Zafar Mahmud – Overturn and relist. The numerical count here is close, but slightly in favor of overturning. The participants here are in general agreement that CT55555's relatively late !vote is strong, even if they do not agree with the conclusion. Discussion after that !vote has been sparse; only Visviva has attempted to refute CT55555's argument, while Indefensible has protested that they would have given a stronger response if they had thought there was any possibility of deletion. Therefore, my finding based on this DRV is that there is insufficient evidence to support a consensus of "delete" at the AfD, and more discussion of the sources would be beneficial. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
It seems clear to me that there was no consensus to delete. CT55555(talk) 22:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, it‘s clear that there was no consensus here whatsoever. It‘s a very odd close and hard to justify, in my opinion. Relist may be more appropriate given what has been pointed out re sockpuppeting concerns. A good discussion with particular attention to this issue is probably warranted. Note that there is relevant discussion on the closing admin‘s talk page, here. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC), edited 07:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC), re-edited 08:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say more about what the concerns are? I saw @Star Mississippi and you talk about that on the closer's talk page, but I found it confusing and also thought it was about a different discussion, so am confused about multiple elements of this. CT55555(talk) 07:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uff, I‘ll be honest: I‘m quite busy today, so I‘ve been following these discussions (and contributing) on my phone, and in the jungle of open tabs, I confused this with another issue raised somewhere else. Just disregard my previous edit. Sorry about the confusion. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Strength of argument is more important than numbers. The closer showed their work on the talk page, and this was a well-reasoned close. I have no problem with draftifying it if someone wants to try to fix it up, though, but it should probably go through AfC, even though we're behind there. SportingFlyerT·C 22:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore for review, please I'd like to see the sourcing in the article at time of deletion. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto - please restore for review. In the meantime:
I'd like to keep the article personally although I don't think I !voted. It's just that the subject sounds interesting.
That said, I respect the process and I respect the closer, Spartaz. The only way I'd !vote overturn is if there were good refs added late in the process.
@Jclemens and A. B.: I went to do a temp undelete as I don't think my relist makes me Involved, but saw Draft:Zafar Mahmud has the entire history so I don't think an undelete is needed here. Ping me if I'm missing something? StarMississippi 01:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus the AFD was listed for a month and there were only two “weak” votes not to keep, plus the nom. The keep votes did not present a strong argument to keep, as the only policy or sourced based reasoning were some borderline-GNG material presented by CT55555 (thanks Star Mississippi for linking the draft with history). Nonetheless, there was very clearly not consensus to delete/draftify. Carson Wentz (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep it appears there are two newspaper articles outside his own country about him, although I can access neither. AGFing non-trivial coverage, that's a GNG pass, even if nobody bothered to say that in the discussion. It's not the best or most important biography, but it's not a BLP and passes notability. There's no reason to close against numerical consensus just because what I just articulated wasn't articulated by less AfD-familiar participants. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep: as far as AfD discussions goes “ An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus” and I don’t think that was done, as the admin ignored the discussion and decided to use their own opinion, making them self a prosecutor and judge. The discussion should have been closed as Keep
The closer clearly listed their closing process on their talk page and it's clear they did not ignore the discussion at all. SportingFlyerT·C 13:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if you refer to this, it came after the closing of the AfD not before FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And? What relevance does that have, just because they didn't write it out before hand doesn't mean it wasn't the rationale they followed. You on the other hand seem to suggest you have some mind reading ability and can determine exactly what they were doing, also with no written rationale. Last I check WP:AGF was still a thing on wikipedia. -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
they need to write it then and there before they close. You closing an AfD with people participating there, the least you can do is explaining yourself, to them. Not close it and then justify what you did when asked, later. That is not how an admin should operate and it has nothing to do with assuming good faith.
and if the admin has an opinion, then they should participate in the AfD themselves, and not just upheld their opinion unilaterally. Admins are not owners of this place.
