Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 June

< May 2019	Deletion review archives	July 2019 >

Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac Wikipedia cooperation board – Undeleted. Sandstein 07:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Back when I was a baby wikipedian, I participated this MFD without the tools equipped to give a reasonable arguement. I spoke with RL0919. In that discussion, I mentioned that the Assyrian-Syriac debate has since died down from the time the cooperation board was originally been created. However, the fragments of similar discussions still remains which require moves requests like this to fix. Understanding those previous discussions can only come when we have access to them, and since its deletion in February the few editors who edit in this topic field have not had as much for this initiative. RL0919 agreed with that arguement in principle, but he did not feel comfortable unilarely restoring the principle page when I never argued that some months ago. Hence, this is the appropriate venue. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I don't want to misrepresent anyone here, RL0919 only considered the talk page worth restoration. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. MJL has accurately described our discussion (as anyone following the link could see easily enough, I suppose). I don't object to restoring this page, but think the community should have the chance to weigh in rather than me making a unilateral decision. --RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restore I'm honestly not sure why this was deleted in the first place. Pages which are inactive but have history are usually archived rather than deleted, and nobody gave any particular reason for deletion in this case. Contrary to the nominator's claim that "the project never really became active" the talk page was 48 KB and had 112 edits. Hut 8.5 20:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, the nominator made a false statement. It may have unduly influenced participants who didn’t do thorough investigation. I think the last !voter’s unanswered point should have been given more weight. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as one of the Delete !voters, based on the apparent conclusion that incorrect information was the basis of the deletion, and that no harm can be done by restoration, and there may be benefit to restoration. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per Hut 8.5. --MrClog (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Lil Nas X – Restore and relist. Well, there is evidently an argument that the existence of new chartings/articles linked in the navbox that the "substantially identical" qualifier in G4 is no longer satisfied although the argument has not gone uncontested - the contestation is somewhat less supported here but not so much less that I'd totally discard it. Normally in contested speedy deletion cases we use a full deletion discussion to settle the problem, so that is what will be done here. Also, seeing as this is "deletion review" not "editor review" it would be apropos if we stop commenting on other editors. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The template Template:Lil Nas X was deleted without a consensus reached. Though it was recently deleted, the template now has articles for "Rodeo" and "Panini". In the now-deleted talk page discussion, a consensus hadn't been reached as two editors (including myself) were opposing to the deletion, while only the editor who initially proposed second deletion was in favor of it. I'm calling for the restoration of the template / talk page per WP:CON as the decision wasn't made yet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nice4What (talk • contribs) 20:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted per WP:CSD#G4 due to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_6#Template:Lil_Nas_X. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that your "new" version still didn't meet the rule of thumb of five entries mentioned at WP:NENAN, the rationale under which it was deleted in the first place. This version consisted of an EP and three songs from the same EP, all of which are well linked anyway (one of which is at AFD), making a navbox fairly redundant as it won't add any great degree of navigation that isn't already possible through normal linking. I would suggest that the WP:NENAN threshold (five articles not including the subject) has clearly been reached before attempting to recreate the navbox, and you should also wait until there is more than one album/EP with songs, so that there is some benefit to a navbox over and above normal linking. --wooden superman 08:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - Three songs from his EP have now charted in New Zealand, and the pathetic, bad faith "AfD" nomination was just closed with an overwhelming consensus to keep. I would also strongly encourage admins to keep tabs on woodensuperman's contribs. He has also recently merged Template:Tina Turner singles without any discussion and I strongly disagree with this action. There were easily more than enough entries to justify those templates being separate. There's a blatantly obvious bias against templates from this user.--N Ø 11:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the accusations of bad faith. If you read my comment above, you will see that even with three songs and one EP, this still does not meet the rule of thumb of five articles, not including the subject, from WP:NENAN, which was the rationale that this navbox was deleted under in the first place. You really need to work on your WP:CIVILity, this was problematic in the original deletion discussion too. --wooden superman 12:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you really need to check your attitude. --wooden superman 12:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you need to check what you post on the talk pages of regular editors. Hint, hint, we do not like to be templated as if we joined WP two days ago. Also, you AfD'd an article I created 4 days earlier and which still had an under construction template on it, so please stop acting like the beacon of kindness. Now let it go and stop derailing a discussion about a template.--N Ø 13:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin confirm the WP:G4? I'm leaning strongly towards endorsing this based on what I've read about it but want to make sure it's both substantially similar and too small for a template box. SportingFlyer T·C 16:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: the original TfDed version had two articles: 7 (Lil Nas X EP) and Old Town Road. The recreated version had those two plus Panini (song) and Rodeo (Lil Nas X and Cardi B song). This is the AfD mentioned in the deletion log, it was closed as Keep with a consensus that the subject is notable. I have no idea what the usual rule of thumb is for navbox links so I'll refrain from commenting on the merits of the deletion. Hut 8.5 17:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn then relist - Now that two more articles were added to the navbox, it seems that the article no longer meets G4 (It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version - two more entries, when there were 1 or 2 entries before, seems rather substantial within the context of a navbox). Because some editors want the navbox to still be deleted, I suggest relisting it after overturning the speedy delete. --MrClog (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. I have now created F9mily (You & Me), and WP:NENAN is satisfied. wumbolo ^^^ 13:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what’s happening with regard to this? As Wumbolo stated, WP:NENAN is now satisfied. The template was recently recreated and woodensuperman managed to get an uninformed admin to delete it yet again. Since we have ample consensus here, we should just have this restored. I believe the best version was the one created by Nice4What. The most recently created one had links to some nonexistent pages.—N Ø 13:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of people in long marriages – Endorse, leave the draft for now. It's pretty clear that the original AFD close is considered to be correct here and that any restoration would require more than a title change due to e.g concerns about the inclusion criteria being arbitrary and WP:OR. A bit fewer people have commented on the draft and most of the specific comments appear to endorse keeping i, so that is what we'll go for here - although from the comments here I'd infer that it probably merits some more work before it could be restored to mainspace. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages (2nd nomination) was closed by Sandstein as "delete" with the rationale:

In my view, the "keep" side did demonstrate that the topic of long marriages was notable because of its coverage in sources; this was mostly not contested. However, the "keep" opinions did not adequately address, in my view, the "delete" side's arguments that the existing or proposed sources do not allow the creation of a verifiable, non-OR list of longest marriages. One might, therefore, based on this AfD, create a prose article about the topic of long marriages, but not a list of "longest" marriages. I'm not sure about a "list of long marriages"; this might require another AfD.

I discussed changing the article's scope with Sandstein so that I could restore the list to mainspace in a form that does not violate Wikipedia:No original research. Sandstein wrote that "the existing or proposed sources do not allow the creation of a verifiable, non-OR list of longest marriages". A list of longest marriages was considered original research since as one editor noted "We are failing an authoritative or scientific source tracking the longest marriages".

Sandstein recommended "writing the prose article about long marriages first, and then adding a list of noted particularly long marriages; this will make it easier to establish that the list can be written without OR". I responded, "If I were to create a prose article about long marriages, I think the consensus would be to merge it to marriage since it wouldn't be long enough to justify a spinoff article from marriage (such as marriage and health). I will start with adding information from these sources about "long marriages" in general to list of people in long marriages and model it after featured lists like List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines) which has a sizable introduction and a detailed "History" section."

I revised the draft by changing the page to be about a "list of people in long marriages". This addresses the concern that there was no authoritative source that tracks the longest marriages. There is a requirement that the list meets Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which I had provided in a list of sources in the AfD. I also added a background section about long marriages.

I do not think this article meets G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion because the scope of the article has been changed to address the original research rationale for deletion. However, other editors believe that G4 applies (discussion here). The page has been moved from List of people in long marriages to Long marriages and the list has been blanked.

I have returned the page to draftspace at Draft:List of people in long marriages and restored the list so that it can be reviewed at DRV.

