Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November

28 November 2019

Alessandro Giardelli – Procedural close, nominator blocked per a sockpuppet investigation as the same individual who disrupted the AfD ~ mazca talk 00:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Alessandro Giardelli (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The page has been deleted in this discussion even if total consent has not been reached and the reasons for the cancellation are due to the fact that it was not included in WP: NMOTORSPORT and WP: GNG. In reality the article respects both the criteria of notability considering that we are talking about a professional driver winner of various championships at world and national level in Karting and besides this a course with cars with a team of professionals and has many articles online on the main motorsport informants, when it was eliminated all the articles were not present, they look at the sandbox below to see what the page would look like.User:theracingdriver/sandbox Theracingdriver (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toprace2345 – Thjarkur (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Procedurally defer pending outcome of SPI. --Doug Mehus T·C 20:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Blocked nom, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toprace2345. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Andrew Neather – Review request withdrawn following Gagwef's understanding of the rules and considering the editor to be sufficiently  Self-trouted. Consensus, to the extent it formed thus far, was that it was an improper close, but, as the nominator, I should've first reached out to Gagwef to advise the editor of the proper non-admin closing procedures, of needing to be non-involved, and of needing to have the RfD open for 7 days. Doug Mehus T·C 00:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Andrew Neather (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Nominator Gagwef retargeted per administrator's Thryduulf's !vote and recommendation below, which seemed prudent. However, procedurally, this was a flawed close. 1) the nom is clearly WP:INVOLVED; (2) the nom retargeted on the same day as it was initiated (only provision for nom to self-close is as "speedy keep"/"nomination withdrawn," which nom could've done and then retargeted boldly outside of the RfD); and (3) the nom short-circuited the debate as there were two !votes to "delete," so my understanding is that the nom would've needed to get buy-in from those two "delete" !votes (one of which was editor Geolodus) in order to withdraw the nomination. In short, while the retargeting seems reasonable, I am concerned with the multitude of procedural flaws and we should not be encouraging this especially reasons #3 and #2 when #1 applies. My recommendation is to either: Overturn and Relist on procedural grounds; or, failing that and in the interests of time, Overturn and Retarget as closed, so that the nom can be sufficiently trouted, at least that way the nomination gets a fulsome 7 day debate. Friendly ping to my mentor Trialpears Doug Mehus T·C 17:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Pherhaps a talk page note to the closer would be better then starting a deletion review? As stated in the purpose section [Deletion review should not be used] when you have not discussed the matter with the user who closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination. Taking someone to deletion review and trout whacking isn't a very nice outcome for someone's first XfD discussion. Gagwef would you mind reopening the discussion? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC) I would mind, actually. I don't want to waste another week of my life on fixing a mistake some mouthbreather made a decade ago. So I didn't adhere to protocol 100%, and I will fully admit to not fully knowing what the hell I was doing when trying to fix the fucking redirect, but if whoever brought this up said that the redirect itself "seemed reasonable" and one of the two people who voted to delete ended up suggesting a retarget instead, then is it really wise to waste everyone's time for another god knows how many days over this piddling pedantry? I don't want to think about this thing anymore, so please, for the love of Christ, can't you let this slide just this once? I doubt this is significant enough to set some kind of a dangerous precedent that will inevitably swerve Wikipedia into vandalistic anarchy, so can you just please, please please please please please please please PLEASE let this thing go? Gagwef (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Gagwef, for the record, I agree with the retarget decision (it seems reasonable), but my issue was with respect to process. As nominator, what you should've done is withdrawn the nomination as speedy keep (nomination withdrawn), and then retargeted per Thryduulf's suggestion (which I would've !voted for, had I been given the chance) outside of the RfD (as allowed per WP:BRD). Actually, you could've even just done this retarget in a bold move before having nominated it for discussion, but you may not have known that likely redirect target. As long as you understand that when nominated for deletion or discussion, nominations can only be closed by non-involved editors/administrators or withdrawn as speedy keep by the nominator provided that there are no other !votes (i.e., in this case, there were "delete" votes), and further that you will submit to a  Self-trouting, then I have no issue with withdrawing this nomination. Failing that, I think in the interest of procedural fairness, the DRV should stand and I would encourage everyone to !vote for the second option, which would have the practical effect of keeping the result of the closure but overturning who closed it, as a minor point of adhering to policy. Doug Mehus T·C 19:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Gagwef, what do you mean by "some mouthbreather"? I don't get it. Doug Mehus T·C 19:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Someone created a section into an article where it didn't belong and then made a redirect into said section. Gagwef (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Trialpears True, I thought about that, but when I suggested in the deletion review for the Washington Redhawks to procedurally close as the requestor hadn't discussed it on the talkpage, there was no take up to procedurally close. So why do we suggest that sometimes and not others? --Doug Mehus T·C 18:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Update from Nominator following Trialpears suggestion - I have now separately notified Gagwef of my willingness to have the discussion re-opened, but that in the interests of procedural expediency in the event the editor doesn't edit Wikipedia daily, will maintain this deletion review in tandem. Should the editor re-open the RfD and let a non-involved editor close and follow proper procedures, I will fully withdraw this DRV. Doug Mehus T·C 18:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC) I think we all agree then. We all think it should be redirected and everyone want this to be dealt with as quickly as possible. May I then suggest that someone uninvolved just close this as resolved. It's clear that there is a consensus for the retargeting and at this point we're really just arguing technicalities which isn't the purpose of a deletion review. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Trialpears I thought part of the purpose of DRV was to remind, or inform, editors/administrators of their errors so as to mitigate, if not eliminate, the same mistake next time? On that basis, I think it might be worth a the non-involved closer serving up a friendly trout with a link to the relevant non-admin closing section of RfD, no? If this were me being brought to DRV and the roles were reversed, I would welcome a friendly trouting. In fact, I'd probably  Self-trout myself. Doug Mehus T·C 20:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Learning how to become a better closer is definitely important and DRV can provide valuable feedback, but that same feedback can be given on the talk page of the closer without starting a week long debate and unnecessary bureaucracy. While I agree that the close was far from optimal, we all agree that the final outcome should be the same as we currently have. Putting another signature on the close is just arguing about technicalities which is listed under what deletion review isn't for. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Trialpears Okay, fair enough. I agree, what I should've done is messaged Gagwef first and at least reminded him or her how closures are supposed to work (in this case, he or she couldn't have withdrawn it since there were "delete" votes). Probably the best thing would've been to wait for a few more redirects and then get someone to close it early per WP:SNOW. At any rate, I know there's no specific mechanism for a nominator withdrawal, but S Marshall and RoySmith previously closed one of my DRVs when I wanted to withdraw it, so maybe I'll do that now per common sense? Doug Mehus T·C 21:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Just do me a favour and drop this thing. The simplest, most logical and most expedient outcome has prevailed. Nobody is up at arms about this thing. I've learned my lesson and I'm almost certainly never getting embroiled in any kind of a redirect dispute again. Just let it go. Please. Gagwef (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 November 2019

2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq – Overturn all and relist, as separate AFDs. Bunch of considerations here: Well, first off it seems like there is some confusion here about whether the deletion was about WP:NOTNEWS or about WP:CSD#G5, both of which were cited in the AFD debate which got the first version of the article deleted and a second also deleted under WP:CSD#G4. There is also confusion about whether we are discussing the deletion only of 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq or also that of the other articles discussed in the AFD. It seems like the consensus is leaning towards overturn insofar as most people consider the arguments against the G5-based argument - that the page had substantial edits by non-blocked/banned editors - valid and that there was too little discussion to establish that NOTNEWS was applicable (although one editor dissented). Some people also want a relist or say "endorse but relist anyways" owing to concerns about the low participation and not very thorough analysis in the AFD, so relist as well. Whether there is a consensus solely about the Israel article or also about the other topics bundled in is not really clear from the discussion - the header is only about the Israel article but a lot of opinions are prefixed with "overturn all" and most don't specify an article at all. Apparently part of the confusion stems from the AFD itself where not all articles were bundled in right away. It's a bit of a mess, really. At least one of the argument endorses a relist without any bundling - effectively new AFD(s) for (each) article(s) - citing the confusion about what argument applies to which article, in both AFD and DRV, and another editor below seconds this concern. One editor wants to restore as draft, citing concerns about whether G5 or NOTNEWS would apply; this stance has not received much input. The ill-supported accusation of censorship on the other hand has not convinced anyone. This was a somewhat complicated deletion review, hence the somewhat complicated conclusion as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This article was deleted because the creator had been blocked. Despite being heavily contributed by other users and being a very major event. It did not have full consensus for deletion at the AfD and I doubt the admin paid attention whether others had contributed to this page or not. The deletion of this page is total censorship and WP:GRAVEDANCING of an event possibly critical of Israel. The creator being blocked is not a reason to delete a major event article which is contributed a lot by other users. KasimMejia (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn – there were no arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Aden (2019) that this article should be deleted. The other outcomes of that discussion are fine, but this one should have been kept. G5, the original reason for the nomination, does not apply as this article was extensively worked on by other editors. – bradv🍁 20:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Also note that the 4 articles that were added to this AfD were nominated after the first delete !vote was cast, and the second delete !vote specifically excluded this article. – bradv🍁 20:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse the rationale for deletion was WP:NOTNEWS, that's a perfectly good rationale which nobody tried to rebut. The accusations of censorship and pro-Israel bias are completely unsubstantiated. I should point out that the claim by FOARP in the AfD that the article was written before the creator was blocked is incorrect, the article was created by a block-evading sockpuppet. Hut 8.5 22:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC) The rationale for Battle of Aden (2019) was WP:NOTNEWS. That argument really doesn't apply to this article though, and no one in that AfD argued it does. – bradv🍁 02:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Er, no, Clarityfiend clearly thought that rationale applied to this article as well. Hut 8.5 07:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Hut 8.5, I respectfully disagree that we should short-circuit debate and arbitrarily delete articles that may be notable just because they were created by a block-evading sockpuppet. That may be rationale for an administrator to hide the sockpuppet's revisions, but the article itself should have a fulsome debate. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC) That's not what I said, and that opinion does contradict policy anyway. Hut 8.5 15:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Dmehus No one "short-circuted" deletion, the AfD remaiend open na full 7 days if I am not mistaken. That is normal procedue. The question is whether the AfD clsoe was proper and compliant with policy. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Overturn The WP:NOTNEWS argument was only brought forward by one user, and neither accepted nor refuted by others in the discussion, it cannot be said to have consensus. Most of the discussion focused on the blocked status od the creator, and ther it was said that this article was significantly different in having edits by multiple editors known not to be socks. That means that the fact of the article creator being blocked becomes totally irrelevant, and all delete (and keep) votes based solely on it must be discounted. That leaves one editor favoring deletion on NOTNEWS grounds, and one favoring keep as important recent events. Sounds like a no-consensus result to me on this article. If someone wants to renominate to focus on the not-news issue, so be it. I won't express a view on that issue here, because it is out of scope for this DRV, I believe. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC) My !vote rationale below covers "the editors above," but specifically, per {{rto|DESiegel}), who has made the case to overturn so well. Thank you! --Doug Mehus T·C 17:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn all of them. The original silly deletion was a speedy deletion because the editor who created these articles is blocked. I have contributed to these articles myself. I find this deletion unreasonable. The battle of Aden was significantly reported in the news.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn all of them Also, there were two who voted to delete the articles and only one of them voted to delete the 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq, meanwhile one user (myself) opposed the deletion of all. Certainly not a clear consensus to delete 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq, 1 and 1. Furthermore, regarding rest of the articles, I feel they need to be restored and voted again because none of the other contributors got a chance to comment. I can't remember who those users are since the histories have been deleted, though it looks like SharabSalam is one of them. KasimMejia (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Comment - okay, so, a real toughie. The discussion couldn't have been closed any other way; three delete arguments, one keep with no real rationale, one comment. It could've been relisted, which might've been the wiser choice; I would certainly be fine with this DRV being closed as Endorse, but relist anyways. The lack of clarity as to whether it's closed as a pseudo-G5 or a NOTNEWS is liable to be a problem going forward (if someone wants to take another stab at the articles, they deserve to know whether they're going to run afoul of G4), so I'd also be fine with endorse, reclose as explicitly CSD#G5. I don't think there's a consensus here for a deletion based on #NOTNEWS, so I don't think it can be explicitly reclosed that way? WilyD 07:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC) WilyD 3 users did not endorse the deletion of 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq, only 1 did, while 1 opposed. This article was contributed by several other users, who did not get to vote, it is a very significant event. Absolute censorship to delete this based on the creator being blocked. Do you endorse this ones deletion along side others, if so can you state why you support the deletion of 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq? KasimMejia (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC) This isn't really true - the nominator is also implicitly arguing for deletion. The AfD was open for seven days, which is standard. A lot of the discussion is kinda vague - I probably would've relisted for better clarity, but that's a very subjective judgement. And, of course, when you call it "absolute censorship", you completely destroy any credibility you have. From the discussion, the only choices an admin could've reasonably be made were to close as delete, or relist. WilyD 08:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) If this deletion was because the user who created these articles was blocked –although that's not what the votes arguments say– then could I recreate these articles? I am not block and is there any copyright issues if I copied the deleted articles and recreated them? Also who is the user who was blocked anyway? I still don't know who he is. I have contributed to the battle of Aden, it is significantly covered in the media just Google it and you will find a lot of sources. The battle was between the government and those who want to separate South Yemen from North Yemen and they were supported by the UAE. Recently an investigation by the US is initiated by the pentagon to investigate whether US weapons were used by those separatists in the battle [1]. Many people killed in this battle. I really don't think this is NOTNEWS and all votes for the NOTNEWS should have been dismissed. The closer shouldn't just count votes, instead he should have checked how solid are these arguments calling for the deletion, that's IMHO, especially that there are lots of articles tagged. Again if the deletion was about G5 then could I recreate these articles? I have made contributions there. Thanks in advance.