Nothing what the admin did fit the basic requirement for an AfD closure not even if you stretch it to a Supervote. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So your response is all about what you think an admin should so in closing a discussion, but that is nothing to do if their action constitutes a supervote. Fortunately the deletion process has this to say "It can sometimes be useful to provide a brief explanatory note, to make the rationale for the decision clear.", nothing about absolutely mandatory or that it's a supervote not to etvc. -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was tainted by socking. Spartaz was right to discount the "keep" from WhyWeAll on socking grounds, and I'm afraid when there's socking you have to weight IP contributions lower as well, which near-nullifies the "keep" from 100.36.234.200. This leaves three deletes (US-Verified, Piotrus, Visiva), for those who understand that "draftify" means "remove from mainspace", and three keeps (Indefensible, NYC Guru, CT5555). Two of the deletes say they're "weak", but the arguments that support them are really really strong, and they come with detailed and credible source analysis. Two of the "keeps" are specifically asking for the benefit of the doubt, and that's not how this works. I'm afraid the way this works is WP:CHALLENGE, and core content policies overrule the benefit of the doubt. So when I count the votes that way and weight them that way, I get to endorse.—S MarshallT/C 13:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think disregarding an IP editor's contribution because someone else in the discussion violated WP:SOCK directly contradicts WP:AGF. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you know it was someone else because... ?—S MarshallT/C 16:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but where is the evidence sock/meatpuppetry played into the AfD decision? Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WhyWeAll was blocked as a sock even before the discussion was closed. SportingFlyerT·C 17:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that wasn't obvious from the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because assuming good faith is the default. Innocent until proven guilty, WP:AGF, etc. I don't know it was someone else, but I assume that the IP editor is a good-faith editor until there is substantive evidence to the contrary. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with the other editors above. Our default should be to assume good faith for IP editors. Discounting them, in the absence of evidence, creates a double standard between IP and registered users and every conversation I've seen on that topic to date leads me to believe that we have consensus against that. CT55555(talk) 17:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
just to be clear, I did not discard the IP because of the socking. I just felt their argument was weak and lacked a strong policy basis so gave it less weight in my close. A couple of reviews down you will see me defending a different IP. SpartazHumbug! 18:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
since I actually didn't do that and explained how I assessed the IP and made no mention of socking perhaps you can extend some of that AGF you keep spraying around to me. SpartazHumbug! 18:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I replied to S Marshall, I wasn't addressing your thought process, but theirs. I was responding to the argument they provided here. As I've said before, I'm sure your close was well-considered and reasoned. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus. The close is a supervote and the closer gives a good argument for Keep, but not a strong enough argument for why numerical consensus should be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Almost all the keep arguments acknowledged the sourcing was weak/non-existent. Unless they make a strong argument for IAR, there is no reason to give much or any weight to those !votes. Spartaz reasonably discounted them. JoelleJay (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing pisses me off more than casual allegations of supervoting just because you disagree with my analysis of the weight to be given votes. The term has a really nasty connotation of authoritarian disregard of other users and policies that I find really distasteful. My response on my talkpage clearly demonstrates I took some time to think through the arguments, compare them against policy and consider how to assess the consensus. I could easily be wrong but don't you dare suggest I was callously disregarding the arguments that other users took time to offer or acting in anything other than good faith. Why do I bother? I really wonder that sometimes. SpartazHumbug! 18:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don‘t think the term necessarily has the connotation you describe, at least not for me. A supervote can very well be accidental; an error in judgement, but not intentional authoritarianism. I can‘t speak for Robert above, but that‘s my interpretation.
That aside, I don’t think telling another editor „don‘t you dare“ make their argument is constructive, nor is it civil. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing an admin of a supervote is accusing them of substituting their opinion for the views expressed in the discussion. I appreciate that although your account has been around for a while you don't seem to have edited that much so maybe that connotation has passed you by. I have been active at drv for over a decade and my interpretation is precisely how it has been used as a shorthand to disparage the judgement of the closing admin. Maybe Robert didn't mean it that way, I don't know, but you have no right to decide how I should interpret comments directed at my judgement. SpartazHumbug! 06:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Spartaz here on his interpretation. Accusations of "supervoting" is one of the worst things you can accuse an admin of doing. It's not a neutral term, there is no positive connotation. I'll never forget a Deletion review where I was accused of supervoting. It undermines the whole effort of being a fair and just administrator. In some cases, it might be an accurate assessment of what occurred but you can't blame an admin for being offended by the accusation. LizRead!Talk! 01:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Spartaz In that case, I‘d like to apologise. It was never my intention to offend, and I wasn‘t aware that the term had such a strong negative connotation for most people. I‘ve changed the text on your talk page to better reflect what I intended to communicate. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 07:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse. Firstly, I don't think this is a supervote. The close rationale was unclear, but they elaborated on how they weighed the votes in their UTP. Hence, for me the question is whether they weighted the votes accurately. IMO the quality of the keep votes were very weak except for CT55555's. The 1st keep vote was a sock, whereas the 2nd keep vote also is not P&G or sourcing-based, and is at best a weak IAR argument. Regarding sock concerns, the IP is a SPA, but I don' think their type of edits or language style to be similar to the blocked sock WhyWeAll (no ping). The 3rd keep likewise vaguely claims to trust the sourcing and give the benefit of the doubt given the historical background..., but also cites no policies or guidelines nor makes any clear sourcing-based arguments, and should be weighed much less. The 4th vote was PERX. I don't think PERX should automatically be given much less weight, but looking at the voter's AFD votes, basically all of their last 10 AfDs are drive-by votes (hand-waving or WP:PERX), with none actually analysing the sourcing, i.e., see their most recent votes at 1, 2, 3, and overall should be discounted. This only leaves CT55555's keep vote (which was not that detailed but is reasonably source-based) and three delete ordraftify votes being P&G or sourcing based. Ordinarily given the significant quality discrepancy, I would obviously endorse the close. However, in this case, two of the delete or draftify were explicitly labelled as having weak opinions despite being strong in quality. Overall, IMO this is between a NC and delete/draftify, but the latter is within admin discretion, so I am weakly endorsing. VickKiang(talk) 03:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, largely per VickKiang. While I normally am ok with PERK votes, in this case the comments supporting a keep position (at the time) did not address the sourcing of the article, so it is hard to understand which of the arguments that NYC Guru was supporting (the IAR argument or vague claim there are sources). The sources that were brought up in the discussion were considered by one participant of not being significant, and echoed by the IP. I do note there was no prohibition on restoring this page as draft and that draft page already exists. I hope that editors include additional significant sources and bring this back into mainspace --Enos733 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I find myself in agreement with Spartaz's analysis of all of the keep !votes other than CT5555's. CT5555's keep argument is per se reasonable, but the one person to actually analyze the sources they added found them to be be insufficient. A relist would have made sense there, except the discussion had already been relisted 3 times. So what it really comes down to is that the keep side failed to make a convincing case for notability, and hence the article was deleted. * Pppery *it has begun... 17:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except that ties go to "keep", not "delete" per WP:DGFA. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This was the point of my initial objection: there was no consensus to delete. I perceive that the only reasonable reading of the situation is neither consensus to keep nor delete, which should default to not-deleting. As per your link above When in doubt, don't deleteCT55555(talk) 04:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep: I am not seeing any consensus to delete the article. Okoslavia (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain in the same detail I offered how you weighed the votes against policy. SpartazHumbug! 18:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Most of the article remains unsourced or poorly sourced after the addition of a 1956 Macon News article (which briefly notes Mahmud's service as one of two training officers in the Pakistan Air Force, his 1952 training in the US, and his work as an observer of trainings in the US) and the 1956 Albuquerque Journal source (briefly mentioning his attendance at a dinner party during his tour of US Air Force bases) during the discussion. Spartaz restored the article as a draft after a request, so there is further opportunity to verify the contents and support notability. The rough consensus guideline includes, "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted", so the close, as further explained by Spartaz, appears to be within admin discretion. Beccaynr (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - I requested the draftify after the deletion and voted keep in the AFD, no consensus should have been the correct outcome in my opinion. The discussion above with endorsement and overturn entries further shows the lack of consensus. Other arguments of varying strength are frankly subjective opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our policy of ROUGHCONSENSUS literally says votes should be weighed against their alignment of policy and that is precisely what I did. If you disagree at least have the courtesy of putting the same effort to assess the votes as I did and explain how you disagree with my weighting. Otherwise your vote implies that all votes are equal and we should just count them, which is contrary to NOTAVOTE SpartazHumbug! 07:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give a quick summary of the case. At time of deletion, there were 5 keep votes, 1 WEAK delete, and 1 WEAK draftify. Wikipedia is based on consensus, how could there be any obvious indication with those results that a deletion was to be expected? I am not sure about socking but no discussion or concern was flagged. There had already been 3 relists, the participants likely had no idea that a deletion was likely to be coming based on the discussion, or at least I did not--had we realized, obviously a stronger response could have been given in the discussion.
Now I am not familiar with WP:SUPERVOTE or any historical connotations so I do not mean it as insult and this is not against good faith, but "supervote" is somewhat appropriate in my opinion to describe what happened where an overriding close outweighed a discussion of 5 keep participants, 1 weak delete, and 1 weak draftify. Saying that "votes are [not] equal" is exactly stating an unequal vote which is what a term like "supervote" implies, especially when this discussion again had only 1 weak delete and 1 weak draftify. The rationale was not explained or discussed at time of closure as discussed above, so there was no opportunity to review until now. Explaining after the close is retrospective and postfactual, it could be revisionist in some cases (not making that accusation here, just saying in general), while actual participants were not given the same opportunity--that seems like a double standard.