Restore to List of people in long marriages. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and Salt This article was rightly deleted by the closer and was recreated in a round about way to try to keep the article fundamentally the same. A WP:SYNTH of poorly sourced material that reliable sources do not group together in this way, so failing WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Close was absolutely correct. Perhaps a sprinkle of salt is needed here. --Randykitty (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I !voted in the AfD, but procedurally, this really comes off as a pointy attempt to avoid the result of the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 19:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close as written and take no further action. The close reflected consensus and the re-creation of the list was within the boundary of the close. Several of the delete !votes (including my own struck delete !vote) expressed concern that the list was presented as a definitive source of the world's longest marriages. The close reflected those concerns but left the door open for a rename and recreation. As such, if Cunard wants to re-create the list he should feel free to, and anyone who wants to take it back to AfD should also feel free to. But it should be a fresh AfD as the scope of the article has somewhat changed. schetm (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Schetm: You may not have been concerned about the idea that a list of marriages of an arbitrarily long length was being presented as a list of the "longest marriages", and may not have a problem with the exact same list being revived as just an arbitrary list of marriages that some newspapers have described as being long, but your view was definitely not shared by the majority of the unstricken delete !votes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, but neither endorse nor formally condemn re-creation I don't have a view on the notability of the topic of "long marriages", per here, although it seems Cunard does given his revert of my cutting the list and moving the page back into the draftspace with "list" added back to the title. I don't think "list of marriages that have been described as extremely long" is a very encyclopedic or useful topic, for reasons I outlined here. I believe consensus was clearly against there being a list of "longest marriages" and there was a slightly less clear, but nonetheless present, consensus against a list of "very long marriages" (none of the keep !votes except Cunard appears to have made the distinction, as their arguments almost all focused on notability, while several of the delete !votes including my own expressed skepticism about both). Given this, consensus should be required before recreating the list, regardless of whether it says "longest" or just "long". No opinion on whether the separate topic of a prose article on long marriages, which is what Sandstein's addendum seemed to encourage, would be worthwhile. (All that being said, if this DRV ends with some form of "endorse creation of new list", the list should be genuinely new, not just a restoration of the old list with all its problems that I and others already highlighted at AFD.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but make it clear that any recreation has to be more then just a rename It all a bit arbitrary, ORy and rather trivial. It reads like using a list to get around notability.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Slatersteven said- This feels like an end-run around the AfD result, as evidenced by selectively pinging all the keep voters. Reyk _YO! 08:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reyk: I'm not seeing any evidence of selective pings. Can you provide diffs? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted article was moved to draftspace at 10:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC). I added information about long marriages to the draft at 07:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC) and I pinged the "keep" participants at 07:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC) asking for help with improving the draft. No one responded with additional suggestions. So more than one week later, I moved the draft to "list of people in long marriages" at 00:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC). Another editor moved the article to "long marriages" and pinged the "delete" participants at 14:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC). To avoid controversy, I should have pinged the "delete" participants also when I was asking for help with improving the draft.

Cunard (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment: I recommend denying the request and deleting the draft per G4. This is substantially the same content that was deleted per AfD, apart from a bit of prose that maybe belongs into some prose article about marriage. Sandstein 14:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your close explicitly noted "I'm not sure about a 'list of long marriages'; this might require another AfD." I recreated the article with the same list because every entry for a "list of longest marriages" remains valid for a "list of long marriages". I could recreate a list of people in long marriages from scratch but that would not make sense because it would contain the same entries. People who are in a longest marriage are the same people who are in a long marriage. If there are concerns about particular entries in the list being inaccurate, please explain your concerns so I can edit the draft to address them.
Your close explicitly noted the reason for deletion as being "the existing or proposed sources do not allow the creation of a verifiable, non-OR list of longest marriages". This is owing to the lack of an authoritative source that tracks the longest marriages. This reason for deletion would not have applied had the article's title been at List of people in the longest marriages. This is why G4 does not apply and a new AfD should be required.
Your close noted "In my view, the 'keep' side did demonstrate that the topic of long marriages was notable because of its coverage in sources; this was mostly not contested." I don't think the sources I provided in the AfD "demonstrate that the topic of long marriages was notable". I think they instead demonstrate that "demonstrate that the topic of people in long marriages was notable" (WP:LISTN) since they all were about specific groups of people in long marriages.
Cunard (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Cunard, you can use the word "explicitly" as much as you like, but the fact is that I and everyone else saw that you were "creatively interpreting" the wording of Sandstein's close (or, rather, the addendum you convinced him to make) in order to get around the fact that there was a clear consensus to delete the article. I already told you here that what you had done was not in accordance with what Sandstein said it might be appropriate if you did, and I'm frankly shocked you could be continuing to deny that fact. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I'm still trying to understand the full history here, but I do observe that currently, List of people in long marriages is a cross-namespace redirect to Draft:List of people in long marriages. I'm going to WP:R2 that, per WP:CNR. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I called out Cunard for disruptively placing essentially the same exact article that had been deleted back in the mainspace without consensus, having pinged a bunch of editors who had !voted keep in the original AFD. He moved the page back to the draft space (not being an admin or one of those newfangled page-movers he couldn't do so without leaving a cross-namespace redirect, which is not really a problem given that both are likely to be deleted in the near future anyway) and opened this DRV. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, you deleted the redirect. That's cool too, I guess. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I've got this sorted out now. I compared the version that was deleted at AfD and the current draft. I believe that the front matter added (lede and "Background" section) make these sufficiently different that WP:G4 should not apply and we should allow the new draft. My personal opinion is that this is still not notable, based on the AfD's conclusions, but I'll leave that to whoever reviews the draft to decide, and/or possibly another AfD, should that ensue. If I were to review the draft in it's current state, I would decline it. ~~I have not read the AfD in sufficient detail to draw a conclusion on the validity of the close, so I'll remain neutral on that issue.~~ -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having now spent some time reading the AfD in detail, I agree that the close correctly summarizes the discussion, so endorse. I still think, however, that the draft is not G4-worthy. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the user, Cunard, said they restored the list as a draft so it can be reviewed, as such, I have replaced its content with {{TempUndelete}}. --MrClog (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure but restore draft per RoySmith. --MrClog (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Draft seems like it would be a plausible list article. (fwiw, I did not participate in the previous discussions). DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have some doubts about the topic, but restore draft seems like the right outcome per RoySmith and DGG. Hobit (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dario Hunter 2020 presidential campaign – "Delete" closure endorsed. Sandstein 07:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

