteer Marek. OTHERSTUFF by Ashill and * Pppery *.
    Some above have cited the numerical count as a reason to over-turn, but Wikipedia is not a vote, and in this case the closer found the arguments of those in favour of deletion more soundly based in policy/guidelines than those in favour of keeping. Moreover people saying this should have been closed as no-consensus based on the numerical count are doing so based on heuristics (particularly the "should be 2:1 in favour to close things that way" heuristic) that have no consensus in favour of them and are not the outcome of any explicit consensus, they are at best rules of thumb that the closer can ignore depending on the circumstances - in this case the fact that the page was obviously under attack from sockpuppets and vote-stacking gives a very good reason to do so. Even if they weren't there the numerical ratio (very roughly 80:60 in favour of deletion) was in favour of deletion and weighting it by the strength of the arguments deployed pointed only to one outcome. Good close by Legoktm FOARP (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I agree with others that no matter what the closure, this AFD would likely have ended up at DRV. I agree with Legoktm's close and I'll admit that I have a special admiration for admins who take on reviewing complex and long deletion or RFC discussions and come to a summary of how a dispute should be decided because it, at times, can look like a "no win" situation not matter what the close is. But I also acknowledge that this whole subject is a fluid situation and an article on this topic might be warranted at a future date. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that this discussion is covered by WP:GS/RUSUKR and comments by IPs and non extended-confirmed accounts should be summarily removed rather than replied to. nableezy - 02:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to soft delete/redirect. Frankly, given the discussion/vote was still ongoing ~24h before the close, I'd consider simply relisting this, but who wants more dramu, eh? But why hard delete if we have plausible redirect targets (Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast etc.)? Some content here might be usable for a merge, and the term can be seen as a viable redirect target, it has been used in some news pieces etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Lana Rhoades – allow review of draft space article. This discussion is way overdue for closing. My feeling is that the discussion has drifted off scope for what is usually in DRV's domain. The discussion is now concerning the merits of a specific draft space article, and not the validity of the closure in the original AFD. From what I gather, the draft was rejected a few times, the last time was about one and a half years ago. Not everyone in this discussion is convinced that the article now meets notability standards, but some are, and most of those who aren't are willing to see a fresh review. I am not experienced in evaluating draft space articles, and I am in particular not familiar with the reliability of the sourcing used here. However, anyone who doesn't have a conflict of interest and is otherwise impartial may make such a review and determine whether moving the draft to article space is appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lana Rhoades (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello, I've been pointed to DRV from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lana Rhoades and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#01:19:41,_7_October_2022_review_of_submission_by_Mbdfar. I will copy and paste what I wrote at the latter.

I am requesting a non-biased re-review of Draft:Lana_Rhoades on the basis of new sources not discussed in the 4 previous AfDs, the last of which was in 2020. Over half of the cited references did not exist at the time of the last discussion. The same closing editor in the last few submissions has not commented on or reviewed any new sources, instead deferring to the old AfDs.

I'll start with the industry specific sources. Keep in mind, these are NSFW. Here's the Playboy article published in 2021. Playboy is listed on WP:RS. This is a multi-page biographical source about the subject's life and career and clearly a reliable, secondary source with very significant coverage.

There are three AVN sources in the article, and more at the AVN website. These have been discussed in previous AfDs and dismissed as non-RS. However, AVN as a source was reviewed and listed at WP:RS in 2021 (after the AfDs). The three sources are AVN articles, not press releases as previously argued, which is explicitly considered generally reliable for the adult industry. I sourced the articles that did not mention the subject's business to avoid promotion.

There are two articles from Grazia UK. I can't find any discussion about the source, but it seems to be an established publication. The author of both cited articles is an editor of the magazine. This article I believe to be especially in depth. Is it uninteresting celebrity news? Sure. But I don't think it can be dismissed as a mere tabloid. It can be inane and still a reliable source that shows notability.

The Daily Beast article has had mixed opinions in previous AfDs about how significant the subject is within the article, but I think it's much more than just a namedrop. I'd welcome further review.

GQ has been considered a reliable source in a previous discussion, and this article has never been discussed in a previous AfD. This is a simple article about a milestone in the subject's career. The g1 article has also not been discussed. Both of these are significant coverage and not promotional.

Then there are those sources concerning the subject's foray into crypto. None of these sources were published at the time of the previous AfDs. This includes the capital.com article and the bitcoin.com article. I'm not sure how to assess the reliability of these sources, but they are both written by employees of the websites. Both are significant coverage and are not promotional in nature.

There are likely more WP:RS than what I've listed if this does not prove to be enough. For one, XBIZ is listed at WP:RS as being considered generally reliable for the adult industry. I have not cited any XBIZ articles, but there are 130 hits when searching for the subject. There are also 53,900 hits on Google News for the subject. Yes, these are 99% tabloid fluff non-RS junk articles, but there are certainly some RS hidden in the haystack.