There are many articles of weaker quality on Wikipedia, I know that WP:WAX is a thing but still a degree of comparison is only natural, so it seems unfair. Yes we have the draft now, but certainly this article could have been stripped down to its references to at least meet the level of many stubs. Why did it get deleted? Not based on the discussion in the AFD in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, I was fine leaving it as draft and moving on, but I merely appreciate the chance to revisit and discuss here per this deletion review. What I disagree with is the method of closure in which again (I probably sound repetitive) there was a 5-1-1 mix of the active participants so there was clearly no consensus in alignment with the result. Note it was not even close to consensus for deletion either.
Theoretically a justification that weak arguments can simply be discounted suggests that a 9-1 or even 99-1 discussion could be overruled based on the evaluation of a "weak" majority in favor of a "strong" minority or superminority. That is deeply troubling, and why "supervote" is not meant as insult but seems to be appropriate to describe a subjective ruling against basic numbers. - Indefensible (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, what's troubling to me is the degree you're willing to override policies and guidelines based on local consensus. IAR is for exceptional cases for a reason, and cognisance there is a certain, greater, level of consensus required is essential, otherwise this is just a vote. But I won't comment any more about this here, as it would probably be off topic. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So then a closer is allowed to overrule a 99-1 or any x-1 discussion based on personal interpretation? That does not seem to be refuting the point. - Indefensible (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the 1 is grounded in policy and the 99 total nonsense? Yes. I would immediately renominate or bring DR if there were severe content issues that were not addressed. Otherwise, I don't appreciate using an extreme case as a strawman against WP:CONLEVEL. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus for deletion in this case, I think it should be pretty clear. If the closer felt there should have been a deletion, they should have left a comment and then let another uninvolved admin make the close (for example, like TonyBallioni did on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Skallas). There is no consensus in this meta deletion review discussion either. - Indefensible (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically you are arguing that I should just count votes and ignore wider community consensus on inclusion when making decisions. SpartazHumbug! 06:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is there is a gray area between "consensus" and "democracy," Wikipedia is not a democracy but is based on consensus. There was no consensus for deletion in that AFD. If you had argued for deletion instead of just closing as delete at time of close, then a stronger consensus for deletion may have formed which someone else could have judged. As FuzzyMagma wrote above, "the admin ignored the discussion and decided to use their own opinion, making them self a prosecutor and judge."
Regarding the 5-1-1 or hypothetical 9-1 or 99-1 counterfactuals, the point is not a "strawman" against what happened but a matter of principle. The 5-1-1 did in fact get overriden which might be called a "supervote" because the closing vote outweighed the 5-1-1 discussion.
The other point I want to make is the closing statement was merely: "The result was delete. Happy to userfy this for a restart but the majority of the keep votes underline the paucity of strong sources." As noted earlier, the full justification for closing was given retrospectively, but was not given at or before time of closing, whereas active participants were not given the same opportunity until now. Again, that creates a fundamental double standard or "supervote" where equal basis does not exist. Obviously there are differences in permission levels and strength of arguments, however we should not let "consensus" stray too far away from democracy because that can in fact become authoritarian. Who is to judge a 9-1 or 99-1 discussion in favor of the minority? Overturning a 5-1-1 discussion is the same principle. Also note that ArbCom uses democracy instead of consensus, which is an interesting exception. Maybe there is a good reason why.
In any case, my final point is the endorsements above basically come down to "the closer's justification was good, the keep participants' was bad." As a participant, I feel a little slighted frankly because this was clearly not on a fair basis. Now I openly acknowledge this is all my opinion, but just wish that others would acknowledge the same rather than questioning good faith of people with different interpretations as to policy, and FACTUALLY other editors above make similar arguments for overturning versus endorsement. Are their opinions similarly "weak" and the endorsements merely "strong"? No, I think clearly both here and in the original, there is no consensus. Thank you for the discussion and the draft earlier though. - Indefensible (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-script addition: Both "consensus" and "democracy" have tradeoffs between their pros and cons, but can you imagine countries or polities using consensus in the real world? It would be a disaster. There is a reason why votes are counted as closely to equal as possible, and we should try keeping as closely to equal here too rather than reinterpreting and discounting them as much as possible. Throwing out a 5-1-1 or 9-1 or 99-1 because of "weak" arguments is the same principle; there would be riots in the streets if that happened.
Note that VickKiang's endorsement is self-described as WEAK. Enos733' endorsement is based on their WEAK endorsement. Similarly, the votes in the AFD for deletion and draftification were both WEAK. Interpreting their arguments to STRONG and opponents' entries to WEAK is purely subjective. This cannot be done in the real world.