1.) The discussion produced no clear consensus for delete/merge as opposed to keep. 2.) Furthermore, only one recommendation (out of 12) argued for an outright delete (as opposed to 'delete/merge' or 'keep'). 73.75.84.123 (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also requesting a temporary undelete for the duration of the deletion review. 73.75.84.123 (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was pinged as the closing admin of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dario_Hunter_2020_presidential_campaign. A brief rationale for my closure:
- By the numbers, 6 users argued for some combination of delete and/or merge, and 6 users argued to keep. However, this debate appears to have been influenced by off site canvassing, with several single-purpose accounts involved, notably Special:Contributions/AlanAugustson, Special:Contributions/BrightNewMorning, and Special:Contributions/Sticktoit all arguing to "keep".
- While Hunter himself is notable, his campaign isn't yet. Users in favor of deletion cited that there has been very little substantial coverage of his campaign. Commenters at AfD noted that some sources were really only talking about Hunter himself, not his campaign. Those sources that did cover his campaign were generally local media covering his announcement or campaign events, and did not include significant reporting outside of his basic political platform.
- Delete !voters also noted that there was substantial overlap in the material covered in the two articles. Indeed, the only substantive information in the now-deleted article about the campaign that is not also covered in his personal article is a section about his campaign visits to Carbondale, IL, and to Haifa, Israel, with some very brief notes about his platform.
- On the other hand, the keep !voters asserted that there are enough sources to meet WP:GNG (which the delete !voters obviously dispute), that more sources will likely be added as the campaign progresses (but see WP:CRYSTAL), that Hunter himself is notable (which is irrelevant), that Howie Hawkins 2020 presidential campaign exists (but see WP:OTHERSTUFF), and that there are also national-level and international sources (but the national-level sources have only shallow coverage about the fact that he is running, and the international sources are primarily related to the fact that he visited Israel).
So I stand by my initial conclusion that there is a consensus to remove the article. Given the choice between slapping a "merge" tag on it and deleting it, I reviewed the content of the two articles, and noted that there was very little substantive material in the article about the campaign that wasn't already in the article about Hunter. ST47 (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - While the closer has explained why they find the arguments for Delete and Merge to be a consensus over Keep, the closer's rationale has the quality of a supervote. There are good arguments for Delete/Merge and for Keep. The result should be overturned to No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This was a badly socked/canvassed AfD. By my count, four of the keep !votes should be downweighted or discarded significantly both on SPA grounds and lack of a convincing argument. The other two keep !votes wave at WP:GNG. The delete arguments, specifically jp16103 and E.M. Gregory, raise concerns (on top of the ones addressed by the closer) of WP:PROMO, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and cast doubt onto whether this actually meets WP:GNG that wasn't rebutted by any of the keeps. An interesting one, but easily the right call in my book. SportingFlyer T·C 07:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SLAP the closer User:ST47 for the poor closing statement. The IP nominator here is correct, there was no clear consensus, it requires an explanation. The explanation needs to be an informative summary of the discussion and an explanation to any editor passing by as to why it was closed that way. I see an explanation above, please add the explanation to the close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The user who closed the discussion pointed to duplication, but the only thing under ‘2020 Presidential campaign’ in the article Dario Hunter is two sentences on when he launched the exploratory committee and when he formally entered the race. No discussion of press coverage of his platform or campaign developments, as was provided from multiple reliable press sources in the deleted article. When most of the significant info (from reliable, independent sources) disappears that’s not a deletion for duplication. Btw, please temp undelete so everyone can once again see the deleted article and compare. 99.203.14.236 (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The series of SPAs weighing in was troubling, especially since, setting aside the opinions of the SPAs, only 1 editor argued Keep. Three active editors plus Nom argued to delete, and one argued merge to the candidate's page, which comes to the same thing since this candidacy page was entirely or almost entirely a duplication of material already on page Dario Hunter.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse, or relist. My involvement with the AfD was tagging a few comments with SPA templates. I think a delete close was ultimately correct, but in a controversial discussion like this, it's a good idea to go into some more detail in the closing statement. I'm also a little concerned about ST47's statement above that he reviewed the content of the two articles, and noted that there was very little substantive material in the article about the campaign that wasn't already in the article about Hunter. When I close an AfD, I try to stick to just what the AfD participants said, without looking at the actual article. Sometimes I do look, to verify that what the participants are saying makes sense, but it's always a fine line between just doing a reality check and forming your own opinion (i.e. supervote). Usually, by the time I start examining the actual article text, I'll just add my own opinion as a participant, or simply move on and leave the close for somebody else. I'm not saying this was a supervote, but I think the community would have more confidence in the result if we let another admin re-close it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse given the apparent canvassing the closer is entitled to downweight or ignore participants who are SPAs, new editors, or unregistered editors. I can only see two people with much editing history who supported keeping the article outright: Namiba and A. Randomdude0000. Given the support for deleting the article that implies a Delete closure. If someone wants to merge or redirect it somewhere I'd support restoring the edit history. Hut 8.5 20:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus Looking at the AfD there was no consensus to delete. I'm not sure if there was consensus to either merge or keep, but there certainly was not to delete. The closer does not get to pick tjheview they prefer in circumstances like this, especially not if the close is without an explanation. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse If someone wants access to the article's minimal contents to merge to the main article, as many voters suggested, that would be perfectly welcome, but the closing still matched the consensus of arguments from experienced editors. Reywas92^Talk 06:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think there are some issues with the lack of closing statement in a controversial AfD and the concerns raised by Roy but given the appropriate weight attached to the !votes of the canvassed or at least SPA this is a reasonable reading of consensus for this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A closing admin does not need to explain their decision when the result, after discarding the socks and SPAs which is mandatory, is so clear. Once having determined, correctly and incontrovertibly, that the consensus was that there should be no separate article, the closing admin was also entitled to form, and should be commended for forming, their own view that there was nothing worth merging. That is a much better course than simply slapping a merge tag on the article and walking away.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vocal hiccup – Moot. History uncontroversially restored under a totally rewritten article. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Anyone know why this page hasnt been deleted yet despite a successful request for deletion? Idiacanthus 18:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted on 22 June 2016, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vocal hiccup, then recreated as a redirect on 26 November 2016, which is the current state. This all seems perfectly reasonable, so I don't think there's any action that needs to be taken here. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: That makes sense. Just wondering now though, why does Vocal Hiccup redirect to Michael Jackson's Thriller?

That I don't know. The redirect was created by User:Staszek Lem. You might want to ask them directly. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target article mentions that Jackson used a technique called "vocal hiccup" on the album. Hut 8.5 20:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the ping, I did some research, found the subject to be encyclopedic and nontrivial (just like "moonwalking", it turns out "vocal hiccup" is not at all Michael Jackson's invention) and restarted the article afresh. That's what wikipedians are supposed to do:exercise due diligence and write articles rather than deleting them.`Staszek Lem (talk) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please restore the article history. It may contain some other, unreferenced, but possibly usable/serarchable facts. It looks like this article fall prey of "deletionists" and overlooked by the fans of Buddy Holly and Michael Jackson. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The new article looks perfectly reasonable and well referenced; I can't see any reason we shouldn't keep it. @Sandstein: in light of the new article, the request to undelete the history seems reasonable too, so I've gone ahead and done that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 June 2019[edit]

24 June 2019[edit]

23 June 2019[edit]

Pareshaan Parinda – Withdrawn MrClog (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The consensus of the discussion was to delete the article by minimizing the comments by the article creator which he literally repeated thrice and claimed to have some sources that are reliable, but failed to clarify how those sources satisfy WP:NFILM and appears to have a lack of knowledge as well. After their !vote, the discussion was relisted twice and then received a policy based delete !vote by an experienced editor. None of the sources added by the article creator provides "significant coverage" for the film. The first source is a listing in the Times of India film database and the rest of them are about the lead actress, not the film. Also, The film was released in March 2018, but there is no evidence to satisfy WP:NFO, and still the discussion was closed as no consensus which could have been relisted for the last time with a comment per WP:RELIST or draftify (if not deleted) for lacking coverage as required by NFILM. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the AfD. As I stated on my talk page, the low turnout at the AfD made things difficult. It was already relisted twice; relisting a third time is not normal practice. I'll do a third relist if something significant happens late in the discussion (such as somebody introducing a bunch of new sources) and it looks like it might be useful to spend another week discussing the new stuff. Just fishing for more participants is rarely effective. As for the evaluation of the sources, it's not my job as closer to do that. It's my job to summarize what the participants have said. In this case, the two major participants disagreed on how good the sources were. I'm not familiar with any of the publications cited (nor can I read the language), so I have to depend entirely on what I can glean from the discussion. The argument that they're WP:RS because of their circulation and that we have articles about them is at least a plausible claim, so I couldn't discount them out of hand. That leaves me being unable to find any consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your reason, but as a closing admin if one can't read the sources due to the different language I feel they should leave it on someone else who has good knowledge in the particular language, because sometimes this kind of sources can be very tricky and closing such discussions as no consensus end up with keeping the junk which we already have enough. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In sbs.com.au there is a coverage about the film (reference added). I think we should remove the tag.Smnsbd1971 (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - The closing admin was right; there is no consensus regarding the notability of the subject. It is unclear whether or not the cited sources establish notability based on the discussion. The delete !vote added after the second relist seems to be a WP:VAGUEWAVE (A non-notable film, fails WP:NFILM), and does not help to establish whether or not the sources count as reliable. I do believe though, that a new AfD discussion could, now that it is clear what needs to be discussed, establish consensus (either for keeping or deleting the article), and as such, I would support relisting the page at AfD. --MrClog (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closing admin came to the right conclusion that there was no consensus, and that the AFD had already dragged on long enough and didn't need another relisting. At the same time, it should be understood to be a No Consensus that permits a new AFD at any time. The only difference between what I am saying and what the appellant appears to want is that I think that the closer acted reasonably. The next reasonable step is a second AFD. This should have been discussed with the closer and taken to a second AFD rather than appealed, because there was no mistake by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to User:GSS, he did discuss it with me on my talk page. He failed to convince me, and I suggested he take it here. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse There's really no other way to close this discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Correct call by the closer. The AfD nomination was weak. See advice at WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing my request in a hope to renominate the page in a week or so if I see no improvements and I hope this sound better. Thank you all for your comments and suggetions. :) GSS (talk|c|em) 04:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Evil – Speedy deletion endorsed. Closed early per WP:SNOW. Sandstein 07:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