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC) So, yes, if an article is deleted because it's created primarily/exclusively by a blocked/banned user while they're blocked/banned, then anyone else could recreate it without issue. If it's deleted because NOTNEWS, then you'd need to write a new article that addressed that concern or it could be speedily redeleted. Which is why I suggested if the close is endorsed and the article left deleted, we should at least make explicit the deletion reason(s), as the current discussion doesn't make it entirely unambiguous. WilyD 09:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC) It can't be about NOTNEWS. The article has many citations and the battle was for months, dozons were killed in the battle. There is still a verison of the article in Google cache [2]. I really can't understand why editors said it is NOTNEWS.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC) As far as the discussion goes, one editor invoked NOTNEWS, and the only response was non-committal about whether it applied. Created in violation of ban/block was more heavily invoked (but was at least someone rejected it; though, I'm not able to easily parse how accurate that is, and the discussion isn't a good guide). Maybe re-open is the wiser approach here, given all the lack of clarity. WilyD 10:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC) As to the G5 issue, it is unquestionable that this was created by an editor now blocked, and who is at least stated to have been improperly socking at that time. That editor wrote much of the text before anyone else edited the article. The history also clearly establishes that other editors edited the article after the blocked editor. I just reviewed the history and I count more than a dozen such editors, and I don't think anyone is claiming that they are socks. WP:CSD#G5 says explicitly ... that have no substantial edits by others as part of the defination of pages deletable under G5. The relevant policy section WP:DEL-REASON includes the CSD reasons by explicit reference. So any comments favoring deletion based on G5 are not valid, and any based on mixed reason are not valid to the extent that they relied on G5 (including such reasons as "by a blocked sock" which is in effect an invocation of G5). I have given my views on the NOTNEWS issue above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC) "substantial" is somewhat subjective, a speedily deleting admin should be very conservative, in a discussion that's not as required (analogous to A7 vs. WP:N). If we decided the deletion was based on a pseudo-G5 reasoning, then any interested editor could re-create the article and G4 wouldn't apply, so whether or not it's a valid thing to do is a pseudo-academic question. We have a discussion where literally zero people make any kind of substantial argument for keep ... there's no way to close it but delete. All we can do is provide clarity going forward (or, if we can't, then re-open the discussion). WilyD 08:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn all of them Lightburst (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC) A reason or two would not come amiss, Lightburst. Why would you want to overturn the deletion of those articles admittedly created by a now-blocked editor (who seems to have been socking at the time) with no significant contributions by anyone else? I am not fond og G5 myself, but it is current policy, and has consensus. Note that any other editor in good standing is free to create a new article on those topics, subject to our various inclusion policies, of course. I would be willing, on request, to send a list of any sources cited in the deleted version to any editor planning on creating such a new article, so no nothing much should be lost. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn all per nom and the editors above. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Dmehus, the nom above only made a case for overturning the deletion of the one article. I, and I think most of the others who commented in favor of an overturn, similarly were only talking about the one article "2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq". Do ytou have a policy-based reason to overturn the othe deletions as well? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC) @Dmehus: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Restore as draft. In the matter of whether site-banned editors' contributions can always be removed, I refer you to the consensus at this discussion. As I said at the time, I don't fully agree with that consensus, but the consensus does exist that WP:BMB is a higher commandment than WP:PRESERVE. However, I have considerable sympathy with the editors above whose contributions have been summarily erased through no fault of their own; in a collaborative project where all people get for their edits is a writer's credit, erasing their contributions is distinctly suboptimal. And I think we should have an article with this title. In the matter of NOTNEWS, well, basically, my position is bugger NOTNEWS. It's a really unhelpful rule. Wikipedia isn't a cookbook, but we rightly have an article on Chicken tikka masala. Wikipedia isn't a style guide, but we rightly have an article on Singular they. And Wikipedia isn't the news, but we rightly have articles on current events as they unfold. When something's attracting significant international interest, NOTNEWS needs to give way. From the draft, we'd be looking for established editors to check, confirm, edit as necessary to remove anything that's in bad faith or fails to meet core policies, and then restore to mainspace when they're satisfied it's appropriate to do so.—S Marshall T/C 00:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC) relist, ideally unbundled Each article needs to be looked at for who has contributed and for NOTNEWS. The discussion had so far just doesn't get me to believe more than one person (plus the nom) looked at each article. Hobit (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Relist. Consensus is unclear. SilkTork (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Comment, SilkTork I looked at the history of each of the deleted articles bundeld in the AfD after this DRV discussion started. All of them, except for "2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq", had no substantial edits by anyone other than the now-blocked editor. Any other admin is of course able to double check that right now. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC) I have only looked at 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq. Consensus to delete that article is unclear. I am not commenting on the other articles as we've not been asked to look at them, and it would be better if someone did want us to look at them to list them, separately from this one. I think we can get lost if we try to tangle together different arguments and rationales, especially when we haven't been asked to. SilkTork (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2019, (UTC) I'm sorry SilkTork, my response was to those above saying "overturn all" and particularly to the comment by Hobit which was just above yours -- I was confused as to who I was responding to. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC) The original nom seemed to think that there were enough other contributions than none of them were speediable. I've no clue who is right (different people may have different definitions of "significant" in this context) as I can't see them. I'd rather they be undeleted and we reach consensus on the issue for all of them. But yeah, the one requested sounds to be different than the rest and probably shouldn't have been part of the bundle. Hobit (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Hobit I don't see anythign in the post by KasimMejia that started this threadf which talks about any of the other articels that were bundeled with "2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq" in the AfD. What are you seeing to this effect, please? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Edits to "2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq" bu editors other than the original blocked creator: Jim Michael moved the page. Bradv applied protection and added a protection icon. Jim Michael fixed a citation Narky Blert Fixed a link to a DAB page Here come the Suns fixed a repeated link Greyshark09 fixed references GünniX AWB edit Nurg Multiple copy edits Citation bot (activated by Nurg) X1\ added information about Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Takinginterest01 KasimMejia ADDED TEMPLATE Onel5969 nominaed for deletion Anthony Appleyard three edits adding 200 bytes DannyS712 semi-automated fixes Virtualerian added roughly 2800 bytes of content Orenburg1 spelling correction KasimMejia 5 edits during AfD Over all, article went from 10,174 bytes to 15,293 bytes during the course of these edits. People can perhaps better judge "significant now. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs Restore this article. It's notable & would have been soon been created even if the blocked user hasn't done so. When I edited it, I wasn't aware that the creator had been blocked; all or most of the rest of the article's editors were probably likewise unaware. I don't know anything about the blocked user or his edits, but I disagree with undoing the good work of other editors solely because the creator was blocked. The same issue is true of some other articles, including the Kulp bombing. Jim Michael (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Now undeleted. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC) agreed, that is the right course. Anyone who wishes to nominate for AfD agains can do so. DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Kartikeya Sharma – Deletion endorsed. If somebody wants to bring this to a usable state, they can request draftification via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 13:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kartikeya Sharma (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) A quick Google search shows that the man is far too notable to not have a page on Wikipedia. He owns a media conglomerate comprising of several news channels and newspapers. He also is the son of an influential and famous politician Venod Sharma, the brother of one of the most infamous convicted murderers in modern India, Manu Sharma and a relative of former President of India Shankar Dayal Sharma. I question: what was the criterion for speedy deletion? It should have required at least a cursory discussion to have the pretense of caring about less active editors' work. These kind of deletions have the chilling effect of suppression of information about media-politician nexus. If Nixon's grandson owned Washington Post and MSNBC, would there be no Wikipedia article about him? Trickipaedia (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse deletion via the afd, not the a7 technically. I see very little non-trivial coverage and being a relative of notable people is meaningless. Praxidicae (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Weak endorse; write a draft. This was a marginal WP:A7; the deleted page (which I've tempundeleted for review) claims he owns a TV network, which seems like a plausible claim of significance. But, given the long history of multiple deletions, and that there were zero sources, I'm willing to give User:RHaworth the benefit of the doubt on this one. The best way forward, would be to write a new draft, complete with solid sources. If you can do that, I'm sure there won't be any issue accepting it. If you can't, then haggling over whether this should have been deleted via CSD vs AfD is just silly wiki-lawyering. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Comment - yeah, perhaps sketchy as a A7, but would've been a valid G4, and the deleted draft had a snowball in a gasoline suit's chance in hell of surviving AfD like that. So, if someone wants to work on a draft, great. Otherwise - I'm not totally sold that it's A7-able, but there's no cause for undeletion. Oh, and since it's asked: the usual criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Notability. Speedy deletion occurred on the judgement the article gave no indication the subject might meet that criterion. That's debatable, but it was previously deleted due to the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kartikeya Sharma, and the new version doesn't fix the problems noted there, so it's eligible to be speedily deleted for that reason. WilyD 16:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC) This is gonna be my go to for snow deletes from now on. Thanks! snowball in a gasoline suit's chance in hell. Praxidicae (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC) I think I stole the line from Dave Barry. WilyD 16:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse as G4 not a valid A7 because it stated that the subject owns several companies which we have articles on, but I think it's a valid G4 per the previous AfD. This version was much shorter than the AfDed version, didn't include any new claims to notability (unless you count being related to a couple of people) and most importantly it was completely unsourced. Merely owning media companies doesn't necessarily make somebody notable at all, which counts is if there's any substantial coverage of that person in third-party reliable sources. I think the comparisons made by the OP are somewhat overblown, the guy's father isn't nearly as influential as Nixon and the network he owns doesn't seem to be in the same league as MSNBC. Hut 8.5 23:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Allow recreation in draft The A7 was not even arguably valid, owing a major network is a clear claim of significance. I can't endorse the A7. A G4 might have been valid, but it wasn't tagged or logged as G4. The AfD was a very poor one, not addressing significance of the associations of Sharma, nor the plausible chance that sufficient sources to demonstrate notability exist, and there is no indication that a WP:BEFORE check was done. It should have been relisted, but it could not have been closed as anything but delete if it was to be closed when it was. Allowing a draft prmits this to be developed, and an editor to explore if sufficient sources can be found to clearly establish notability. There seems no issue other than notability on the table here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Article was created in 2011 [3] and deleted same day as a G11. A new article was created in March 2014 and reached this state in September 2014: [4] when it was nominated for deletion, but the template was removed: [5]. It continued to slowly develop until it reached this stage in 2017: [6] and was nominated for deletion again, but this time successfully. After no involvement for seven days it was relisted and got one delete support that the mentions in sources were non-trivial. On looking at the article, this source: MXMIndia gives in depth information on the subject. That source does not appear to be a media organisation owned by the subject, and has a named editorial staff: [7]. However, there was no challenge to the trivial mention claim, so the article was deleted Oct 2014 on the understanding that the subject was non-notable due to lack of coverage. It was recreated Nov 2014: [8], then tagged [9] and speedied as being substantially identical. But the new article contained this source: HuffPost which not not in the deleted version, and is pretty substantial. So, we come to the latest incarnation - this version [10] was created four days ago, and then speedied under A7, despite the credible claim of ownership of Itv Network (India), which our article says is: "a media group founded, owned and promoted by Kartikeya Sharma". So, yes, overturn all the deletions and restore this version [11], using some of the updated sources and information from this version: [12]. SilkTork (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse deletion of this version ('4399), allow recreation/draftify of this version ('9970) with new sources, e.g. from this version ('6089), per ST's explanation above, to which I'll add that '4399 didn't comply with BLP but '9970 appears to, and if you add the new sources e.g. from '6089, then it's no longer a G4 candidate. I disagree that owning a media company = WP:CCSI, as there are tens of thousands of media companies in the world with hundreds of thousands of owners. Being someone's son or brother is also not a CCSI. The '9970 version, I think, gets past A7, but not the '4399 (and I'm not sure about '6089, either). So, endorse that deletion but allow recreation of a policy-compliant article. By the way, we often call repeated recreation of an article "disruptive", but sometimes it's a sign that AfD !voters got it wrong, or just that no one has created the right version of the article yet, and I think this is one such example. – Levivich 07:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Weak endorse or draft low participation but was relisted once and this is not an incorrect reading. Lightburst (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 November 2019