All in all, I just want a fair review of the article. I think the subject is notable and worth inclusion. I have no connection to the subject - I've just been surprised how much backlash there has been during this drafting process and would like to see it through. Mbdfar (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support moving the article to mainspace and allowing another AfD, if people think the subject's notability is still unclear. Given that there are new sources since the last AfD, it's reasonable to think that the subject's notability may have changed. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Though, the page isn't protected. You could copy the contents of your draft to the article, and if someone reverts you, tell them to take it to AfD, explaining what you explained here. Not sure DRV is necessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    After four afds, a mfd, three drvs, a blp speedy, and five saltings (variously as a redlink or a redirect), surely some caution is called for. "Just recreate it" is usually the right thing to do, but not for a subject with this much deletion history. —Cryptic 21:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources, in particular the one from Playboy, have me comfortable with moving this to mainspace. Many of the other sources seem fine too. I think we are now well above WP:N. Still, no objection if someone feels the need to bring this to AfD down the road. Not sure what the bold !vote here would be, but permission to move to mainspace I guess is what I'm thinking. Hobit (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready for mainspace The Playboy and Grazia sources, which I agree do not appear to have been discussed in the last AfD, appear to be BLP-quality independent, non-trivial, RS. I think this is a case of DRV inertia: the more times we've deleted something, the fewer people are willing to look at current notability with fresh eyes. It can, of course, be nominated for deletion again. Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Review of Draft, acknowledging that I previously argued for deletion:
      • I have not reviewed this version of the draft at this time.
      • I will note that previous proponents were often being disruptive and tendentious, and the current appellant is being collaborative.
      • Occasionally there is a case of a subject who becomes notable largely by virtue of the controversy concerning an article, similar to being famous for being famous. This is such a case.
      • I will provide more comments after reviewing the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will not be reviewing the draft because it appears to be the same draft that I rejected more than once, although it has been modified, and I will recuse from review.
    • I will note that previous submitters did two things that predictably angered me:
      • Resubmitting a Rejected draft without first discussing it.
      • Submitting a draft when the title is either a locked redlink or a locked redirect, so that a reviewer cannot accept the draft even if he wants to accept it.
      • Robert McClenon (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: are you recommending the draft be resubmitted for review by someone else?
  • Are the playboy and daily beast articles the same ones mentioned in the last AFD which closed as delete? If they are then I don’t see anything further to discuss. Spartaz Humbug! 18:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Daily Beast was previously discussed, the Playboy article was published after the AFD. Mbdfar (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And why not discuss the other sources I highlighted? Mbdfar (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reviewed this article multiple times over the years. It still does not read like an encyclopaedia article as the sourcing is frequently salacious or just a comment here and there. So in no particular order, Grazia looks like clickbaity gossipy rubbish. The daily beast already been considered and rejected. Playboy, not independent - its clearly interview based and promoting their photoshoot. , None of the rest looks worth my time. With respect there is a point where the users demanding that their pet article be included despite clear evidence that the community has rejected it need to be more respectful of the time and energy of the reviewers. Frankly, looking at the draft and your attempts to wear editors down into acceptimg it, you now need to stop and find something useful to do. Endorsed Spartaz Humbug! 20:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything at WP:RS saying sourcing can't be salacious, only that it should be significant coverage within a reliable, independent, and secondary publication. Like I said above, the Grazia articles are uninteresting rubbish, but shouldn't the question be whether Grazia is a reliable, independent, and secondary publication? If the answer is yes, then significant coverage would contribute notability to the subject. I believe the answer is yes. In terms of Playboy, sure, the author conducted an interview in preparation for the article, but they discuss information originally presented elsewhere. It's certainly not written as a Q&A interview. I believe that qualifies it as a secondary source. It's also independent of the subject. As you said, it may be "[Playboy] promoting their photoshoot", but Playboy is independent of the subject. It can be Playboy promoting Playboy, but that does not matter as it is independent, secondary, and significant coverage of the subject.
    Do you have any opinions on the AVN sources? As stated above, AVN was discussed and listed as a WP:RSPSOURCES after all AFDs had closed. I would like to see discussion of these sources with this precedent considered. Mbdfar (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect its annoying for you to try and police the meaning of the comments of people who disagree with you and you are well into bludgeon territory now. I disagree with your analysis. I don’t accept avn and xbiz as sourcing for an article without additional high quality sources. Your sourcing is not high quality and doesn’t support the high quality standard that we should be aspiring too for a BLP. Spartaz Humbug! 17:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you feel that way, I was just contributing to the discussion. I suppose I'm more interested in this particular case because it seems there have been some WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments instead of policy based ones. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but when you disregard sourcing as being "salacious" and ignoring community consensus regarding reliability of sourcing, it makes me assume bad faith. Especially when you have such a history with this subject. Mbdfar (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg your pardon? What do you mean by history? I really hope that you are not going to start casting aspersions? Spartaz Humbug! 20:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You said that you have reviewed this article several times over the last few years. I'm sure that you have reviewed some terribly written and sourced forms of the article. However, I think that history can lend itself to a ...And Stay Dead! mentality instead of a collaborative one. Perhaps that was unfair to assume. Mbdfar (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to main space on the strength of the articles in Playboy, which I think is unquestionably a reliable source, Grazia, and to a lesser extent, the Daily Beast, which is beyond a trivial mention and some indication that the subject is notable outside the adult video industry. This article will likely be submitted to AfD again, so the page collaborators may wish to consider whether the article is sufficiently sourced to withstand that. Personally, I do not consider AVN to be reliable sourcing (other than its own awards) for any BLP, and I suspect you may encounter others with a similar approach. But I do think that there is enough here to make the case in main space. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 October 2022

[edit]

6 October 2022

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

This category Category:Professional wrestling jobbers was deleted yesterday which I don't understand when it strongly kept before as only one person wanted it deleted if you check it's history. I the creator of this category wasn't even informed that it was up for deletion. Please restore this as it's deletion was completely unwarranted. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 October 2022

[edit]

4 October 2022

[edit]

3 October 2022

[edit]

2 October 2022

[edit]

1 October 2022

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_October&oldid=1113139302"