It's not nonsense —2001:16A2:553C:9A00:A937:A317:DFA7:359F (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. This was deleted under WP:G1 (Patent nonsense). At first glance, I agreed that this was not a valid G1. It was created as a sub-category of Category:Ethics, which at least seems plausible. But, digging deeper, this was created by now-ifdef-blocked User:I Hate DFPS, who apparently went on a vandalism spree, creating Category:Good, Category:Evil, and Category:Stupid, and then tagging a bunch of articles and user pages with those. So, maybe not technically WP:G1, but WP:G3 certainly. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was created by User:Dreamy Jazz. —2001:16A2:553C:9A00:A937:A317:DFA7:359F (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as G3 deletion, per RoySmith. --MrClog (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP failed to inform me of this DRV. Anyway, multiple IPs continued attempting to add these three categories to articles, including after these were deleted and salted. El_C 14:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I can see this existing as a plausible category but if it was being used like this or this then it's clearly just vandalism. Hut 8.5 15:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hut 8.5: See [1] —2001:16A2:553C:9A00:A937:A317:DFA7:359F (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - After it's deletion, I reverted my additions of these categories. I created the category for a IP at WP:AFC/R, having not known it's past and how the category was unsuitable. If this category was restored, I would ask for it's deletion under G7. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - basically if this category was undeleted, I would ask for deletion under G7 (as I created it after a redirects for creation request). Therefore, I endorse WP:G7. I have no comment on other rationales, as I feel these have been covered above. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- However, I cannot remember if I was the sole/major contributor to a page. If I was, then I endorse G7, but if I wasn't then it does not apply. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above - not a plausible category in its current state. SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess We're back! El_C 02:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the right action even if the wrong guideline was cited in justification initially. This category could perhaps have some limited legitimate use, but the much greater likelihood of it being used for vandalism and attacks makes it more harmful than helpful. --RL0919 (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - This is obviously something we would be constantly cleaning up after. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The potential for abuse of such a category has been well described by users above. Whether the criteria is G1, G3, G7 or even possibly G10 (adding the category to a page is certainly a way to attack its subject...) is a mere technicality. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and agree with its WP:Salting per the IP above, G10 (adding the category to a page is certainly a way to attack its subject...). Any suitable subcategory of Category:Ethics or similar would need a less terse title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 June 2019[edit]

21 June 2019[edit]

Brent Rivera – The new article is not substantially identical to what was deleted in 2015 so deleting the article as G4 was inappropriate. Accordingly, I have restored the article, noting that RHaworth does not mind his admin actions being reverted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This article was deleted as a G4 by RHaworth (talk · contribs) in reference to this 2015 AfD. I object to the speedy deletion because the most recent version of the article was not sufficiently identical to the version discussed at AfD. The subject has garnered acting credits in Light as a Feather (2018) and Alexander IRL (2017), credits which were both sourced in the recently deleted article. He has also gained more media coverage since the AfD closed, such as this and this. The notability of an actor/social media personality like Rivera can change drastically in the space of a few years—his article was not G4 material and should be discussed at another AfD if necessary. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 June 2019[edit]

19 June 2019[edit]

18 June 2019[edit]

17 June 2019[edit]

Sheikh Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed – Endorse WP:G5. I'm not going to comment on most of this, but do feel the need to note one thing. Myounes22 wrote, At least we have the recognition that Bin Butti is a notable person. No such recognition exists anywhere in this discussion. One person called him, an important person, but please read WP:NBIO to understand that when we talk about somebody being notable, we have specific requirements vis-a-vis reliable sources, which differ from the everyday usage of the word. Also, see WP:COI. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Hello, to explain the reasons for this request, I will repeat textually part of my messages to the editor who deleted the article; this article (about an Arab minister) was deleted directly because it was uploaded by a banned user. I work with the subject of the article, and some time ago I contacted a freelancer to make an English version of the article (Arabic version was established some time ago). We turned to a qualified editor, with extensive experience in Upwork, who supposedly knew what should be done and what should not be done in Wikipedia. The article was published and was three months online, and it was even reviewed (by user Doomsdayer520). We never assumed that the editor would act illegally, we always thought that the publication had been made transparently. Paid editions are contemplated in Wikipedia rules, but now I know that certain requirements must be met (and that obviously the editor we did not meet at all). But the notability of Bin Butti was not discussed at any time, the article (according to the editor who deleted it) was deleted by the mere fact of having been uploaded by a banned editor, who violated his ban by publishing the article. But I did not do anything against Wikipedia's rules, and I did not tell the editor to hide the condition of paid article. I understand that if the editor had identified the article as a paid edition, the article would be online today. It is not about going over the editor who deleted the article, I understand the spirit of his responses and the voluntary work in Wikipedia, but if paid articles and COI articles are regulated, I think that this should be taken into account. Thanks! Myounes22 (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted (as the deleting admin). G5 does not require notability to be considered. Page was created on 19 September 2018, earliest Japanelemu sock to be blocked was 5 July 2017 (predates Japanelemu but has the same naming convention). Anyway, this request is vexatious and should be summarily dismissed because the filer is not here to improve the encyclopedia. MER-C 09:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse clear G5, created by User:Canamumsiolo on 19 September 2018, Japanelemu has been blocked since November 2017. The other edits were accepting an AfC submission and minor tweaks to categories, which are not significant. The revelation that it was undisclosed paid editing on behalf of someone who didn't want to break any rules is not a reason to restore it. Quite the contrary, if anything. Hut 8.5 20:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone surprised to learn that the user who accepted it at AFC is also a checkuser-blocked sockpuppet? Show of hands? Anyone? Well then. —Cryptic 21:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the speedy deletion - This is a case where ignorance does not excuse. Ignorance doesn't excuse when trying to do something that is only marginally permitted (using paid editors) at best. At first I assumed that this was a request to unsalt the title. But the title isn't salted, so the editor can still submit a draft to be reviewed by a real neutral editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is the right place to comment; Now I know what I should have done is read about the reality of Wikipedia, about paid editions, editions with "COI", regulations, and I should have published it as draft, stating my relationship with Bin Butti. According to your comment, I understand that I can still do it, right? I also did not know that the article had been approved by a banned editor (I would not be surprised if he's related to the editor I hired), and that makes things worse; but the article was later reviewed by the user that I mentioned, who is active, and the article stayed on Wikipedia. I understand clearly why the article was deleted, but I can not understand why the article can not be reconsidered according to its own characteristics, sorry. Anyway, if you think I can upload a draft, I have no problem doing so. Thanks.Myounes22 (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Myounes22 - The title has not been create-protected (salted). You can create a draft and submit it for review. You are working against yourself. The more aggressively you push to establish that you have the right to submit a draft for review, the more you will annoy the editors who can review and approve your draft. It is unlikely that your draft will be approved, and you are making it even more unlikely. You are also increasing the chance that you may annoy the community enough so that the title will be salted. To answer your question, the draft can be reconsidered according to its own characteristics, unless you continue to be tendentious and get the title salted. My advice would be to drop the subject and wait at least a few months, but I know that you will not take that advice, because it is clear that you are in a hurry. You can't rush Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... I'm not pushing to establish a Draft, I just wanted to confirm if I understood correctly (I did not know about the possibility of doing a new draft until you mentioned it). I do not want to impose anything, I am not in a hurry, I will rewrite the article, I will take the time necessary to learn in the process, I will include better references, and submit it to the will of those who review it, reaffirming my relationship with the subject so that everything be clear and transparent.Myounes22 (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the WP:CSD#G5 deletion. Trust User:MER-C completely on his detection of a banned editor, or flagrant promotional WP:COI editing. The subject may well be notable, but are there any sources. Suggesting listing the references from the deleted article, here. This DRV is raised by Myounes22 (talk · contribs), a suddenly new, confident, wiki-aware WP:SPA. Myounes22, please disclose previous accounts, and your connect to Sheikh Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly confirm that I don't have any other Wiki accounts - I have never used Wiki before this incident - ever. As for my relationship with Sheikh Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed, I work for him. Willing to provide proof of my identity and relationship if required. Thank you.Myounes22 (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proof shouldn’t be required. You have a WP:Conflict of interest, meaning that you must assume you are incapable of writing unbiased. You are not allowed to edit the article directly. You may write a draft, using WP:AfC, and after submission and acceptance, you can then only make suggestions for improvements on its talk page. To begin with, you need to find *independent* sources on the subject. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, what we need are sources that meet the requirements of WP:N. If such sources exist, we can have an article. Can you link to 2 or 3 sources that cover the topic to a significant degree and are independent of the subject?

Sure -

[1] https://www.thebusinessyear.com/abu-dhabi-2019/a-sustainable-force/interview

[2] https://oxfordbusinessgroup.com/interview/new-ground-sheikh-abdulla-bin-mohammed-al-hamed-chairman-regulation-and-supervision-bureau-new

[3] https://www.thenational.ae/uae/dh30-million-pledged-to-support-health-care-patents-in-uae-1.728967

Additional references are available if required. Thank you.Myounes22 (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] & [2]. Both are interviews of the subject. An interview is not independent of the subject, and does not count towards the WP:GNG for this reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[3] does not have significant coverage of the subject. The only information about the subject is the line "The chairman of the Department of Health Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Abdulla bin Mohammed Al Hamed". This only says that he is the chairman of the Department of Health, which is only a fact, it is not secondary source information on him. What is wanted is a source that says he is, for example, a "good"/"bad"/"indifferent"/"enthusiastic" chairman of the Department of Health (i.e. some adjectives), and then for it to have at least a paragraph of comment on the person. Clearly, I think, this is an important person, but these sources could have been identically written about comments that could have been given by his spokesperson. Has anyone, anywhere but not connected to this person, written a few paragraphs of biography on this person? Wikipedia does not want to host original biographies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thank you, I will investigate the regulations.