Diamond Standard – Closed - the deleting admin has undeleted it and listed it at AfD, so there's nothing left to discuss here. WilyD 09:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC) WilyD 09:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Diamond Standard (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) With 19 references, including Bloomberg, Fox Business News, The Royal Gazette, and a notable founder, G11 was clearly inappropriate. Speedy Deletion was made despite a challenge. The nominator and the deleter are coordinating, to effect unilateral actions without debate. Nixie9✉ 00:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC) G11 has nothing to do with the number of sources. Did you discuss this with deleting user RHaworth? I don't see any discussions about this on their talk page apart from you requesting the text by email on November 4, which they said they provided. If this goes any further, I wouldn't mind a temp-undelete so I can review for myself. SportingFlyer T·C 04:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse and Salt. I haven't seen the deleted article, but the argument being given by the appellant is so completely arrogant and meaningless and unsound that I have to assume that the language in the deleted article was similar, and had very little actual content except puffery. I don't need a temp delete to be able to infer that the request is nonsense (and the deleted article may have also been nonsense). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC) I don't think the text quite qualified under G11. But I also doubt this has enough WP:CORPDEPTH to survive AfD. Haukur (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Comment I've temp undeleted it so people can review it WilyD 08:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 November 2019

Scott Disick – Allow new draft. The general consensus here is that if somebody thinks we should have an article about Disick, the way forward is to write a new draft from scratch, and run it through AfC for review. But, please, read the various past AfDs, understand what objections people had to the previous versions, and make sure you address those in the new draft. User:S Marshall raises the interesting point that the current redirect may be doing more harm that good, since it points to a target that's no longer appropriate, and prevents the search mechanism from doing a better job. That sounds reasonable, but there was no other discussion of that, so I'm taking no action on it. Feel free to open an RfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Scott Disick (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) See the talk page. I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, since the article has been discussed several times before, but I am not sure where to request a review. At this point there is no reason Scott Disick should not have his own page. He is quite notable, constantly reported on in pop culture, appears regularly on Keeping Up With the Kardashians and has for years (147 episodes), has his own clothing line, and currently has his own TV show on E! Network. Mukedits (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Yes, this is the right place to discuss unprotection of a redirect that replaced an article deleted at afd. Given that it was deleted at afd, though - three times after full discussions, and the last as a speedy - you're going to have to explicitly refute the arguments in those afds, with sources, to have a hope of getting it overturned. —Cryptic 02:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC) I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Disick (4th nomination) pretty clearly outlines the problems. I think the well-reasoning admin will want any version of this article to be created in draft space first. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Restore Easier to work with what's there now than to start from scratch. Just find two reliable sources that give him coverage, mention those as evidence of notability, and then add them to the article. Just look through that and click some things to read through to confirm. [13] Dream Focus 12:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Delete and SALT with Extended-Confirmed Protection in both article space and draft space. The community has already decided three times that he isn't even sufficiently famous for being famous to have his own article, and that he can be covered with his girlfriend, and the fourth nomination didn't even require a debate. Too much is too much. If he accomplishes anything new that isn't associated with KK, an experienced neutral editor can develop an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Robert McClenon it was already mentioned at the nom, he is starring in Flip It Like Disick, which is unrelated to Kardashians besides the guest appeareances, plus his new "Talentless" clothing brand which already turns up two WP:SIGCOV articles in reliable sources solely about him [14] [15]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Comment Some WP:SIGCOV coverage on OK! [16]. Seems he also had a short lived restaurant [17], appeared on the cover of Men's Health that has a profile of his (sadly full article only in print) [18] and recently on Sunday Tasmanian with some coverage [19], and apparently appeared on the cover of Heartland (novel series) as a teen. I think he overall has a solid claim to notability even without Kardashians around. The last AfD was 4 years ago, things have changed. I am also okay with drafting if needed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Pinging Drmies and Cryptic for comments. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC) I suggest that anybody who wants us to have an article on this comes up with a workable draft first. The most recently deleted version has the same content as Kourtney Kardashian#Personal life, there is no point in restoring it. The next most recently deleted version is five years old and mostly consists of trivia such as incorrect claims to be British royalty and an incident in which he killed and skinned an alligator. I suggest starting again and making sure to demonstrate notability through sources rather than just appearances on reality TV shows. Hut 8.5 20:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Thanks for the content reveal. Yeah, do not restore this as is. A perfect case of WP:TNT. A draft from scratch should be the best way to go here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC) I have to say that I don't think it's a good idea to just unprotect the redirect given the number of times this has been deleted at AfD and the fact that the major suggested sources are gossip magazines and tabloid newspapers. For a BLP like this we should be looking to get the article right and not just put up any old article on the grounds that it can be improved later. This isn't the right venue to decide whether to delete a redirect, especially one which was kept at RfD two years ago, and as I've noted the deleted versions have no value. Hut 8.5 07:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC) I don't think the deleted article should be restored given the length of time and continual AfD failures, but I don't see any problem with bringing a draft up to a point where it passes WP:GNG, probably at AfC. SportingFlyer T·C 02:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC) In light of the discussion below, given this article's history, I still think we'd be better off having this be accepted at AfC than boldly recreated and potentially subject to an AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 02:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Stop. We're in the process of reaching a poorly-thought-out decision here. Redirecting his name to Kourtney Kardashian#Personal life may have made sense in 2015 but it does not make sense now. They broke up in 2017, since when he's been frequently covered in the press, and yes, I do fully accept that these are low-quality articles in the show-biz sections of tabloids and gossip-mags, but, there are lots and lots of them. Profile in The Sun, recent article in The Metro, gossip in Cosmopolitan, gossip in Elle, gossip in Who. Yes, he's a person I consider deeply uninteresting and untalented. Yes, much of the coverage is banal and trivial in the extreme. But, clearly, writing about him still sells magazines so there's still ongoing interest in him despite his now-long-ago break-up with Miss Kardashian. Therefore his name's a plausible search term. So how on earth would it make sense to enforce a decision to redirect his name to that of a woman he stopped dating more than two years ago? Things that make you go hmm.—S Marshall T/C 18:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC) Allow Re-Creation - If his show has been accepted, and has his name on it, he is notable. There has been too much fancruft written about him by inexperienced editors, but if experienced editors like User:Jovanmilic97 and User:S Marshall are willing to review the article, it will be okay. I still like the idea of Extended-Confirmed protection, but am willing to compromise on the presence of Extended-Confirmed editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC) Delete the redirect, (let anyone looking for “Scott Disick” discover the quite good Wikipedia internal search engine that is intercepted by the redirect). He is highly associated with KK, in the past, and there are children, but WP:BLP! Many pages have mention of Scott Disick, the redirect is no longer appropriate, and the subject is not clearly Wikipedia-notable. Allow AfC draftspace drafting, but do not allow bold recreation in mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Allow Re-Creation There seems significant evidence that he is now notable quite apart from any connection with the Kardashians. I don't see the need to mandate going though a draft, although I would strongly advise any editor to create a draft first, and unless the editor is experienced, to seek review through AfC or from a willing experienced editor before moving to mainspace. Enough has apparently changed that the previous AfD result is no longer relevant. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Allow Re-Creation or restore if it is not worthy of a stand alone article, someone will nominate it for AfD. Lightburst (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Support for the prevailing consensus at DRV close per the rationale cited by S Marshall above. Doug Mehus T·C 19:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 November 2019

William Horne (composer) – Administrative close. Largely per WP:DENY, as the nom has been blocked as a confirmed sock. There's also wide (but not unanimous) agreement here that, despite not being explicitly noted as such, this was a reasonable WP:A7. No finding here about notability, so if somebody thinks the subject is notable, they're free to write a new article. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
William Horne (composer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) The article (and its talk page) was improperly deleted. There was no speedy deletion request. There was no discussion. Just a delete out if the blue (and into the red), as it were. The article had been created I believe a few weeks ago and was a stub being managed by WikiProject Classical Music Composers. It was obviously in need of expansion, but there were no tags that we know of (or that anyone had time to see) indicating a problem with the page that would lead to deletion. DragonflySixtyseven is the deleter and his stated reason for deletion was simply "notability not asserted". On asking the deleter to clarify, no adequate response was received. He wanted to argue about whether the BLP was notable or not, and he seemed to be trying to refer to examples in the article, but I could not personally address this subject as I could not see the article as it had been deleted. I basically said I could only address the lack of a forum to discuss any question of notability or anything else, and when I asked if there had been any discussion about notability and proposed deletion on the article's talk page, he didn't respond to the question. I take it this article was deleted with no warning, no discussion, and no proposed deletion, speedy or otherwise, and there certainly was not enough time for such discussion as the article had only recently been created. BarneyFiver (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Two thoughts: There's no requirement for somebody to tag an article {{db-a7}} before an administrator deletes it, though that's best practice. A referenced claim of being a professor is well above the A7 bar in my book. Overturn. I've tempundeleted. —Cryptic 01:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC) WP:ACADEMIC needs a lot more than "is a professor", cited to the professor's own page on the faculty website. I would say that 99% of all professors at all universities have their own page on their faculty website, and there's a reason we don't have articles on every single one of them. When I found that nearly-empty, practically-contentless page, which wasn't even a stub, I researched Prof. Horne, and found nothing. I thought about whether it would be wworth the hassle, considered the horrible precedent it sets to leave such an empty page up (dozens of people / month come on the -help channel and demand to know why their draft about a professor, cited entirely to the professor's own work, wasn't accepted), and then clicked 'delete'. The article made no assertions of notability. It still makes no assertion of notability. Can an assertion of notability be made, possibly, but none has. As for "didn't respond to the question", it's called "earning a living". As for "only recently created", it had been up for over a month and was still nothing. DS (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Comment: Re: you say you saw the page and clicked delete without a second thought because you say the article made no assertions of notability. You should have just said that on the talk page, or tagged it at the top of the article, or preferrably both. That way any editor could attempt to correct the defect. Deletion without discussion is just wrong in my book, and possibly an abuse of WP power. — BarneyFiver 04:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below I'm going to be generous and assume that you misread when you said that I deleted the article "without a second thought", and offer you the chance to redact that blatantly incorrect statement. DS (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Re: "It still makes no assertion of notability." It's only been undeleted for 24 minutes; give people a chance, will ya? Some of us are not full-time 24-hour editors, nor even daily editors, and quite possibly most editors don't care about this particular article. <preceding comment only slightly facetious> Re: your comment on "recently created", complaining that it's been a month. That IS recent. Look, you gotta give the editing community a chance to even see the page, let alone recognize that there are problems with it. That doesn't happen in a day or sometimes even a month... maybe a year! I've seen pages with tags that are over a decade old! These things take time; we need patience. The bottom line is: I recognize that the page has problems and needs to be worked on. Just be patient and someone from the WikiProject will eventually get to it. Putting tags on it, and hey even an alert on the WikiProject page, would help get it noticed. There are oodles of pages of to-do lists on this project of classical music and composer articles that need work, and many of the official participants on the list aren't even active. But summary deletion is not the answer to anything and is counter-productive. I'll tackle an update of this page when I have time, but I have to earn a living too :-) Actually, writing here and in talk pages complaining about the deletion has probably taken more time than it would to properly update the article; like I said: the deletion was counter-productive. BarneyFiver (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse deletion. WP:CSD#A7 applies to an article that "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." From what I can tell, the administrator who deleted the article feels that a simple statement of "X is a professor" and/or "X is a composer" without any additional qualification does not meet that basic standard, which seems to be within reasonable discretion per WP:SIGNIFICANCE (which, granted, is an essay, but does seem to suggest a community consensus on this). I also did a search for information on the subject of the article and found nothing that would show that WP:GNG is met. Unless such sources actually do exist (in which case it would be worthwhile to mention those here), undeleting this and then sending it to WP:AFD, where it would likely be deleted as a sub-stub that is based only a single primary source, seems like a fruitless exercise in bureaucracy. --Kinu t/c 03:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse deletion Clearly does not meet the notability guideline for academics. Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Comment: I should like to point out that with classical music articles, the WikiProject has a slightly different (read loser) set of notability guidelines WP:MUSIC than the general GNG. Mostly to do with the number of compositions the composer has composed. BarneyFiver (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Question for @Cryptic:: The talk page is still not undeleted. Was it ever created in the first place? If so, I'd like to read it. If not, someone should post a summary of the "notability" problems we've identified on it. BarneyFiver (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Full content was "{{WikiProject Biography |living=yes |listas=Horne, William |class=Stub |needs-photo=yes}} {{WikiProject Composers |class=Stub}}". —Cryptic 04:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse - a speedy deletion in the first hour or two without a chance to respond is kind of harsh. A month is plenty of time. If someone can make an version that plausibly meets N, let them userfy, otherwise ... unavoidable outcome. WilyD 06:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Comment: So I went to the page thinking I would start in and update it. I have some material on Horne, including a composition list, videos, albums (one of which I own and it has liner notes), and some journal articles on jstor, thinking I might as well make some time and expand the article, only to find it's locked and I can't edit it. You didn't solve the problem: there is no issue of notability, that isn't the subject here - the issue is one of due process in deleting an article. That was clearly violated, and I think I've made my point well. Even the blurb currently on the page says it was deleted after a discussion and consensus or it was speedily deleted. That statement is false, therefore the deletion is invalid. The page should be restored now. Questions of notability or questions of assertions of notability can be brought up in the proper manner on the page, according to WP rules, which were not followed in this case. BarneyFiver (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC) DS says "the article made no assertions of notability," so it was deleted via speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7. The relevant part of the header says "this page was deleted from Wikipedia because an administrator believed... that it met one or more conditions for speedy deletion," so saying that the statement is false is in itself false. If you think you have sources on which to build an article, then that's great. Perhaps it might be worth dropping the stick, clicking here, and doing something constructive. --Kinu t/c 06:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC) It was NOT deleted due to Speedy Deletion. The Speedy Deletion process requires a PROD notice be posted (with a reason, such as A7) and then the proposed deletion goes to AFD. This was not done. No notice, no warning, no AFD discussion, nothing. Just immediate deletion without second thought. I.E., no required due process, thus deletion violation of rules and invalid. BarneyFiver (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Incorrect. Speedy deletion does not require a PROD notice to be posted. That is the separate proposed deletion process. The purpose of {{db-a7}} or any other speedy deletion template is to inform an administrator that the page is a possible candidate for speedy deletion. An administrator does not need to go through the extra step of adding it prior to deleting the article. It is generally considered a courtesy to notify the article's creator about the impending deletion; the boilerplate text says to "please consider placing the template [about notification]... on the talk page of the author," but there is no policy indicating that it is required. --Kinu t/c 07:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC) That being said, would it have been ideal for DS to put "speedy delete, A7" instead of or in addition to "notability not asserted" as the logged deletion rationale? Perhaps. However, the comments made by DS above clearly indicate that the deletion was due to the lack of assertion of notability (which qualifies under A7), not a lack of notability itself (which would require a PROD or AFD to evaluate the sourcing), so I stand by my endorsement above and reiterate my suggestion that you work on a sourced draft either in the Draft namespace on in a user subpage. --Kinu t/c 08:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC) The nominator's been checkuser-blocked, and everyone else but me has endorsed. I still think this was an overreach for an A7, and most of the above are afd arguments and not speedy arguments, but it's not a hill I want to die on. No objection to this being closed. —Cryptic 12:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of Redwall characters – No Consensus, endorsed by default. Nose count is basically split down the middle, with both sides making reasonable arguments. The biggest question is whether WP:V applied, and whether it was appropriate for the closer to cite V even though it wasn't explicitly brought up by the discussants. On this, there was no clear agreement either way, so the original AfD close of delete is endorsed by default. There is some sentiment that WP:TNT might be a reasonable strategy going forward, so if somebody wants to try writing a new draft, with better sourcing, that's an available option. There was also some discussion about failure of the nom to engage with the AfD closer before coming here; yeah, they should have, but ultimately, that's not enough to toss out this DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of Redwall characters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Closer did not assess the consensus, used their own reasoning to decide the outcome (no-one had raised WP:V), incorrectly applied the rules (ignoring WP:NEXIST, decided to delete based on there only being one source in the article when other sources were discussed at the AFD), and decided to delete against the reasoned consensus to keep that existed on the AFD page at the point they deleted (7 keep !votes, 2 delete !votes). FOARP (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Can we get a temp undelete please? Deletion was based on current status (something I'm always leery of), so we need to be able to see what it looked like right before it was deleted. Hobit (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Closer's comment: This request should be dismissed because I was not previously contacted about these concerns, contrary to the instructions above. Sandstein 17:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC) The instructions say "Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer" - it's not mandatory and should not result in a direct close. FOARP (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse- no sources = no article. I remember seeing this one while it was up and it was heinous, though I can't remember now why I didn't !vote on the AfD. Maybe to avoid the badgering. Anyway, if a properly sourced and non crufty version can be written I'd have no objection to a re-creation, but per WP:TNT the old version shouldn't come back. Reyk YO! 20:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Oh yeah, this definitely should have been raised with Sandstein before bringing it here. Reyk YO! 20:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Close (or dismiss if you prefer). Please discuss this with Sandstein and accept what I take it is the offer to restore to draft in some form or other. I found the Google archive here. Thincat (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Comment - It appears that the appellant is saying that the closer forgot to count the votes, and instead decided to apply Wikipedia policy. Is that the issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC) No, I'm saying the closer should assess the consensus as to the outcome, not decide by themselves what the outcome should be independently of that consensus. Policy reasons had been raised to keep (particularly WP:LISTN based on new sources) and the policy reasons the closer used in their close weren't even raised in the AFD. FOARP (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Not true, both Fifthave and Barkeep49 pointed out that the article contained no sources. Reyk YO! 08:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Barkeep49 did not cast a !vote one way or another, and WP:NEXIST is very clear that the present state of referencing in the article is not the decider if other references could be found (and they were). The closer stated that "the "keep" arguments... do not address verifiability", but how was verifiability to be addressed if it was never raised by the nom or the delete votes? FOARP (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse Whatever happens with the discussion with Sandstein, the close seems to have properly applied policy. SportingFlyer T·C 01:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Per the comments below and above, I didn't think the closer mentioned WP:V because they were picking the side which discussed WP:V - but rather used WP:V to explain their deletion decision as to why the sourcing in the article and the sources presented were deficient. The sources presented were challenged, and much of the discussion didn't revolve around the sources, but the discussion that did revolve around source analysis were not favourable to keeping the article. Finally, while the final comment was not a clear !vote, I do not know how you can ignore that comment in the broader sense of the notability discussion on "but there wasn't a vote attached to it!" grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 12:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC) I don't know that it matters one way or the other, but I don't read that last !vote as an argument for deletion. You could ask the editor I suppose. But given they had a bolded word there and it wasn't "delete", I don't think their intent was to cast a !vote for deletion. I could easily be wrong. Hobit (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC) I read it as that coming from an administrator, they were not necessarily casting an opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted, but was rather commenting that they had tried to improve the article and could only find one RS. I don't think that's something that can be ignored because a vote wasn't technically cast given the nature of the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 13:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse-ish - there's no real discussion of the sources presented by FOARP, which leaves the discussion kinda empty. I wouldn't have been opposed to a relist for more discussion of them/time to add them. The argument that a large page can often be spun into sub-pages that semi-inherit the notability is correct, because people do try to read Wikipedia on their phones, it's easier for content, etc. But those pages still need to be backed up by sufficient sources to be verifiable. Looking at the sources, there is at least some material in them on the characters, and a new page, based on secondary sources, wouldn't be G4-able, so if one wants to undertake the task, ask for the history and do the work. An overturn to relist would accomplish the same outcome, so the former offer is probably better/easier. WilyD 06:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn The close did not reflect the AfD. Also, following their comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Races and creatures in His Dark Materials, I think the closer's judgment is too confused re our basic policies that they should be closing anything like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn and relist. Wheeling out WP:V in the close when it hasn't previously been mentioned in a reasonably sizeable discussion just feels to me like an "admin supervote". While I don't think Sandstein's point is entirely incorrect given the state of the sourcing in the article, a theoretical well-done version of this article is clearly at least verifiable to the books themselves, which has not previously been a particularly contentious point at least for bare plot summaries in article about fiction. Clearly there are notability issues and a comedic amount of cruft in this article, but I am definitely not comfortable with the close given how arguable that strict an application of WP:V to this kind of article is. Given it involved also deleting 60+ redirects to it from previous unnecessary character articles that have been merged, Sandstein's rationale to me seems better suited to a contribution to the discussion rather than a close, despite the way it was phrased. ~ mazca talk 11:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn <ec> the question for AfD is if the sources exist, not if they are in the article. A) The fact that the list is done on a by-book basis means that in fact the sources are given in the article (the books), just not in an ideal form (as formal references) and B) the sources given in the AfD aren't really contested (and some are quite good). Now if there was consensus that LISTN wasn't met, fine. And there was something approaching consensus that the article was in bad shape. But none of that justifies deletion. The WP:V argument just doesn't hold water when the sources are literally listed in each section of the article. Hobit (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Moreso, the WP:V argument was not made in the discussion and as such couldn't be discussed. This closure is litterally based on one person (the closer's) thoughts on the matter with no opportunity (until now) for anyone to dispute the (mistaken IMO) point. That would have been a fine (if easily disproved) argument in the discussion. It's a horrible basis for a close of that discussion. Hobit (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn Wikipedia:Verifiability is not in question here since the source material is obviously where the character list comes from, you could look at the credits of the animated TV series, or in the books themselves. Most notable fictional works have their character lists spun off from their main article if they get too long. This was a supervote obviously. Dream Focus 12:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC) It seems my contribution to this discussion has received a lot of attention - I'm sorry I decided I was too exhausted after closing a DRV below to finish reading this page last night. First let me be clear that when it comes to children's literature I am always acting in my capacity as an editor and have not and will not take administrative action in that subject area. So my participation in this discussion was that of an editor and not in anyway as a sysop. I came to this discussion after having spent some time at the Dark Materials AfD doing research. First I had hoped, given the concerns raised I could just SOFIXIT. While I could lop a quarter of the page away with ease the amount of time to actually fix it was far greater than what I was willing to do. I then wondered I could find enough sources to mount a strong affirmative defense of this article and only found 1 such source (some of FOARP's sources are great but not really GNG qualifiers for me). I left a comment because I wanted to share that source - perhaps someone else was going to be able to find other sources - but intentionally did abstained from !voting. I think the topic of Redwall Characters qualifies for notability as a list under WP:LISTN but I was unwilling to defend that incarnation of the topic from deletion. FWIW I was surprised by the WP:V close explanation since, as others have pointed out, the list was organized by book so a primary source was there to verify material. However, I didn't think he read the consensus wrong. In re-reading the discussion now it does strike me as closer to a super vote that should be overturned, but feel involved enough that I'm not going to formally bold that (especially because sometimes TNT is the best way to produce an encyclopedic treatment of a topic). I do wonder if this could have been worked out thoughtfully with Sandstein directly rather than having this contentious DRV. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Neutral as to whether to Overturn and either Relist or go to No Consensus. The appellant has raised the issue that the closer forgot to count the !votes and instead applied a policy, based on arguments contained in the Delete !votes. Sometimes the closer doesn't forget to count the !votes but gets the weird idea that this is not a vote. The appellant may also be trying to raise an argument that the closer is not neutral, and should have !voted to Delete rather than closing. Sometimes that is a valid appeal. They haven't made that argument, at least not at this time. The appellant may also be saying that the closer supervoted. A supervote is a close in which the closer goes against the count of !votes with which another editor disagrees. Yes, of course they disagree. It looks as if the closer has presented a valid policy-based argument for their close. The appellant may have a valid policy-based appeal; they haven't formulated it well enough to persuade. Maybe they will; maybe they won't. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn verifiability is a policy which the closer can reasonably bring up if it hasn't been mentioned in the discussion, as it's a core content policy. However even if we discount the books themselves as sources (on the grounds that they aren't independent) then FOARP did point to some which could be used to verify some of the article's contents, so I don't think it's reasonable for the closer to delete the article on verifiability grounds. I suggest we move it to draft space for improvement, since lacking any citations to reliable sources is a serious problem, most keep !voters thought the list needed major surgery and at 200 KB it's clearly far too big. Hut 8.5 20:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse the perfectly valid call of a Rough Consensus to delete. Failed WP:V, and surely WP:LISTN, with many counter-claiming without evidence to contradict the “delete” !voters. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC) How are the books not sources for the characters in them? It's primary sourcing, doesn't use a real referencing format, and doesn't begin to address notability but it genuinely confuses me on how we can say that it lacks verifiablity. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Sources for the characters, or sources for the character lists? LISTN is about the list, but much more forceful is WP:NOTPLOT, which says the sources must be independent, which means the works of fiction themselves can’t be used. That’s a can’t with a capital C, not as evidence of notability, not as justification for inclusion of the data. For more on use of the work of fiction itself and then use for plot there are is a lot to read in the archives of WT:NOT. The AfD discussion included plenty of source criticism, and plenty of blithe responses. How are the books not sources for the characters in them? suggests an unawareness of WP:NOTPLOT. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC) I don't think your use of NOTPLOT is correct, and if it is we have a good many featured articles in need of change (e.g. book film which use the source material as reference for plot) but I do appreciate the response. As I indicated above I have no great truck for this particular piece of content and will weep no tears if it is once again deleted. I just don't think there's a WP:V argument to be made to do it- but do appreciate the perspective of one, like you, who does. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC) SmokeyJoe, Could you distinguish WP:V from WP:N? As I've always understood it, something that can be verified from the sources is, well, verifiable. That's not enough to meet our inclusion guidelines of course. But that's WP:N's role. I don't think there is any doubt that the article's contents can be verified by using the sources in the article. Hobit (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Well, as I recall just off the top of my head, NOTPLOT is about the ratio, 10-20% of an article being plot based on the work itself is ok to most, but more than that, no. 100%, absolutely not, and indeed, anything composed 100% of material from the work of fiction is immediately a derivative work and thus a copyright infringement. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC) I fully get the NOTPLOT argument, but that wasn't what the close was based on. Are you endorsing the result but not the argument made for that close? Something else? Sorry if it's obvious, I may just be too tired. Hobit (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC) I guess that is why the communication failure. Some consider the works of fiction themselves to satisfy WP:V. However, others without explicitly saying so ignored them as failing WP:NOR and WP:NOTPLOT. People often go vague on these things when the real reason is notability. The list is not a notable list, and the works of fiction fail the GNG due to not being independent, at least; and the list fails as a navigational assist, WP:CLN, as it was not a list of bluelinks. I believe the closer read through the confused verbiage, and was it admin discretion to call the rough consensus (where the consensus would be if the discussion were allowed to continue lengthily), or was is a Supervote? I think it was not a supervote, but I think the the works of fiction themselves are always automatically excluded as sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Is there a part of NOTPLOT or something else that says that works of fiction themselves are always automatically excluded as sources? I know we use things like that as sources regularly, I'm wondering if that's officially a no no. Hobit (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Well, that’s not true. It’s about balance. WP:PSTS says that you can’t use all primary sources. WP:PLOT, in “put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources” is saying that an article can’t be simply all plot. It’s not really about WP:V, but it would be much easier if we used WP:A. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to answer all that. I don't think I agree with you here, but I do get where you are coming from now. 23:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Relist. Closer was wrong to cite WP:V. I agree it should be deleted, failing LISTN. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse or Endorse-ish per SportingFlyer and WilyD, respectively, above. Consensus was clearly in favour of "keep" and there were valid policy arguments for that, so, since consensus can change at any time, including in the next hour, it was a proper close. FOARP is always welcome to use WP:REFUND to undelete it to his or her userspace or have the text of the list e-mailed to him to clean up, for which there also seemed to be emerging consensus to doing. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Sorry Doug but I'm confused by your comment. You're saying that consensus was to keep, based on valid policy, but that it changed? But the last vote was a keep vote - so where did the consensus change? Or are you saying that the closer changed the consensus? If so that's not the closer's role. Again my apologies if I'm being bone-headed here. FOARP (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC) FOARP, no need to apologize. I can see where my comment was confusing. What I meant was, I think it was a valid close because there were valid arguments—whether on policy, evidence, precedent, or common sense, or some combination thereof—and from my reading, it seemed like the "keep" camp had the stronger case. What I meant about WP:CCC was that this is just a point in time consensus, so you or anyone is welcome to undelete the page, draftify it, move it to userspace, or what have you, and re-move it to the article space. Deletions should not be prejudicial to re-creation, and I feel that often times they are. Granted, sometimes with obvious non-notable company spam, it's necessary to shake a blunt instrument at them the second time. Hope that clarifies. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse and draftify for anyone who has easy access to the Redwall books. ミラP 02:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse per WilyD's reasoning. Sourcing for the entire list as a group was marginal at best; the close was NOTAVOTE in action. – Levivich 07:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Overturn. I understand the reasoning being the closer's argument: it spins on the "challenged" part of WP:V, which allows that once challenged, if not appropriately sourced, material can be removed, and so, by the closer's rationale, the whole list article can be deleted if there is no appropriate inline souring. Though the list is verifiable, and sources were provided in the discussion to prove such verifiability, the list in itself can be removed because it was challenged and the sources were not appropriately placed in the list article. However, here we are not talking about removing material from an article or list article, but about deleting the entire article. Deletion of an entire article is more than removal of material from an article, and the Wikipedia:Deletion policy applies. I'm not seeing the closer's rationale as one of the reasons in WP:DEL-REASON. The closest is 7: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed", though that doesn't apply as the attempts did not fail. Reliable sources were found and listed in the AfD. We also have, WP:ATD which says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." It is accepted that if it can be demonstrated that an article can be improved, we do not delete it. The weakness in this list article was the lack of inline cites to reliable sources. As it was demonstrated in the AfD that such sources exist, and so the list article could be improved, then deletion was not appropriate. In order for the closer to rely on WP:V to delete the list article, then there needs to be wording in WP:V which allows such deletion. There is not. The wording is "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." At its most extreme that would mean removing all the material, but leaving the article in place so it can continue to be edited. SilkTork (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 November 2019

Alleged harm done by vaccine critics' successes – Overturn and reopen. There is a detailed discussion here about whether WP:NOTBURO and WP:SNOW would apply but not only is it trending towards them not applying, there is apparenly a potential copyright issue that also needs to be addressed. On the other hand, involvedness concerns have not gained much discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Alleged harm done by vaccine critics' successes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I am looking for an overturn and relisting of JzG's closure of the aforementioned redirect. Geolodus and I expressed several concerns about the closure at User talk:JzG. The discussion was only open for a little over an hour, which is not enough time for interested parties to participate in the discussion, nor was it an obvious result per WP:SNOW at that time. JzG's response to my query was also concerning, because it shows that his closure was not a reading of consensus, but was based on his personal opinions on the redirect. Any further attempt at discussion was shot down as a "waste of time", so here we are. -- Tavix (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Question: I'm surprised to see JzG participate in RfDs and AfDs as I hadn't seen his name as a closing administrator, but he, I, and other admins and editors are currently engaged in multiple RfCs right now over at WP:BLPN and Talk:Sharyl Attkisson, so question for S Marshall or WilyD, can we overturn a closure per WP:INVOLVED—that is, wouldn't this kind of be a fuzzy/grey area of what constitutes involvement?--Doug Mehus T·C 17:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC) If he was involved, then yes, that could potentially be grounds for a summary overturn. Not only must our decisions be right, they must be seen to be right.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC) S Marshall Now that administrator Tavix has undeleted, temporarily, this redirect, we can see that Harm done by anti-vaccinationists successes was moved to Anti-vaccinationists/Harm done by successes and, at some point, this redirect became a shortcut redirect; however, I note none of those two longer redirects were summarily deleted (because they're not as neutral)? --Doug Mehus T·C 18:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC) But I'm uninvolved, I have never seen that page before, so that's OK. But I do love the way that people with bees in their bonnets can waste prodigious amounts of time arguing over the obvious - or even, in some cases, stubbornly insisting on the retention of utterly useless content. Guy (help!) 17:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Given it was open for less than two hours, and no speedy deletion criterion was invoked (nor do any appear to apply), I think it's easy to argue for a re-open. WilyD 17:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC) That said, I suspect what S Marshall is getting at is right, and this is unlikely to survive an MfD. Normally, that'd make me reluctant to bother, unless someone was really keen to argue for it, but the closing admin's apparent inability to maintain a veneer of impartiality isn't great for creating a collegial environment. WilyD 17:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn and Re-open on the grounds that the debate was short-circuited. As I understand it from Trialpears, one !vote does not constitute the snow clause. The RfD was not closed as "speedy delete" and no rationale was even given as to why this debate was not allowed to run the full seven days. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC) That's a remarkably unlikely search term, in my view. Whyever would we need a redirect from that?—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC) S Marshall, I agree it's a bit long and the punctuation mark following critics doesn't help, but still, I see no reason to short-circuit the debate. Tavix' rationale for overturning is sound and the discussion at User talk:JzG and elsewhere is somewhat concerning. So, maybe, call it a "protest overturn." Doug Mehus T·C 17:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Sorry for being pedantic, but ' is an apostrophe, not a punctuation mark. Thus, "vaccine critics' successes" means "the successes of vaccine critics" and is perfectly correct. Geolodus (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Geolodus No worries. For clarity, I wasn't arguing it wasn't a legitimate use of the apostrophe, but was just trying to say that as a potential search term someone might enter for the purposes of the redirect's potential legitimacy, often people ignore punctuation marks (including apostrophes) when searching as Google is often agnostic to them. That's all I was meaning, but yes, for article titling purposes, it's definitely legitimate to have an apostrophe there—including if this redirect were to result in "keep." When this DRV is re-opened, I will be arguing for "temporary keep" until an administrator (preferably two) have completed and/or corrected the history merge, as I think that seems prudent given the administrative SNAFU that occurred. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Got it. Most of that wasn't clear from what you originally wrote. Geolodus (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC) S Marshall See below. It's left over from cleaning up a very small and unloved POV fork. It's never been used as a redirect for the same reason it was never used as an article. Guy (help!) 17:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Were we keeping the redirect to preserve attribution from an old merge, or something? I'm desperately casting around to see if I can detect the faintest whiff of the slightest hint of a reason why we would resurrect this redirect.—S Marshall T/C 17:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC) I've temporarily undeleted the page in question so you can see the history. -- Tavix (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC) S Marshall, I looked up the old page JzG mentioned, Anti-vaccinationists/Harm done by successes, which, interestingly, is still a redirect and remains yet it is less neutrally worded than this longer, more neutral redirect, so that's a bit troubling to me.--Doug Mehus T·C 17:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC) No, wait, I do clearly see the case for restoring now. I suspect that deleting this redirect could create a TOU issue. This edit by Midgley introduces the "Holland: Measles 1999-2000" section which now appears in Vaccine hesitancy, but wasn't in that article at that time. Looks like there could have been an unattributed merge.