We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to experiment with democracy. I must repeat an inclusionist motto from somewhere that "deletion will not serve the encyclopedia." There are many articles which come up related to ITN/RD which are of weaker quality than here, should they all be nominated and deleted? No, I will not do that because it would not serve the encyclopedia. The same benefit should have been applied here, especially given the discussion which took place where participants mostly voted to keep the article for inclusion. Yes, there must be standards, but reinterpreting and overriding consensus is mistaken.
It's a lot to read through so forgive me only skimming through it now but it does sound that you would prefer me to count participation rather than look at arguments against policy. I'm sorry that you feel slighted that your opinion hasn't swayed the outcome but there seems to wide support that the approach I have taken is defensible. Perhaps we will just need to agree to disagree with this one. SpartazHumbug! 16:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the first participants to !vote to overturn, I have to agree that the closer’s approach is not in itself wrong. WP:CONSENSUS makes it clear that evaluating discussions is not just about numbers. I still don‘t see the consensus in the discussion, but it‘s not generally wrong to weigh !votes differently in accordance with their relevance and strength of argument. Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 16:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying not to weigh, but my point is there should be a limit. And in this case being reviewed, it was decided beyond that limit in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This also ignores the other participants in this deletion review which are voting to overturn. There is no consensus here and there was no consensus in the AFD for deletion. Reinterpreting it to justify a deletion is a ridiculous outcome--yes, in my opinion, but not my opinion alone. - Indefensible (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its also not ridiculous to assert that my approach was policy based and defensible or why would there be the groundswell of support for the close.
there is ambiguity in every decision. There isn’t a case where that there is ambiguity that there is a 100% right or wrong answer. That’s what editors are referring to when they refer to as being within discretion. SpartazHumbug! 21:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, there are some people who agree with you and some who do not. It was not a clear outcome though, if that were the case then you would have unanimous or near unanimous endorsement here. Interpretation of policy is also subjective, but I do not want to drag this argument out and have no special interest (or conflict) regarding this subject. Wikipedia is not perfect, there are parts that I do not like and parts that you do not like, which is just how life goes. There are just different views regarding encyclopedic coverage and we can agree to disagree as you noted. - Indefensible (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The reasoning given on the closer's talk page is more than sufficient. On my reading, I'd be willing to weigh our IP vote a little higher, and that means it could be closed as no consensus, but even with such a weighting it would still easily be plausible to judge it a rough consensus to delete. I can't see a way to read this as keep. I'd also bold a "restore", to draft or otherwise but since that's already been done... Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
By any means, I hope this is not taking as ignoring previous concensuses and I am happy to remove all people in the cat if a deletion verdict is reached.
I think if you examples of (1) are the best ones, I'm not sure I'd agree they are defining. Our article on Ahmed Mohamed El Hassan, doesn't even mention it, Abdel Halim Mohamed does mention in our article but it is a mention which would tend not to suggest it's defining - so I checked a few references the Royal College of Physician has a fair bio which doesn't mention it, and the couple of others I picked likewise... That said I'm really not sure what you are asking DRV to do, DRV doesn't have the power to Bless the category so it can't be deleted and reasonably the best place to discuss stuff like I just mention is a further CFD if someone nominates it (I only cover that stuff because I think if it does go to CFD that's the kind of stuff which would be looked at. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said "I have created Recipients of Order of the Two Niles category but then discovered a variant of this category was deleted" it is a DRV matter if article was deleted before. So it is at least polite to try to consult the people who deleted it as I also need to move the category to the correct/deleted name. Cheers FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well you'll excuse my confusion/ignorance on "El Neelain" since the article on the award makes no mention of that, (and doing a very simple google search just now also doesn't give an indication that they are the same thing, but it was very cursory). Your response on DRV doesn't really answer my question my point, which is "I'm really not sure what you are asking DRV to do", deletion discussion are not "never ever" results so subject to recreation if things change. I doubt anyone would question if you are acting in good faith. I also think DRV is very unlikely to overturn the original discussion etc. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (as original nominator) Thank you for the ping and for creating the DRV. When you linked to the article I was expecting to find a bare bones list but Order of the Two Niles looks great! I'm not in favor of recreating the category though. Even if I agreed the award was defining for your 3 examples (and I agree with the IP editor above), WP:OCAWARD was rewritten by consensus a few years ago so the guideline now reads "A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a #DEFINING characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients." Going through the list of recipients it's clear that, just like most awards, this one doesn't meet that tough standard. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original CfD and disallow recreation of the category - it still fails WP:OCAWARD. The new list is an excellent alternative. SportingFlyerT·C 22:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