At least we have the recognition that Bin Butti is a notable person. It is a big step.Myounes22 (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before attempting to write about this person, you should improve the article Department of Health (Abu Dhabi). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I normally don't object to interviews to the extent that SmokeyJoe (and many others) do. But in this case, these interviews don't really, well, interview the subject. Short questions, no real follow up. Feels like a press release. Hobit (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Perfectly well matches G5. Besides that, is this a case of undisclosed paid editing (based on nom's comments)? --MrClog (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse what's perfectly within policy. And the revelation of hitherto undisclosed paid editing troubling itself. The best thing now is to rewrite it in draft and submit for review and you don't even need any paid editor for that. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 June 2019[edit]

15 June 2019[edit]

14 June 2019[edit]

13 June 2019[edit]

Catherine S. Snodgrass – Deletion endorsed -- RoySmith (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

please refer to notable major news articles: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5gk5kn/the-war-on-kids, http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-entrapment-of-jesse-snodgrass-20140226#ixzz39WkYACDf> SnodMJMO1234! (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

neither of those are about the subject, the first doesn't even list her name. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the IP. No case is made against the reasons for deletion. Wikipedia only covers subjects that are covered by others independent of the subject. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Both articles are about the daughter: If she meets WP:NBIO, a draft could be created, but notability is not inherited. SnodMJMO1234!, your username looks like it implies that you are a friend, or may have another relationship, so if you intend to create such an article please note that according to our guidelines any possible conflict of interest should be disclosed. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - As mentioned by Alpha3031, both of the sources listed are about a family member, and notability is not inherited. There is no argument presented as to an error by the closer, and this is not a request to resubmit. Prepare an article on Jesse Snodgrass, maybe. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of ACM-W Celebrations – debate relisted by closing admin. Hut 8.5 17:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Most did not justify their reasoning for deleting the page. One original vote to delete was changed to keep after updating the context to demonstrate significant notability. The decision to delete or keep is not simply a vote - a major decision by an impartial editor should clearly demonstrate support for the principles guiding Wikipedia. The list is noteworthy, is not a directory, and is significant. On a more general and critical topic: How are specific lists (out of our quarter of a million lists) selected for deletion review? Cypherquest (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse This probably should have been a merge request instead of an AfD, but here we are. I don't see anything to suggest delete was an improper result for this AfD, I'm not even sure you could close it as no consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 16:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Montmartre_pitchal.jpg – Early close per WP:DRVPURPOSE as there is no deletion or deletion discussion to review here. If the uploader wants to remove the file from Commons, they need to edit it there and add the SDG7 markup. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

not sure if photo in this file can be hosted on Commons under any valid license Seauton (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what you're requesting here. You uploaded the file. If you're saying you'd rather it live locally on en instead of on commons, you need to go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Montmartre_pitchal.jpg, and click the "Nominate for deletion" link to get it deleted there. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 June 2019[edit]

11 June 2019[edit]

10 June 2019[edit]

Ruth Koleva – Endorse, but draftify. I don't know if there's truly a consensus, but the general feeling is that the AfD close was correct, hence endorse. But, if somebody wants to work on fixing the problems identified at AfD and/or here, they can do so in draftspace and resubmit for review when they're done. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Hello. In my opinion this article should be brought back, because it was wrongfully deleted for lack of notability. She is a notable musician in Bulgaria. The nominator and the delete supporters haven't looked up for local sources. If you search for her name in Bulgarian (Рут Колева), multiple links for interviews, TV appearances and etc. can be seen. The other argument in the deletion discussion was the lack of notability and reliable sources for her awards, which I tried to add prior to the deletion. Most of them are BG Radio Awards, considered a high achievement and the only nationally televised pop music award show in the country. Thank you. Quickfingers (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you provide the best three or four sources for her that help to meet WP:N? Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 Quickfingers (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation I'm not convinced all of the sources presented above pass WP:GNG, but some of them do, and bnr.bg - Bulgaria's national radio - has article coverage of her dating back to 2011. While I'm not entirely convinced, this has more to do with my inability to read Bulgarian than anything else, combined with my understanding of how Balkan-area sources can be reviewed at AfD. Whether this gets restored or restored to draft space I have no opinion on. SportingFlyer T·C 16:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New sources appear to be enough to meet WP:N. Actually, old sources seem good enough honestly. But yeah, allow recreation. Might still be sent back to AfD. Hobit (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Clear deletion result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Koleva(Singer) reviewing similar sources.

Quickfingers was asked for the best three or four sources, and failed. See WP:THREE. Not six.

Sources are all, or mostly, ~~Russian. Where is the article on the Russian wikipedia? Maybe~~ I got the language wrong? I know foreign sources are OK, but a foreign single, deleted at AfD, with no article on native language Wikipedia for source, that is a big negative flag.

Do not allow recreation unless without unambiguous presentation of WP:THREE (not six) quality sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: It's clearly noted she's Bulgarian in the DRV statement. You're looking for [2]. Also, I know it's not the only reason you weren't convinced, but I don't think it's fair to chide someone for providing six sources in good faith even if only asked for three or four. SportingFlyer T·C 06:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry. I think was I was grumpy. bg:Рут Колева. I’ll look again later. And yes, it’s not fair to chide the individual for the common problem that newcomers thing more sources is better. Offering more sources just makes it harder for reviewers. Two good sources are enough. If the best three are not, no number of additional weaker sources will make the difference. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's tedious to review six foreign language sources using google translate. Please, WP:THREE, not more. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leave deleted. If you want to try, I encourage a userspace or draftspace draft that must go through AfC before returning to mainspace. The sources look borderline. bg:Рут Колева reads like a CV, and would likely be deleted here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources look too promotional, and look non-independent of the subject, and so do not attest WP:Notability. There may be independent third party coverage that can be found, it does not have to be comprehensive coverage, but it must be someone independent, from a distance, writing something, multiple sentences, qualitative about the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that Bulgarian National Radio and Television, state-funded outlets and the two most watched private TV networks in the country, bTV and Nova TV are not credible? I only linked Actualno, because the better source is locked behind a registation wall. The Jazz.FM article is just a review of her album. Quickfingers (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Credible" is not the test. The more likely the point of failure is that the source is "promotional", or more specifically, not independent of the subject or her agent. I suggest that you write a draft stub using the three best sources that qualify for the WP:GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're acting as if they were press releases on her website, rather than articles on local high-profile medias. They're not CNN or New York Times levels, but nonetheless highly influential in Bulgaria, and obviously independent of her. Please set your bar lower. I'm only claiming notability in that particular country. Quickfingers (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1 [3]

23.04.2012 07:44. Content on the subject is thin. What is a "BG Artist"? If it were a notable award, it would have an article, or at least a section in an article. I would not lead with this source. Why did you choose this as the #1 source?

2 [4]

"Ruth Koleva - the singer with a world image" published on 08.06.18 at 17:13 Author: Maya Raykova "Ruth Koleva is one of the brightest, attractive and talented performers of the Bulgarian pop jazz music, with a rich artistic biography and a serious presence on the world music scene. " "Ruth Koleva is Singer of the Year by BG Radio and Woman of the Year of Gracia Magazine. She is the first Bulgarian artist to be awarded the "Best Jazz Singer" Award by Radio Inter FM in Japan in 2015..."

This looks pretty good.

3 [5]

Ruth Koleva is on a major European tour 16.04.2018 " the start is on April 22, when Ruth will sing in the popular London club "Hoxton Underbelly" and that is the biggest tour of a Bulgarian performer in her genre." This is promotion of an upcoming tour, does not demonstrate notability.