—S Marshall T/C 18:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC) S Marshall Ah, that makes sense then, so that's why we kept those other two long redirects, for attribution. Good eye! We need you at RfD as no one ever brings up attribution for keeping redirects! --Doug Mehus T·C 18:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC) You clearly haven't been at RfD long enough... -- Tavix (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Nice catch by both of you to find the other redirects and potential WP:MAD issue. These are a couple more examples of why RfD discussions should be open long enough for others to review the situation in question. By finding the other similar redirects, they can be added to the discussion and be deleted at the same time should that be the consensus. By finding the potential WP:MAD issue, the RfD discussion can also be used to discuss which option (if any) from Wikipedia:Merge and delete#What can 'merge and delete' look like? we want to use. -- Tavix (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Tavix Assuming this deletion review is overturned, as seems likely, I think we have a strong case now for keeping all of these redirects, unless there's a way to manually merge the revision history into a single page? --Doug Mehus T·C 18:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Please review Wikipedia:Merge and delete#What can 'merge and delete' look like? and WP:HISTMERGE. Also, please stop thanking me every time I reply, it's getting annoying. -- Tavix (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Tavix Okay, thanks. I'd wondered about history merges, but hadn't looked into it yet. Sorry about the "thanks," but I generally think people like getting them like they like pats on the back. One per discussion might be enough, though. Know that if I don't 'thank' you, I thank you. (Disclosure: I'm Canadian after all.) --Doug Mehus T·C 18:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Titanic waste of time. As I explained on my Talk page, the deleted history establishes unambiguously that it started as a short POV fork called "Anti-vaccinationists/Harm done by successes", was moved to "Harm done by anti-vaccinationists successes", moved again to "Alleged harm done by vaccine critics' successes", and converted to a redirect to anti-vaccinationist in 2006. I'm unable to find any evidence it was ever used, and it's unlikely ever to be used because we now have a completely different hierarchy of articles on this topic area. Basically it's left over from a POV fork that never got beyond a stub. You've already expended more time here than it was worth. At its peak it was less than 4000 characters including templates, and most of it was unsourced opinion or blatant OR. Resurrecting the discussion is a fabulous waste of time. More effort has already been expended by the OP than this page has ever justified in its entire life here. It was never used, it will never be used, it is a waste of space. Guy (help!) 17:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC) JzG I agree with you that this redirect is an implausible redirect, but why not include a closing rationale and call it a "speedy delete" on that basis? This likely would've saved the need for deletion review. That said, I do see plausibility for a more concise redirect in the future. Doug Mehus T·C 17:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I used the closest thing on the AfD closer script to implement the obvious result and save someone some time. How stupid of me to want to reduce wasted time and not realise that wasting time is always justified if you do the obvious thing without bringing the correct shrubbery. Do not ping me again in this discussion, please, because it has already wasted more of my life than it is worth. Guy (help!) 17:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC) I gave you ample opportunity to do the right thing and reopen the discussion once your 'stupid' action was pointed out. All you had to do was say "okay" and you wouldn't have been bothered any more and this time would have been saved. I'm not sure how you don't realize that given how concerned you are about "wasting time". -- Tavix (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC) I have a personal anecdote to share, slightly off-topic but still related, I recently closed as "keep" a long outstanding discussion at Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Painting, but re-opened it upon request from BrownHairedGirl, who had been in the midst of composing a long, detailed evidence of why, in her view, the portal constituted unmaintained "portal spam" (to use her words). Sure, my close may have survived deletion review, but it may not and would've been a procedural diversion to re-opening the debate—just as this is now. So, unfortunately, what could've been closed as deleted in 7 days will now take at least twice that time! --Doug Mehus T·C 18:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn and relist. As a redirect, it's pointless and WP:POV, but it's been around for 13 years, so clearly not doing any immediate harm. Let the RfD continue to its inevitable conclusion. All of the above about why this is a waste of time is true, but none of that fits any of the WP:CSD, so just let the discussion run its course. The problem with most attempts to shortcut process as a time-saving measure is that they end up at DRV which is a net increase in time-wasting. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC) RoySmith Completely agree. Closing this early, on the same day on which it was initiated, has ended up causing more time to be spent. Do we have a speedy overturn so we don't have to spend 7 days on this? Doug Mehus T·C 17:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC) I would certainly be in favor of that, even more so now after reading JzG's subsequent comments. -- Tavix (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Generally, things are only speedily overturnt if the closing admin agrees to it. WilyD 18:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Keep deleted, stupendous waste of time. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC). @Bishonen: I don't think that's a fair assessment given S Marshall's findings. -- Tavix (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Well, given that this debate does smack a bit of a wintry flurry, one option is to whack a list of contributors onto the target article talk page and then snow endorse?—S Marshall T/C 18:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC) S Marshall But, procedurally, there an overturn decision at deletion review might give the closing administrator pause for thought for future decisions; hence why I favoured a speedy overturn decision, per WP:IAR, and let this debate be had—with links to this discussion—at RfD where it should've been had. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn and trout the deleting admin. A speedy deletion done without a justification, that doesn't meet any speedy deletion criterion and with multiple good faith objections to the speedy deletion from uninvolved editors? Even without considering the merits of the objections you don't get much clearer examples of incorrect speedy deletions than that. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC) This !vote probably won't surprise anyone, but overturn and reopen for the reasons I have given at JzG's user talk. Geolodus (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Re-open - at least, appears to be needed for copyright reasons. And while I'm not usually one to suggest Caesar's wife needs to be above suspicion, she really needs to not tweet that she deleting redirects as a favour to the Ukrainian Cabal to get them to announce they've launched an investigation into Wakedrew Anfield's Casino funding. WilyD 20:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC) What? Geolodus (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Eh? As S Marshall notes, there's a possible copyright problem here, so there needs to be a discussion. And being a functioning encyclopaedia building community means we can't endorse admins being openly contemptuous of both the community and the policies (though the latter of course flows from the former). WilyD 20:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Props to WilyD for his edit summary related to his above !vote, which was both concise and full of dry humour, "overturn - possibly for copyright, possibly just because we need to maintain at least the pretense admins are serving the encyclopaedia and community."Doug Mehus T·C 21:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Obvious overturn per Thryduulf. I love NOTBURO as much as the next guy, but if you're going to be BOLD, you need to be prepared for some give and take. There are probably redirects that could've had such a close and no one would complain. But if you get this sort of pushback, you can't be too proud to take a step back. One editor seeing something as a waste of time is not at all a good reason for an XfD close in the first 24 hours! Just let it run its course. Much sillier redirects have been kept, though I suspect this one will not be. --BDD (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Re-open per both procedural error and additional information revealed in this discussion. The discussion wasn't listed for the usual 7 days and there were no reason to close it early since none of the CSD criteria or the WP:SNOW clause apply. The copyright issues uncovered are also grounds to re-open it- ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn and re-open to allow a full 7-day discussion. As described above, this was not a case of WP:SNOW, and were there other extenuating circumstances allowing for such quick deletion (no applicable CSDs nor anything else). Furthermore, the fact that this is an {{R with history}} should make it anything but a quick closure (notwithstanding any CSDs), as the page's (former) contents and necessary attribution go beyond what is discussed in many RfDs. There's plenty to discuss, so there should be time for interested users to do so at RfD. ComplexRational (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC) ComplexRational Agree completely. If anything, this deletion review thread, I think, makes the case for a temporary keep at the eventual re-opened RfD thread, at least until we can do a proper history merge for all the redirects (at least three, by my rough count), have an administrator review the prior diffs—hiding visibility for any copyvios, and transferring over any diffs which contributed to the current Vaccine hesitancy article for attribution purposes (the articles were created when Wikimedia was still using the GFDL license instead of the current CC-BY-SA license, it looks like). We'll definitely need one or more administrators to oversee that a proper history merge has been done before re-deleting these redirects. In fact, I'd actually even go far as to recommend not re-nominating this redirect post-close of this deletion review, and would nominate Tavix to be the new RfD nominator once the history merges have been completed. Doug Mehus T·C 00:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Comment JzG is still not backing down. Before archiving the thread on his talk page, he just rebutted: the proper action is to delete the shitty useless thing, which I did. Now goodbye. This doesn't instill much confidence that he did the right thing—rather he's digging an even bigger hole. -- Tavix (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC) It also raises questions about his willingness to abide by the WP:ADMINACCT policy. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Gentlemen, DRV is a venue about content rather than conduct. We don't throw brickbats at closers. In extreme circumstances we've been known to administer a gentle piscine caress, but that's as far as it goes. I do think it's important that closers don't find DRV a hostile place. If you'd like to discuss a user's trustworthiness then there are places you can do that.—S Marshall T/C 01:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse deletion - as who is going to type all of this in? I would support renaming this to something more plausible such as Alleged harm done by vaccines or Vaccine debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Knowledgekid87, thanks for sharing your thoughts, but, unfortunately, that's not the debate we're having as the closing RfD administrator prematurely short-circuited the debate at RfD. So, now we have to have a 7 day debate on whether to re-open or overturn the RfD close on both procedural and additional grounds. At that point, this debate, and the additional evidence it provides, would then go back to RfD where we can debate renaming, deletion, and the like. I agree with you it should be deleted, but not without correcting the history merge so attribution can be preserved at Vaccine hesitancy. At that point, the redirects (we've uncovered several) could then be summarily deleted, as I think there'd be a substantial consensus to doing so. But not before this procedural diversion is out of the way. Doug Mehus T·C 02:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Also note that Alleged harm done by vaccines is the opposite of what the deleted redirect expressed. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC) BDD Ah, good point. I missed that. Looks like the pro-vaccine/anti-vaccine camps were setting up dueling redirects to the same article at some point, perhaps? I agree with the point you made above that sillier redirects have been kept than these, though I see no point in keeping them beyond, say, a 3-6 month temporary timeframe to correct an incorrectly done history merge. Overlooked a bit in the procedural short-circuiting of the RfD by JzG was his personal biases in the vaccine debate as a staunch opponent of the anti-vaccination debate and his currently involvement in an active RfC he'd initiated at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson. I find that just as troubling and, potentially, an abuse of administrative privileges. --Doug Mehus T·C 15:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Comment - The redirect was stupid, but the close without a speedy rationale and without a snowball close was disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Weak Overturn because this really was a procedurally flawed close. Yuck. The closer was in good faith trying to get rid of something stupid, but just made it worse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn and relist purely for optics reasons - I agree with the result and the waste of time justifications, but ultimately S Marshall's reasoning is most persuasive to me. SportingFlyer T·C 06:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Strong overturn I have no view on whether the redirect should or should not eventually be kept. Deletion discussions are supposed to run for a minimum time, except in specific limited circumstances, which did not apply here. This close and the refusal to reopen amount to a supervote. Discussions are supposed to run for a while so that a more representative selection of editors than the most frequent regulars have a chance to weigh in on the discussion. No great time or resources are wasted by letting a discussion stay open. No one is required to spend time monitoring every edit to it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 10:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Obvious overturn. Closure within an hour and a half of opening (with discussions generally required to be open for at least seven days), with neither SNOW nor CSD applicable, appearance of involvement. – Uanfala (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC) overturn speedy based solely on the lack of speedy/snow justification. There may be other reasons to overturn, but that's all I need, so I didn't look closely at the copyright arguments or involved argument (which seems weak?) Hobit (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Closing a contentious discussion early to avoid wasting time never, ever, ever works; and while it may not have been obvious this would be contentious when it was deleted, it sure is now. The best way to stop wasting everyone's time, as the deleting admin claims he desires, is for him to reverse himself so we can close this discussion and go delete the redirect after its seven days of fame at RFD (or archive it in talkspace or whatever if we really need its history for attribution). —Cryptic 02:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Comment: This deletion review it seems to me, ironically, is a functional example of the WP:SNOW clause. I initially favoured speedy overturn so we could send this back to RfD swiftly, but am now favouring letting this run for 7 days for added emphasis to the deleting administrator of exactly why we don't short-circuit the process. Or, at the very least, as BDD said above, if one is going to be bold, if challenged, be prepared to re-open the discussion so as to avoid these procedural diversions. Doug Mehus T·C 02:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC) DRVs usually don't get closed early unless everyone - closer/deleter, nominator, commenters - is all in agreement, perhaps not as to whether a page should ultimately remain deleted, but at least whether to remand discussion elsewhere. That's not to chastise the deleting admin - there's other places for that, and DRV is an explicitly drama-free zone - it's because the buck stops here. Something only gets to DRV when the process has already failed, and DRVs themselves just about never get overturned, or reconsidered in the short term, or such; so it's important that we get things done here right. —Cryptic 02:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Relist Lightburst (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Reply to Lightburst, for clarity, you mean overturn and relist as some others !voting in the same way, and not that this DRV should be relisted, correct? --Doug Mehus T·C 15:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Yes, my opinion is it was closed before discussion could take place. We do things by consensus here unless there is an overriding concern like BLP or the like. Lightburst (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Lightburst Thanks, that's what I thought you meant, but since you just said relist without any rationale beside it, I thought it would be useful to clarify what you meant on the record for the closing admin determining consensus. (I will be eager to read the closer's rationale when this closes, and whether a trout will be served!) Doug Mehus T·C 16:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC) I'd like it undeleted, and I'd like people making comments on it to read the history of changes to it. The procedure looks flawed to me - I'm one person with a clear interest, and I'm not on here every day, I suspect neither are several other relevant editors. In the few comments prior to the precipitate delete is a grumble about the title, and another about it being an unlikely search term. The title was changed from a marginally more sensible one to the current one, by an anti-vaccinationist editor, and I would agree, the effect is to make it less easy for a search engine to point readers at what they are looking for. A reasonable response to that, I submit, is to change the title. Why do anything else? The simple term "anti-vaccinationist(s)" is easily understood, searchable, and not awkward. They've existed a bit longer than vaccination (as anti-inoculators) and currently try to hide as "sceptics" or talk about "doubt". The topic is current - again - with significant failures of public health, and deaths, from incomplete immunisation. There is evidence that the most potent factor in this is failure to provide convenient facilities and services, and that the strange loose coalition of weird people who want it have a lot less success than they think, but I don't doubt they reduce effect and cost and alter lives. Lets by all means move these articles and sub-articles around, but I suggest that with a well-organised structure to immunisation articles, and with a significant number of people who have knowledge and interest in the field, it is a really stupid idea to rapidly delete them without involving relevant editors in the discussion. Again, my impression of Wiki is that when someone notices a fault, they are entirely at liberty to take a step in improving it, in their own words, or by asking an editor in the relevant group to look at it. Lastly, there have been sufficient editors with bees in their bonnets messing up immunisation articles that it is sensible to look at the record of any administrator who makes a precipitate decision on one - please. Midgley (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn WP:RFD states that "Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed" and so this was a violation of policy. Andrew D. (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Keep deleted although it's clear consensus is moving against that. I think we've lost our marbles. There's no earthly reason to keep this.