As stated on User talk:Doczilla, I personally find the deletion close to be a somewhat incorrect interpretation of the consensus in the AFD discussion. The discussion was closed as no-consensus, however, from my (definitely biased POV) the Keep voters were fairly new accounts that failed to actually show any reliable significant sourcing that would lead the page to be kept and instead reffered to various policies (sometimes completely errenously) without actually pointing out how the page actually satisfied the said policies. Sohom (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have !voted to Delete, but this is not AFD round 2.
A close of Delete based on downgrading of the Keep !votes would have been reasonable. A closer has to Be Bold when closing an AFD with a roughly equal number of Keeps and Deletes, because it will likely be taken to DRV no matter how it is closed. A close of Delete is likely to be appealed, stating that there was not a consensus to delete. A close of No Consensus is likely to be appealed, stating that the closer should have discounted the Keep !votes. Divided XFDs are thankless closes.
DRV is not AFD round 2, and DRV is not a second and third and fourth close. We are reviewing the close, not closing the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who needs sources or policies when you have extra accounts? —Cryptic 06:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have any of the "extra accounts" been blocked as socks? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Like Robert, I would have !voted to Delete, but I cannot find error in the close (as both no consensus or delete were valid options of the closer). So, what I can see is a close !vote in the discussion and disagreement among participants whether the sources in the article meet GNG (2 of 3 keep voters suggested the sourcing was adequate). Also, after the last relist, the only new participant was to keep the article. To me, this adds up to a no-consensus close, unless the closer decided to discount the keep comments. --Enos733 (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will retract my thought here if there are confirmed socks. - Enos733 (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sockpuppetry invalidates things. Have any sockpuppets been identified and blocked? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. The closer should have looked beyond the numbers to see the clear strength-of-argument disparity: the keep !voters do not rebut the delete !voters' source analysis or provide any evidence/sources in support of their claims. The dubious provenance of the keep-!voting accounts doesn't help matters, although I think the outcome should have been delete either way. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. Supporters of keeping did not engage with the stated reasons to delete. Their comments were of the WP:ITSNOTABLE type and WP:THREE was cited without actually identifying any sources contributing to notability. The delete side made concrete and relevant observations.—Alalch E. 12:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The closer failed to follow deletion policy in that he did not properly down-weight the contributions of editors which appear to be socks or otherwise limited in contribution. Stifle (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse one "weak keep" in the final relist precludes a delete outcome: if it wasn't "no consensus" before the final relist, then the final relist was in error. I don't dispute the "meh" quality of the keep arguments, but a delete outcome is not consistent with the discussion when the relists are considered. Jclemens (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That comment after the last relist is discountable, and the last relist should not have been done. The discussion should have been closed as 'delete' then instead. Relisting is a close action and DRV can take a stance on the correctness of a relist too. —Alalch E. 18:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - While the delete side had a slightly stronger case, there was not clear consensus to delete and a NC close was within the closing admin's discretion. If the alleged sleeper socks are confirmed as such, I will consider changing my vote to overturn to delete at no fault of the closer. FrankAnchor 20:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. This should have been closed as delete on November 7. There were two well-reasoned, policy-based rationales offered for deletion, and one WP:ASSERTN keep from the page's author. It was relisted. There was one "meh" delete, another WP:ASSERTN keep vote, and a third well-reasoned delete !vote. Two meritless keep votes – one of which was from the page's author – against four well-reasoned argument for deletion should be closed as delete, but it was relisted.Then a third user argues for keeping the article (a self-described "weak keep"):
Unlike the other keep !votes, this one cited a guideline. However, I fail to see how a (unspecified) reliable website can meet WP:BASIC – the "basic" notability guideline for biographies. In fact, I fail to understand how WP:BASIC is relevant to an article about an organization. And even though it is "just an essay", let's look at WP:THREE for a minute. The {{nutshell}} of the essay states:
If you were sent here from a link in a WP:AfD, WP:AfC, or similar discussion, please consider it a request to post two or three, but no more, of what you consider to be the best sources for the page under discussion. — WP:THREE