4 [6]

"This site can’t be reached"

Works perfectly fine on my side. Try using Google Cache. Click It's also archived on the Wayback Machine, but currently they're having server issues. 14:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ruth Koleva - a step from Grammy 04 November 2018 10:58
"Her album was selected among the 12,000 released during the year"
"Ruth Koleva's album is a step away from the Grammy Awards."
"My Album" Confidence. Truth "came out in Bulgaria last year and went international in April through an American label. He was approved to be nominated for a Grammy nomination, "Ruth Koleva told the Writer."
My hardline source-analysis-for-Wikipedia-notability could say "This is an interview, promotion, not independent, does not demonstrate notability", but I do agree with User:SportingFlyer that the subject looks easily notable. I guess that you are just providing a poor selection of sources. Again, WP:THREE, which should be the rule for recreating previously AfD deleted topics. I think you could easily make an article better than your other articles Alisia (singer) and Malina (Bulgarian singer) but I have to say that these are directory style information only, they contain an excessive number of promotional external links, and I would likely !vote "delete" at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5 [7]

Ruth Koleva and the Sofia Philharmonic with a gala concert on 24 May on bTV. Watch from 23 o'clock. 20 may 2015

This is promotion.

6 [8]

"Confidence. Ruth Koleva's Truth - an album born on the path of her growing as an artist and a man" 13.11.2017 Tanya Ivanova

This is promotion of an upcoming event. "On November 16 Ruth Koleva will present Confidence. Truth in Bulgaria Hall. This will be her second concert there after 2015, which overcame the hall. Now, Ruth promises an even bigger show - like actors, sound, visuals and lighting. "In this concert we are dealing with three different elements, such as jazz, folklore and classics." - tells the vocalist who will appear on stage with her group," The source is he vocalist, not independent, does not satisfy the WP:GNG, not useful for attesting notability.

Sources that amount to promotion of an upcoming event are not sources that demonstrate notability, they are almost certainly agent publicity. Can you find reviews written after the event?

Promotional material, whether press releases on her website, or cleverly placed advertising on local high-profile medias, cannot be used to demonstrate notability. #2 shows promise. #1 fails and caused me not to take you seriously. #4 can't be reached. The rest fail on analysis. Do you speak Bulgarian? Why don't you improve bg:Рут Колева? When I translated that, I found something that I would nominate at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Different languages have different notability standards, and it's clear to me doing a search in Bulgarian she passes WP:GNG. For instance, the first source isn't really sigcov, but winning a Bulgarian Radio award almost certainly passes WP:SINGER #8. Plus, there's a lot of other coverage not presented here - for instance, she's enough of a name in Bulgaria that she's a first name opinion on political issues. See [9]. SportingFlyer T·C 07:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a “major music award”? If it is, then why does it have no mention anywhere in mainspace. I still recommend improving the Bulgarian article first. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact the Bulgarian article may be promotional has absolutely nothing to do with English WP:GNG. Searching БГ РАДИО brings up a number of Bulgarian articles discussing the nominees and winners from what appear to be reliable Bulgarian websites, not just about Ms. Koleva. SportingFlyer T·C 08:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If User:Quickfingers is fluent in Bulgarian, and noting the subject and all sources are Bulgarian, I recommend he improve the Bulgarian article first. I think it is the easiest way forward. Alternatively, he may choose to write a draft to flesh out minimal material from these sources, but people like me will look to the native language article, and it may spoil the assessment. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is the filer requesting to overturn the deletion, or to resubmit in draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm requesting a overturn of deletion, but allowance for recreation will also be gladly appreciated. Sorry for the late response. Quickfingers (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if the issue is whether to overturn or sustain. The Delete conclusion was a valid conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, but restore to draft as a plausibly notable subject that an editor intends to work on. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 June 2019[edit]

Template:Infobox Finnish municipality – No consensus. This means that the "no consensus" closure of the TfD is maintained by default. I'm not giving much weight to the opinion by the IP with an edit-count of one. Sandstein 09:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The votes before relist were:

Subst and delete
Delete after replacement
Keep until replacement
SPEEDY CLOSE ("is a wrapper since creation" and the IP proposed it itself for substitution)

It was closed as delete [10].

Later a DRV was started (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 22#2019 February 22), the nominator claimed he found new information and requested re-opening (=relist). In the DRV one user asked what that new information would be, but got no answer. Another endorsed the deletion. And some others supported relist. It was closed as relist, even if the proof for validity of the DRV has not been presented.

It was relisted: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April_6#Template:Infobox Finnish municipality. After relisting only one extra vote was made, which semi-voted keep referring to the DRV (In light of the DRV discussion, I think it's clear this template should be kept), but contrary to that claim, in the DRV no user voted keep. No more comments were made so the votes stood at 3(4):1. Surprisingly the closing was done as "no consensus". To me it seems the result would be "Replace (subst:) and (then) delete". Of course replacement should be done with care. But calling template data from {{infobox settlement}} has been done before, e.g. Amsterdam calls Dutch municipality templates (Category:Netherlands data templates). Pppery mentioned the example of Belgium in his DRV deletion endorse: "Endorse there is nothing that needs changing here; there is clearly consensus to not use a wrapper infobox, and it seems like there is consensus to continue to use the data subtemplates. Those two outcomes are not incompatible, as data subtemplates can be passed directly to the infobox, see Template:Metadata Population BE for an example.". This would also address the concerns in the pre-relist comment by Apalsola: "However, I still think that the information should not be stored directly on the page.". TerraCyprus (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08, Pppery, Pigsonthewing, Apalsola, Pudeo, and Uanfala: - pinging participants of the first discussion and the discussion after relist. TerraCyprus (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Today I separated all data from the infobox, the replacement could now be done similar to how data is handled for the municipalities in the Netherlands. TerraCyprus (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to replace and delete due to the complete lack of any argument against the "pass data from templates as parameters to {{Infobox settlement}}" approach that I talked about in the first DRV, even among those who argue the template should be kept. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Close as not meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE. In the first DRV, I said, Templates are a highly technical area ... I can't see how it hurts to let the people who actually understand the technology talk about it for another week. Apparently, there wasn't much interest in talking about it at WP:TfD. That's unfortunate, but the bottom line is 1) You can't keep coming back to DRV until you get the result you want, and 2) As I said before, this is largely a technical decision which requires specialized knowledge of how templates are used and constructed. If TfD is unable to come to agreement, it's not reasonable to expect that DRV, which is made up of people who are (for the most part) not template experts, can do a better job. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith : FUD. WP:DRVPURPOSE: "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;" - that is what happened. One bogus oppose vote, nothing more, still "no consensus". 77.11.48.80 (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TerraCyprus I think it would be more productive to spend 7 days on a new Tfd (as I mentioned you could do so on my talk page), likely getting a consensus for subst and delete, rather than spending 7 days at DRV. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Galobtter it would have been more productive if you would not have messed it up in the first place or at least would have changed after TerraCyprus contacted you. The vote was clear, only one opposer, still you decided to call it "no consensus". 77.11.48.80 (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be a consensus to get rid of the template and replace it with something else, but no particular consensus on what that something should be. In particular I don't see a consensus for substing and deleting it afterwards. The OP seems to have counted everybody who wanted to replace the template as supporting the subst outcome, but I don't see that in the discussion. Hut 8.5 21:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hut 8.5, this is an infobox wrapper template and if nothing else is mentioned, then it means to replace the wrapper with the infobox template it wraps. Has been done in more than 50 cases, nothing new. 78.55.42.78 (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The initial vote was clearly for subst/replace. The first DRV may or may not have met the criteria of WP:DRVPURPOSE (Pigsonthewing asked for details but got no response) but resulted in relist. In the discussion after the relist no-one explained why subst/replace should not be implemented. Technical details of the subst/replace had to be solved before implementation, but that is up to the implementers of the outcome subst/delete and that didn't seem to be too complicated. TerraCyprus even has proven that outsourcing the data into pure data-storage templates is possible. That means the initial vote has to be respected. Replacement through Subst:itution should be done, followed by deletion. 92.214.166.220 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus is way too far from clear for DRV to overturn “no consensus” to delete. WP:RENOM. This is a matter for WP:TfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, the votes before relist were:
- Subst and delete
- Delete after replacement
- Keep until replacement
- SPEEDY CLOSE ("is a wrapper since creation" and the voter proposed it itself for substitution)
Why are these four votes "way too far from clear"? 78.55.42.78 (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and allow immediate TfD renomination. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 22#Template:Infobox Finnish municipality, the 22 March 2019 DRV nominator (who was also the TfD nominator) wrote:
The biggest thing was the discovery of Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Infobox_Finnish_municipality/. While in general I am opposed to the use of templates to store data in this way, right now it is the best solution there is. Until such time as all that data is able to be ported over to something like Wikidata in a more supporting way, I think that converting the infobox will cause more harm than good. Whether or not you agree with that, I strongly believe this point warrants further discussion. In the interest of fairness and transparency, I think we need to hash out that part of the discussion before choosing to delete the template.
I did not see "hash[ing] out that part of the discussion before choosing to delete the template" after the relisting at TfD. The only comment after the relisting was:
In light of the DRV discussion, I think it's clear this template should be kept without prejudice to renomination if someone who's well acquainted with the intricate functionality of the template is willing to support change and is prepared to put it in the apparently high amount of effort needed to implement that change.
The closing admin's statement ("Looks like the technical feasibility of replacement needs to be investigated more") is an accurate summary of the lack of consensus in the discussion about how to replace the template.
The 9 June 2019 DRV nominator wrote on the closing admin's talk page:
I today outsourced all the data code from the infobox to Category:Data Finland municipality templates, which is inside Category:Data templates. Cf. also Category:Template:Metadata Population. Now infoboxes or other pages can retrieve the data stored in the data templates indepent from the infobox. The replacement could start soon.
The closing admin replied, "It looks the edits you have done have made substing viable; I would suggest starting another TfD to evaluate that (you can ping the participants of the previous discussion)."
I therefore support allowing an immediate TfD renomination so that these changes can be discussed.
Cunard (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard, the votes before relist were:
- Subst and delete
- Delete after replacement
- Keep until replacement
- SPEEDY CLOSE ("is a wrapper since creation" and the voter proposed it itself for substitution)
Why the weird closing as "no consensus"? 78.55.42.78 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indigo (Chris Brown album) – Protection set to expire on 28 June. Consensus is that protection is likely no longer needed, or not for much longer. I'm therefore setting it to expire on the date of the album's release, as suggested by Cunard. An admin can lift the protection earlier if notability becomes clear. Sandstein 09:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The article was moved into draftspace (to Draft:Indigo (Chris Brown album)) and the mainspace page fully protected a day ago by JJMC89, which was excessive and unnecessary. As I said at the draft talk page: The article is well sourced by news sources, has a release date, cover and track list. It clearly meets WP:NALBUMS with flying colours. Anyone can see that. The article has grown since it was nominated for deletion in early May (when most users commented), more details have been revealed and sources added. This should not have been drafted again when it has been expanded and improved and not in the same quality it was in when it was decided to draftify it, and I do not think JJMC89 was justified in moving this back into draftspace a day ago when it was still being worked on by a number of users.