--WaltCip (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC) WaltCip, no, actually, we hadn't "lost our marbles," as you put it. Did you read what Tavix, Thryduulf, ComplexRational, and S Marshall wrote above? The content of the deleted redirect was part of a merger, without the proper attribution being consolidated on a talkpage. That needed to happen before the redirect was deleted. When the RfD is re-opened post-close of this procedural diversion, I will be arguing temporary keep to have that history merge take place before we delete it. Speaking of which, on the matter of trouting the deleting admin, Thryduulf, when this closes, would you like to do the honours? I have no doubt you will craft a well written message that is both serious and humourous to go along with the trouting. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC) @Dmehus: A trout would not be appropriate now. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Comment I greatly apologize, as I had no idea my nominating of this redirect at RFD would cause such a debate. I was quite surprised to find it had been deleted in such a short manner, as I too had thought it was a 7 day minimum from having read the policies on nominating pages or redirects for deletion. I feel bad for having started a firestorm of a debate here. Aspenkiddo (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC) @Aspenkiddo: Rather, we should be thanking you for bringing this redirect to our attention! There is no need to apologize, the blame for the situation we find ourselves in rests entirely on JzG's shoulders. -- Tavix (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC) @Aspenkiddo: I concur with that Tavix said entirely. Thank you for bringing this to the community's attention. If anything, this discussion at DRV may shorten the discussion needed when the RfD is re-opened (likely tomorrow or Thursday)—despite it snowing in here, it is probably not best to short-circuit this debate when the debate is about the previous discussion being short-circuited. Doug Mehus T·C 20:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Yeah, just to reiterate, everything you did here was appropriate and proper. WilyD 11:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ernesto Alciati – Endorse. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ernesto Alciati (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) During this debate, the keep side argued that because a specific notability guideline ("SNG") was met, offline sources must exist. However, no such sources were provided. The closer said in his closing statement that he felt the delete side had won the debate on policy grounds but there wasn't consensus to delete. Personally, I disagree; I feel that when you set aside the headcount and weigh the arguments, we're looking at a slam dunk "delete". —S Marshall T/C 12:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse The subject competed at the Olympics, therefore meeting the notability requirements. Just because sources were not immediately provided prior to or after closure does not equate to delete. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn to Re-open per nom. The closer noted, or alluded, in their own rationale the relative strength of the delete arguments and to the WP:VAGUEWAVES and misunderstanding by the "keep" camp that SNGs are an additional requirement and does not replace WP:GNG. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Question Does Deletion Review have the power to order a new decision (i.e., delete), or just restart the AfD? --Doug Mehus T·C 14:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC) DRV can re-close a discussion correctly if it's concluded it was wrongly closed. It can't really consider new arguments or evidence, except sort of as a preemptory avoidance of a G4 deletion of a new page. WilyD 14:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Thanks, WilyD. That's more or less what I was thinking. I'm just wondering what happens when a decision is overturned, does the AfD get re-opened, does a second nomination get restarted, or would, in some cases, the deletion review decide in favour of the opposing argument (if one is clear)?Doug Mehus T·C 14:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Both re-opening the discussion, and re-closing the discussion with a different outcome, are possible outcomes of this discussion. So you could argue Re-open or Overturn to merge as a !vote (or, I suppose, Overturn to delete, but that's such a comically wrong position you shouldn't seriously entertain it). WilyD 14:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Meh Endorse - really, it's a lot of words wasted over something incredibly unimportant (and yet - here come more!). WP:N is quite vague about how much sources are needed to meet it, really. It's decided largely by common practice, which is where the sub guidelines come in (I don't particularly like them, but they're equally as guideliney). To quote WP:N ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." - well, that is the case here, so whether or not the sources are really "enough" is a subjective judgement that reasonable people could (and did!) disagree about. In those kinds of cases, without a strong balance of headcount, no consensus is correct. It's a no consensus, open a merge/redirect discussion, don't come complaining to DRV. WilyD 14:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC) WilyD Agree the WP:GNG is too vague for biographies, so I tend to apply WP:CORPDEPTH to people. Obviously, people don't merge (though they do marry sometimes), but that's nonetheless trivial coverage which doesn't qualify to me. I think we need a WP:BIODEPTH component.Doug Mehus T·C 14:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Well, there are specific guidelines for sports people. There's some gripping in the discussion about scientists being less notable than athletes ... but we are. I wouldn't be fussed if he got redirected/merged to the olympic race ... but okay, we know where and when he was born, when he died, his best marathon time (perhaps a bit interesting, knowing he didn't finish in the olympics), so I'm not fussed if he has a bio either. Like, seriously, there are better things to do than worry over it. Go home, have a glass of Ardbeg 10 and watch an episode of Workin' Moms, it's a better use of your time than worrying about exactly how this content is organised. I would, but I've got code compiling ... WilyD 15:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse there's no way you can close that as Delete unless you think "meets this SNG" (with evidence) is such a weak argument it needs downweighting substantially, and I don't agree with that. Yes, article subjects are required to meet the GNG, but meeting the GNG is a property of the article subject, not what editors have dug up about it. It isn't possible to show definitively that a subject doesn't meet the GNG, the most you can say is that you tried and failed. And trying usually means that a monoglot English speaker Googled it and read what came up. For many subjects this misses the most likely locations of sources. If a subject does demonstrably meet some SNG then it's reasonable to hold that this creates at least the rebuttable presumption that sources exist. The subject here is an Italian athlete active in the 1920s, I can absolutely believe that the best potential sources aren't on the internet, and I don't see any evidence that anyone tried to search Italian newspaper archives or anything like that. Given this and the fact that opinion was pretty evenly split I think no consensus is the best outcome. I wouldn't be opposed to revising the SNG to say that merely taking part in the Olympics doesn't indicate notability in itself (11,238 athletes competed in the last Olympics), but that's a separate conversation. Hut 8.5 19:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Hut 8.5 But, as I understand it notability is not not inherited. Thus, we have to prove such sources exist to meet WP:GNG, so I see a crucial flaw in that argument. There's nothing in this stub article (to the extent it's that) worth preserving attribution. Let someone local, with access to local sources, try again later. Given the stronger "delete" case, I actually think the closer could've survived WP:DRV had he or she closed as draftify/userfy. Doug Mehus T·C 19:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure what point you're making there. NOTINHERITED is an essay which says you can't be notable just by being associated with something famous, e.g. the spouse of someone famous doesn't automatically become notable. That doesn't really have anything to do with this situation at all. From WP:N: Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article... If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. SNGs are supposed to indicate when sources are likely to exist, e.g. WP:BIO: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. This doesn't mean that any old topic can be kept at AfD just because sources might exist, because you have to show that sources are likely to exist, e.g. by proving the subject passes an SNG. Hut 8.5 20:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC) If that was how it worked, then wouldn't passing a SNG be an automatic keep at AfD irrespective of whether sources are found? How does that interact with WP:BURDEN?—S Marshall T/C 20:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC) WP:BURDEN is in relation to WP:V, not WP:N, and the question here is WP:N, as WP:V is met with the current sources. There are some who believe SNG is an automatic keep, and there are those who feel SNG's have no purpose, in this case if it were an American Olympic athlete from 2010 the !voting might be different. Some SNGs (WP:PROF) are indeed more lenient, intentionally so, than GNG, some (WP:NCORP) are intentionally more stringent (we're sick of spam), but most are meant, not to replace, but to support GNG in order help gauge the likelihood of existing (as opposed to readily available) sources. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC) The part of WP:BURDEN that I'd like to draw your attention to is where it says that material that's been challenged, or is likely to be challenged, must be supported an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports what's being said or it can be summarily removed. That AfD was full of people who wanted to tell me that "better sources must exist but it's unreasonable for you to make me actually link them" -- and I do feel that all of those statements are rather hard to reconcile with what our core content policies say in black and white. WP:ONUS is also worth reading, by the by.—S Marshall T/C 21:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC) What statement in that article was challenged as unsupported? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC) When Finball30 nominated it for deletion, he said the person wasn't notable. In context that's a pretty clear challenge to provide more reliable sources for the article as a whole, wouldn't you say? I've yet to be convinced that any of the provided sources meet WP:RS.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Ah, now *that's* a different argument! If you are convinced the sources give inaccurate/unreliable information, and I come to the same conclusion (I haven't reviewed the sources as to their reliability), then I would wholeheartedly agree that information should be removed because of WP:V, but that wasn't part of the discussion. The question discussed was one of notability, not verifiability, and I don't know how to continue without re-doing the discussion which occurred, which is not what this is for. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Well, you're seeing a sharp dividing line between V and N (and I think RS?) I don't see it like that. For me, Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines that relate to sources are a continuum. They all say that if the sources are bad and you're challenged to produce better ones, it's understood that the content gets removed if you don't. On your other point it's very longstanding custom and practice that DRV has wide latitude to fix defects in deletion-related decisions and this does occasionally extend to relitigating the XFD. (First one of those that I recall participating in was Category:Senior Wranglers but there may be examples from before that.) Alternatively we can just reopen the AfD.—S Marshall T/C 01:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC) To answer S Marshall's original question there is quite a bit of judgement involved in deciding whether other sources are likely to exist and the SNG is not perfect as an indicator of whether other sources exist, so I think you can make a reasonable argument for deletion. Note I'm not supporting overturning to Keep either. The GNG requires that the subject have sources which are (a) reliable, (b) independent of the subject and (c) devote substantial coverage to the subject. Only parts (a) and (b) appear in WP:V, the substantial coverage criterion is a pure notability standard. If the argument for deletion was that the subject had no coverage in third-party reliable sources then that would be a lot stronger. However the arguments made here were that the sources don't devote significant coverage to the subject, which isn't a verifiability issue. Hut 8.5 22:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse because this is a venue to determine whether the close was appropriate. In this case, two sides could not come to a consensus on the interpretation of a policy (and whether it should lead to a deletion) and thus the result was "no consensus" and closed correctly as such. If one side was arguing without policy entirely (or at least relevant policy), and the closer ignored that, that would be a good case to overturn, but that is not what happened here. As User:Hut 8.5 has pointed out, the debate on how the policy should be interpreted may go on, but that is not a discussion for a deletion review. Canadian Paul 22:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse because Keep is the right result, and No Consensus is close enough. I think that sports notability should override general notability rather than clarifying it, but that is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse The standard rule is that GNG trumps SNGs, but SNGs exist for a reason as they presume notability. The defect in this discussion is nobody effectively disproved the presumption that an Italian who ran in the Olympics a century ago received proper coverage per the WP:GNG, which admittedly would take a little bit of research, and likely in Italian newspaper archives. It was also not definitively proved by any of the keep !voters who relied on the SNG. No consensus is just about right. SportingFlyer T·C 06:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Comment- I get that it's galling to be told, "Yes, your opinions are stronger and better argued, but I'm consigning them to the shredder anyway". As for GNG vs SNG, the most a subject-specific guideline can do is provide a rebuttable presumption that sources probably exist. It doesn't exempt an article from sourcing requirements forever. I think that, at a later AfD, if the promised sources haven't turned up we'd have to accept that the rebuttable presumption has been rebutted. Reyk YO! 06:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC) I don't read the close that way at all. The closer acknowledges that they prefer the delete arguments, but they're closing according to the discussion, which didn't really form a consensus for that. It's not great that DRV tends to tell off any closing admin who explains what they're doing and why, forcing closing admins to act like black boxen if they want to avoid criticism. WilyD 09:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse The result was unclear due to a split in application/understanding of policies/guidelines. Therefore a valid "no consensus". On the subject matter itself: Saying that SNG are overruled by GNG makes SNGs totally pointless and therefore against their intention. Most SNG are an easy indication that GNG is met, not overruling GNG. That includes the possibility that that assumption can be disproven (which has not been done here) or that the SNG might be in need of some tweaking (IE sugesting that an olympian should finish an event) but that needs to be discussed at policy level not here (My argument against such a tweak would be that most likely a dropout would generate more sources that a finish). Some SNGs actually overrule GNG, but they are rare and there for a good reason. Agathoclea (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse WP:NSPORTS (which encompasses WP:NOLY) says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline". Whether "should" means "must" is sufficiently vague that people can exercise their own judgement. Bearing that in mind there was no consensus. If the article in not policy-compliant then it can be suitably edited or sent for deletion based on an infringement of a policy rather than a guideline so as to lead to a more focusssed discussion. Thincat (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Sounds like one of the outcomes we need here is a RfC on whether SNGs trump the general notability guideline. Quite a few editors are seriously contending that they do.