Noticeably absent were those "two or three" sources, despite multiple requests (1, 2).The delete !votes have policy-based reasoning. The keep !votes did not. And if we look at the numbers, we have four in favor of deletion against three opposed (one of whom is the original author and another who was a self-described weak keep). Both numbers as well as strength of arguments tilt in favor of deletion, so "no consensus" is an inappropriate close. HouseBlastertalk 01:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. All of the three keep votes are bare assertions on notability, from new accounts with <100 edits, whereas "delete" votes actually analysed the sourcing in detail. I would argue that based on the strength of the arguments, delete is far more preferable than no consensus. VickKiang(talk) 04:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:SanFranBan – Recreation allowed. Any interested editor is free to renominate at RfD. Daniel (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
"SanFranBan" is a term for a WMF global ban (see e.g. 1, 2; c.f. WP:CANSANFRANBANFRAM?), and its existence aligns with the general principle that one should be able to find the definition of Wikipedia jargon term by going to WP:[insert term here].Note that because of the age of the deletion discussion (it is eight years and one WP:FRAMBAN later), I had initially filed this at REFUND, but Graeme Bartlett said it would be better to take it to DRV. HouseBlastertalk 07:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to the above, I would argue that three out of four deletion !votes are based on incorrect premises:
Any possible retarget e.g. to California Air Resources Board would be WP:CNR – this is not a mainspace redirect; there are plenty of interwiki soft redirects.
Only visible on forums and self-published content – not relevant to a projectspace shortcut
Especially since that's unrelated to a global ban – it is objectively related to a global ban
And even if thought it is not an established principle, it is certainly how I (as a newbie) figured out what people meant in discussions. HouseBlastertalk 15:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are some irrelevant remarks in the discussion but the core argumentation supporting deletion is okay. —Alalch E. 22:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, what would that core argument be? I presume you are referring to the nomination, which says Useless redirect. Unlikely to be searched. That is textbook WP:ITSUSELESS. I would additionally point to WP:RFD#K5: I would find it useful, and the original creator found it useful. Both of us did, quite literally, search for this. HouseBlastertalk 00:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close and decline refund. Nothing has changed since the 2015 close. Every bit of jargon does not need to have a WP:[jargon term] page. There is no such general principle. —Alalch E. 11:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding nothing has changed since the 2015 close: WP:FRAMBAN has happened, giving renewed use of phrase. Restore. --Tavix(talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Restoration and a new discussion. Over the last seven years this may have become an established piece of wiki-jargon that justifies a redirect. Worth discussing again. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse although I would have !voted to Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore (or allow recreation) exactly per Tavix: this phrase seems to have become more common in the wake of the Fram incident, and that's reason enough to let RfD discuss it anew. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Re-creation which didn't need to come here in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
More reliable sources have covered Ogolobyak [1][2]. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refund to draftspace. Not much to add here.—Alalch E. 10:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation in either draft or mainspace. Needs to cite the new sources to demonstrate sustained coverage. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation and restore history to either draftspace or mainspace. This probably doesn't need DRV approval considering the AFD was deleted over 13 years ago and new sources are present. FrankAnchor 13:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring to mainspace could theoretically be fine, but the BLP content will be outdated, and judging by the AfD comments it wasn't particularly good content in the first place in terms of overall policy compliance. —Alalch E. 17:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That afd could just as easily apply to the article today, even with the new sources. And, all told, we're talking about an article that was never more than four sentences long when it was deleted. You'd be better off rewriting from scratch in draftspace, but don't be surprised if the article's never accepted, nor if it's afd'd and deleted again should you move it to mainspace anyway. —Cryptic 01:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation, either as draft, or as article subject to AFD. Title was not salted and should not be salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow userification or draftification which didn't need to come here for approval. Jclemens (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