There are plenty of news sources out there on this. There is just a sample of these on the article. We are keeping an album in draftspace for something that will be released in under three weeks that plenty of users will be searching for, there is lots of confirmation and coverage on. I in no way agree that it was a good decision to move back into draftspace. Ss112 01:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the merits of the move the indefinite creation protection is definitely a bad idea. The album hasn't been released yet but an album by a musician this well known will certainly be notable when released, which will happen in a few weeks. The AfD commenters generally agreed with this and the AfD certainly can't be used to prevent creation of the article indefinitely. Hut 8.5 16:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only intend it to be temporary but chose indefinite to avoid having to cleanup the history again when someone would recreate it on expiration instead of moving the draft. I've already done history merges/splits on this twice within a week. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we just move the draft to mainspace then. By the time this discussion closes it'll be less than two weeks until the album is released, at which point it will be notable. The Delete comments in the AfD are no longer valid or will be no longer valid very soon, most of them relate to the fact that the existence of the album or the release date hadn't been confirmed, that doesn't appear to be the case any more. I don't see much point in spending effort quibbling about notability just to block the creation of the article for the next week or two and prevent history merges. Hut 8.5 06:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since nothing had been added since the AfD close at the time of my move and protection that impacts notability, Ss112 seems to be arguing that the original AfD was flawed and/or closed incorrectly as notability would then have been established before the discussion was closed. Release dates, covers, and track lists don't contribute to notability (or any other criteria for having an article), so why keep repeating it, Ss112? — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @JJMC89: Per WP:FUTUREALBUM. There is enough notability. I have said that as well. I kept repeating that there is now a confirmed title, track list and cover because some of the users who originally commented didn't think there was enough confirmation of any of those details. You are just delaying the inevitable by continuing to refuse this. Ss112 05:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's inevitable that the album will be notable once released. I suggest people get on with creating and expanding the article rather than arguing over process for process' sake. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have two recommendations:
1. Change the full create protection to expire on 28 June 2019, the day the album is released, so that any editor can move Draft:Indigo (Chris Brown album) to Indigo (Chris Brown album) after the album is released.
2. Allow any admin to unprotect the page or a renomination at DRV if anything significant changes before 28 June 2019. JJMC89 wrote "... nothing had been added since the AfD close at the time of my move and protection that impacts notability". I have seen no new sources that provide new information about the album presented in the draft or in this DRV. If such sources are found, then {{db-repost}} no longer applies, and the article can be restored.
Cunard (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 June 2019[edit]

7 June 2019[edit]

6 June 2019[edit]

Outline of natural language processing – "Delete" closure overturned, without prejudice to a new AfD. Sandstein 16:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The nominator and delete supporters appeared to lack an understanding of what an outline is. I have not seen the page, so I do not know what is on it, but I ask you, how can a list of links violate WP:NOR? Outlines are helpful resources that may aid readers and editors to find articles in specific and sometimes broad topic areas. I ask that the AfD decision be overturned and, if necessary, the page moved to Draftspace, so that it may be reviewed. Regards, GUYWAN ( t · c ) 20:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closer: "so that it may be reviewed"? What do you call a 7 day AfD debate if not a close review of the article? --Randykitty (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: I'm puzzled. As far as I can see, you never edited this article, nor did you participate in the AfD. What prompted you to take this to DRV 6 weeks after it was deleted (and without discussing it first with me, I might add)? --Randykitty (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've never seen the page, I have no idea what's going on here either, but I agree with the nominator. A list of Wikipedia articles organised as an outline for navigational purposes cannot be WP:OR. It's possible this outline should have been deleted on other grounds, but are we really going to require an outside source to show that a Wikipedia article is on a specific topic? SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The close adequately judged consensus, but there's no way that's WP:OR. SportingFlyer T·C 16:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I've tempundeleted this. I'm frankly befuddled by the discussion. One of the recurring themes in the comments is that this is WP:OR. I don't see that at all. It's largely a curated collection of links, with some text to give it background. How is that OR? There's another comment, Delete as a shadow article. I don't even know what that means. Another commenter called it link-spamming. That's a term I reserve to SEO. Surely nobobody's claiming this is some attempt to drive NLP traffic to some external site? Yet another person said, This is not a subject that has been independently the object ... of outside sources. Huh? Natural language processing is one of the major topics of research in computer science. How somebody can say it's not the object of outside sources is truly mind-boggling.

Most of this appears to be part of a larger war against outlines and portals in general. The most cogent remark in the entire discussion was, all outline of pages are contentless link collections that duplicate the topic. Link farms are so 1995. That may, in fact, be true. We have better technology today to navigate large bodies of information (and, ironically enough, Natural language processing is one of them). But, if you're going to argue that outlines are obsolete, make that argument in an RFC to ban all outlines. I doubt that RFC will get any traction, however. We've got lists, categories, portals, outlines, DAB pages, and probably a few other navigation tools I can't recall offhand. Many of those overlap in functionality, and I personally think several of them are obsolete. But, current consensus is that they're all useful in their own way. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, to be fair to the closer, Overturn usually means, The closer made an error, but in this case, what it really means is, The whole discussion was off in the weeds. I can't really blame the closer for doing the best he could with what he had to work with. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse~~ I've thought long and hard about whether I wish to disagree with Sporting and Roy, both of whom I respect. I especially thought hard given that this deletion seems at least partly driven by the frustration editors at the time were experiencing with Transhumanist at the time, which while understandable manifested in some less than great ways. However, I just can't find a PAG basis for overturning a clear AfD consensus. The existence of outlines, at least as I track it at WP:OUTLINES seems to have no explicit community support behind its creation or existence, unlike Portals which is a namespace and had a well discussed RfC reaffirming its existence in 2018. There are no real criteria, let alone community endorsed criteria, that I can find which define what is and isn't appropriate to have in outline form. Discussions handwave towards lists at points so perhaps it's some version of LISTN? If so my personal opinion would have been that this outline demonstrates notability as the topic is discussed as a set with some regularity. However, I didn't show up to that AfD and cast a !vote. And at least a couple of !voters did address the concept of notability rather than just merely comment on the fact that it's unreferenced. Our encyclopedia would be worse off without outlines, and unlike Portals they do seem to get real traffic (e.g. 18k+ views for Outline of India & 8k+ for Outline of human anatomy) so we shouldn't make a practice of deleting them all but I think some !voters applied criteria, such as they poorly are, and the closer fairly judged that consensus and implemented it. The person filing this appeal (who really should have discussed with closing sysop first) suggests that no one understood the purpose of what outlines were. This seem clearly true but says more about our lack of agreement about what they should be, not a failure on the !voters part to apply PAG or the closer to discern consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bunch of history on the topic of outlines, and it appears as if this could be the next great deletion debate following the whole portals debacle, but it's not as if this is a project without any explicit community support. Here's a RfC from 2011 which ended in no consensus, but ended in a consensus for defining what an outline is in the alternative proposal: [11]. Also see [12]. And I understand nominating the outline after the deletion discussion here, but an outline's notability doesn't have anything to do with its Wikiproject's viability. Perhaps we are at a point where we need to look closely at outlines, but consensus has been for years outline articles don't invalidate WP:OR, even if the consensus has been made through custom. I'd be willing to listen to an argument this specific outline article violates WP:OR, but it was not clearly made in the deletion discussion, and it's not obvious on its face. SportingFlyer T·C 04:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I looked through OUTLINES archive and if that RfC was posted there I'd missed it. It's a shame that criteria was never clearly incorporated into OUTLINE. Indeed while there are sections of what Outlines are and aren't those sections' information doesn't correspond as well as I'd like to the RfC. While the RfC was closed as no consensus for closing down OUTLINES I'd suggest consensus was probably closer to against that and thus an endorsement of their existence. As such we now have substantial new information, which would justify a DRV in the first place, and more weight needs to be given to SmC and Transhuman's keep !votes and much less (or perhaps no) weight given to the OR delete !votes (including the nomination). This lands us in either No Consensus or Keep territory and as such I'm convinced to Overturn with no prejudice to renomination now that we all know what we should be discussing. Alternatively a well publicized RfC could establish consensus behind eliminating outline articles as a type of Wikipedia article but that's beyond the scope of a single AfD/DRV. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I'm glad this DRV nomination has been made and I think in this case to properly review the AFD discussion required the article itself to also be reviewed. Until I saw the undeleted article I was utterly bemused by the AFD. I have found it very hard to spot any policy-based or guideline-based argument for deletion or even a coherent justification for deletion outside our guidelines. And, unfortunately, some of the contributors have not even tried to hide their antipathy towards the creator of this article. The only aspect of WP:OR that might be relevant is WP:SYNTH but I can't see what conclusion is being reached improperly. I certainly think it can reasonably be argued that the article is sadly deficient in references (and sometimes lack of references can mislead reviewers into thinking there has been "original research"). "Random", "spam", "shadow", "functional gradient", "unruly listing". The arguments look so poor to me they should have been disregarded. There was one good keep argument so that could have carried the day or the thing could have been relisted with advice that participants should advance relevant arguments. Thincat (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close as an accurate rough consensus call for the discussion. Note that participants are not constrained to argue standard policy rationales, most deletion guidelines and policies are mere predictors of what AfD will do. The authority to delete comes from the consensus of the participants. That said, the consensus was only “rough”, there being opposition, and here the nominator of this DRV raises significant new argument, so Support resisting the AfD, and recommend better advertising of the AfD, WP:CENT for sure. WP:Outlines are similar to Portals, and a better participated discussion is highly desirable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance is futile! -- RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the arguments offered for deletion are either explicitly arguments against outlines in general or arguments which would lead to the deletion of basically every outline on Wikipedia if adopted. There does seem to be a general consensus that outlines are OK, at least some of the time, so these arguments ought to be downweighted per WP:LOCALCON. As with RoySmith above I can't really blame the closer here, the problem is that the entire discussion is misguided. Hut 8.5 16:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn with optional relist. At thevery least, thereiwas no consensus to delete, and if the delte arguments were to be accepted as even relevant, the appropriate close would have been No Consensus. But they were not relevant. This was an Outline of a subject, a special type of WP artic;le intended for purposes of overview and navigation. The requirement for having one is that hte topic by so complex that such an outline is needed, and that we have sufficient articles that an outline is possible. The concept need not meet GNG any more than othr navigational devices meet GNG: what needs to meet notability are the individual linked articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn without prejudice to a new nomination that is based on matters relevant to the specific outline and without any of the completely unnecessary ad hominems. I could have seen a no consensus closure, or a keep closure but I disagree that there was a consensus to delete this outline. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 June 2019[edit]

N2WS (Veeam) – Administrative close. Does not meet WP:DRVPURPOSE. See WP:BRD -- RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The page was blanked and redirected to Veeam. You can see the original content at Draft:N2WS (Veeam). N2WS provides an independent alternative to Amazon's disaster recovery services. It is widely used and has been covered by analysts, I believe I established notability in the article. While it has been acquired by Veeam, it continues to operate as a separate company and I think it deserves its own entry. Disagree with the decision to delete the page and redirect it to Veeam. I will be happy improve the N2WS article per your suggestions. Disclosing (I mentioned this on my user page) that I am an advisor for N2WS. Gilad.maayan (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't belong at DRV as there has been no deletion. I see you tried to discuss it on the talk page of the person who turned it into a redirect with no response, so at this point, just undo the redirect. I suspect it will then get sent to AfD. I'd say the sourcing appears to be borderline, so I think it has a good chance of being deleted there. But in any case, DRV doesn't really have a role here. Hobit (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hobit. The redirect was done boldly, you've tried discussion and got no response so you should feel free to revert it. You don't need a DRV for that. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 June 2019[edit]

Zheng Yunlong – Moot. The speedily deleted article has been recreated. An AfD is recommended if somebody wants to delete it again. Sandstein 19:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Zheng Yunlong (Chinese: 郑云龙) is a famous singer and musical actor from Mainland China. This article is not advertisement. 風雲北洋 WP※English is very difficult 12:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are media reports about him. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. --風雲北洋 WP※English is very difficult 12:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: Excuse me. This article is deleted by you. Could you please review it？ --風雲北洋 WP※English is very difficult 12:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a draft. I would decline the draft if it were submitted to AFC. What is the requester requesting? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing in deleted article is complete crap - well, the article itself isn't much better - but I don't see how it is G11 material. And he's definitely notable - several of Masdggg's sources are plainly significant coverage. T. Canens (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn G11. Looks a bit telling-a-story-ish and I might have maintance-tagged it or discussed draftifying with the author, but it doesn't seem like a G11. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has been created. Recommend close. If someone else thinks that the subject isn't notable, AFD is to the right. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 June 2019[edit]

Katie Richmond – Nothing to appeal as no delete or debate has happened, let prod take its course Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Fails GNG, Fails ENT Kotkijet (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 June 2019[edit]

1 June 2019[edit]

George Toogood Smith – Speedy endorse. Clearly inappropriate nomination for the reasons stated below. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Closed too early by a non-admin. I don't believe enough time was given for a consensus to be demonstrated. —Chowbok ☠ 16:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated 26.4.19, closed 4.5.19 which was the 8th day after nomination. I'm not experiencing any difficulty identifying the consensus in that debate.—S Marshall T/C 19:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While I typically am skeptical of any NAC that's brought to DRV, I see absolutely nothing wrong with this close, a clear keep after more than a week of discussion, and while it's not necessary to mention in terms of the endorsement here I still think it's worth noting this was for an AfD of a GA which clearly appears to pass WP:GNG on its face. A relist would have been inappropriate. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the consensus was clear, the discussion ran the full length, and evidence that the subject has clear notability was not effectively refuted. Time to move on. — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 June

30 June 2019[edit]

29 June 2019[edit]

28 June 2019[edit]

27 June 2019[edit]

26 June 2019[edit]

25 June 2019[edit]

24 June 2019[edit]

23 June 2019[edit]

22 June 2019[edit]

21 June 2019[edit]

20 June 2019[edit]

19 June 2019[edit]

18 June 2019[edit]

17 June 2019[edit]

16 June 2019[edit]

15 June 2019[edit]

14 June 2019[edit]

13 June 2019[edit]

12 June 2019[edit]

11 June 2019[edit]

10 June 2019[edit]

9 June 2019[edit]

8 June 2019[edit]

7 June 2019[edit]

6 June 2019[edit]

5 June 2019[edit]

4 June 2019[edit]

3 June 2019[edit]

2 June 2019[edit]

1 June 2019[edit]