—S Marshall T/C 00:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC) SNGs don't trump GNG, they give a presumption of GNG, the presumption can be rebutted, and it wasn't at this AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 00:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Nowhere is that written in any Wikipedia rules. WP:NOTABILITY clearly states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." Dream Focus 12:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Indeed. It isn't written in the Wikipedia rules, and therefore we need a discussion about whether it should be. Any AfD process, or any other notability or verifiability dispute, should come down to sources. My position is that in any discussion about sources, the winning move should be to provide an inline citation to a reliable source. When the winning move is to say "sources are presumed to exist and I don't need to provide them" -- as it was here -- we're looking at a defective process.—S Marshall T/C 14:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC) The idea that one trumps the other is part of the really unhelpful "writing Wikipedia is a game" mentality. Neither trumps the other, they're guidelines in concordance with one another. If one drops the idea they should be winning/losing against other editors, and asks "How do we serve the readership?" That's why things like NSPORT exist, because it's too easy to lose sight of what we're doing here. WilyD 07:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC) The key word in Dream Focus' sentence: presumed. AfDs do come down to sources, and SNGs are subservient to the GNG/sourcing being available. Here, there are sources available to show he participated in the Olympics, they're probably not enough to keep the article in the absence of other sources, but searching to see whether he would have been notable in his home country over 100 years ago isn't easy, he's now a non-BLP, and we do have an interest in both the collective set of notable Olympians and eliminating a bias against non-English speaking sources. I think you're looking for something black and white but this is very grey - we still don't know if he's not notable - so I maintain the close was proper. SportingFlyer T·C 07:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse proper reading Lightburst (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse A subject specific guideline was met. Dream Focus 12:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 November 2019

Category:Shinano Railway – Closed with no action taken. I'm not going to call this No consensus, because that would imply there were disagreements that were not resolved. Rather, it's not clear what the nom is requesting here. I'll also mention that categories have processes and conventions that are somewhat specialized. My experience is that bringing category deletions to DRV rarely results in a satisfying outcome, because most of the people who frequent DRV are not categorization experts. Try starting a new discussion at Category talk:Shinano Railway Line, and perhaps also post notes at WT:CfD, Talk:Shinano Railway Line and WT:WikiProject Trains alerting people to this discussion. Explain what it is that you want to change, and see if people are on-board with it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Shinano Railway (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) When this was speedy deleted Shinano Railway operates only Shinano Railway Line. After Hokuriku Shinkansen (Nagano-Kanazawa section) opened in 2015 this company actually operates 2 disjoint lines, with the addition of Kita-Shinano line, thus the difference between Shinano Line and its operator is now quite significant. Also Category:Railway companies of Japan should have this page rather than Category:Shinano Railway Line as its sub-category. ibicdlcod (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC) What exactly are you asking us to do? Category:Shinano Railway was moved to Category:Shinano Railway Line, I think you're asking to recreate Category:Shinano Railway and move Shinano Railway Line and Kita-Shinano Railway Line into that category, and then place that category into Railway companies of Japan? SportingFlyer T·C 23:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Comment- the title Shinano Railway is a bit ambiguous. The reader may need to distinguish between the railway line itself and the company that manages it. I suggest if this irestored that we call it Category:Shinano Railway (company) or something like that. Reyk YO! 17:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Was this merged to Category:Shinano Railway Line? I’m not seeing the deletion or process failure. Can this discussion be had at WP:CfD? Ask at WT:CfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Comment - At this time I am not expressing a view, because I seldom take part in CFD and will leave this to other editors. Reserving the right to figure out what I think. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 November 2019

Terry Maston – Endorse. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Terry Maston (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Temporarily undeleted for deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC) The article had good participation. There was some disagreement about the definition of the word "Multiple. However, Multiple means two in every dictionary. The administrator and the delete !voters have demanded more than two. Our own policy in WP:N says There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. In any event, the administrator has cast a WP:SUPERVOTE rather than interpreting WP:CONSENSUS. 4 editors argued for keeping the article and 3 4 argued for deletion. This is very clearly a no consensus and the default in that case is Keep. The article can be renominated multiple times. The XfD closer was asked but did not wish to revisit the close. Lightburst (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn to WP:NOCONSENSUS. In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept. There is plenty of non-trivial coverage which exists. Since the article is not longer available I will include the Wiki mirror here, and show you that other sources also exist. Waco Tribune Herald, Dallas Morning News, Big 12 Sixth Man of the Year, Red Cup News, NBC Sports Lightburst (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Why are you voting in your own nomination? (Especially when you did not count the AfD nominator in your above vote count...) To reiterate what I said on my talk page, I specifically didn't close this as "no consensus" on the basis of vote counting, as you suggest. There were several "keep" responses that did not consider the weight of each source as was explained at length later in the nomination. Early voters were invited to consider this information and did not. The "delete" responses showed a greater grasp of what constitutes an independent source. The above listed sources are sufficiently addressed in the discussion. I think the closure and its rationale are sound but open to feedback. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC) @Czar: I am asking that the close be overturned. I removed the bold. Reasonable editors disagreed on the AfD, but as the XfD closer you should apply the policy of no consensus. Additionally, I miscounted because Yosemiter did not !vote normally. In any event 4-4 is still a push and the close should be overturned. Lightburst (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC) I miscounted because Yosemiter did not !vote normally: Which is reason to read the content of arguments, not merely count !votes.—Bagumba (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. Four different editors said it passed the general notability guidelines based on those sources. And it clearly says "multiple", which is defined as more than one, so if you have two or more reliable sources giving what people consider significant coverage then it counts. The closing administrator is suppose to gauge consensus not cast a supervote. There was no consensus to delete. Dream Focus 20:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Relist The basic argument is that it fail NSPORTS, as he never played a professional game. This can be overcome by sufficient coverage, but two minimal sources is insufficient. Thecloser wasright, we don't count courses but list them, but a more appropriate discussion is needed. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Relist, if editors feel there are more references to discuss, or Endorse. I agree with the closer that keep !voters did not argue their point well enough for GNG (no surprise there though, I !voted delete). I did repeatedly ping editors to further validate their keep !votes after I pointed out one of the two sources they were claiming was non-routine sports coverage was actually an oddity caused by the archiving of a defunct website that was routine. They had several days and have all been editing since then, but there was no rebuttal. (Note: the sources listed by Lightburst here don't add further non-routine coverage IMO. Waco: already discussed in AfD, Dallas Morning News 1: routine injury report, Dallas Morning News 2: short statement/mention about Baylor award winners, Red Cup: interview, NBC Sports: routine award of the week. But if that is enough to re-open and discuss further with more participation, then that is acceptable too.) DGG The subject absolutely fails NSPORTS, specifically WP:NHOOPS and WP:NCOLLATH, by not playing in one of the well covered leagues (3 games in second tier pro league, finished the season in a lower league, and now in low-pro/semipro league) and no major or national college awards (best non-starting player in a conference is something, but not major in any form). Yosemiter (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC) I agree with you, and I would plan to !vote delete in the subsequent discussion, but since the discussion in the afd made surprisingly little mention of this, the fairest thing is not to argue it here, but to reopen it at afd. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse Dream Focus, closing admins don't count votes. Four different editors made weak arguments to keep and the delete arguments by me, Yosemiter, and Bagumba were stronger. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse - Well within closer's discretion. The case wasn't absolutely clear-cut, and the arguments reflected that. Could've gone a couple different ways, but "delete on strength of arguments" is a reasonable outcome. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse on the strength of the post-relist !votes being deletes and not being rebutted. The keeps were WP:VAGUEWAVEs at GNG, and arguments did not elaborate on how significant coverage was met, just comments that a count of 2 sources minimally meets the "multiple" source criteria.—Bagumba (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse- Post relist the discussion was unanimous to delete. Why relist at all if no amount of subsequent discussion can alter the outcome? Anyway, all the arguing about "is two sources multiple or not" and keep vote v delete vote snout counting obscures the content of both the sources and the !votes, both of which strongly indicate deleting was the correct decision. Reyk YO! 11:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse with a few comments: Multiple means at least two. If it meant that two sources would always suffice, it would say so. I do not like the vagueness of general notability guidelines, which lead to contentious AFDs and DRVs, but that calls for rework and an RFC, not a lot of skirmishes at DRV. Fails sports notability, and the closer was correct in taking sports notability into account rather than GNG as a catch-all. I would prefer to make sports notability a stand-alone guideline. A reasonable closer can take into account that sports notability is meant to govern in most cases. If the closer is supposed to count votes, change the rules to say so. The closer did what the rules say. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse none of the WP:GNG votes explained why significant coverage was met and agreed only two sources even potentially qualified, but the delete !voters and commentators after the jump definitively showed those sources shouldn't/don't qualify. SportingFlyer T·C 23:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC) I also want to whinge very strongly against the interpretation of "multiple." Looking at this article as it's been temporarily undeleted, there's no way in which any reasonable user taking a WP:AUD approach to this player would conclude this player is a notable sportsperson. Maston won one minor award in a (popular) amateur league and played minor league basketball since. I find the "well, two articles were written on him so he meets WP:GNG and can be kept" argument dangerous. SportingFlyer T·C 01:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse the closing deletion. Examined the AfD and agree with the comments above about a number of WP:VAGUEWAVES from the "keep" camp. Took a look through the Google web and news search results; mostly directory listings, sports stat pages, profile pages, and the like. I saw very little press coverage, none of which seems to be WP:SIGCOV. Glad to see an admin closed this AfD as it as a tough call that one might've incorrectly closed as "keep". Strength of the argument was on the "delete" side despite them notionally only showing the nom plus two other !votes. Functional example of WP:NOTVOTE.Doug Mehus T·C 14:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse. Even by the low bar of sportsperson biographies, this was not "significant coverage". Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse closer got it right. The delete !voters had a much stronger argument. Lepricavark (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC) weak endorse I'd have !voted a weak keep or something like it, as I think there are two decent sources. But that deletion was within closing admin discretion based on the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Hobit (talk • contribs) 17:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Swindon Spitfires Women's and Girls' F.C. – Userfied / Refunded. Actually, that's already been done, so just closing this with no further action. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Swindon Spitfires Women's and Girls' F.C. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This page was deleted back in June 2013 for supposedly failing GNG and the relevant part of the Wikiproject football notability essay. Since then there has been sustained coverage about the club leaders winning various awards [20], [21], [22], for the club's 50th Anniversary in 2017 [23], and it has become clear that they do emphatically pass the (admittedly rather low) bar of football club notability i.e. they have played in the primary national Cup competition. There's six pages of hits at the British Newspaper Archive. I have an offline source that they played in the 1974 FA Women's Cup semi-final and then the bronze medal match. The cuttings on their Facebook page seem to confirm this and also attest to national team players in their team. Most of this coverage is local rather than national media but it does discuss the subject directly and in detail. The nominator's boast in 2013 "we are unable to verify even the most basic facts about this club" is no longer true. In March 2019 I asked the closing admin to userfy it for me, but was ignored. So I'm asking here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC) As a courtesy to other DRV participants, I indicate my prior involvements with the deletion discussion under my previous username Clavdia Chauchat (talk · contribs) Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC) It's rare for deletion review to enforce a six-year-old deletion discussion. AfDs expire over time, although there's no real consensus about exactly how long it takes. But six years is past any reasonable threshold. Also, women's football is taken a lot more seriously in 2019 than it was in 2013. For me, the big question is whether this article should be separate from Swindon Town W.F.C.; personally I think it would be preferable for us to have just the one article about women's football in Swindon, in the light of the somewhat intertwined history of the teams.—S Marshall T/C 02:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Well I don't see any problem with userfying it and an AfD doesn't prevent you from writing another version as long as the issues from the previous AfD are addressed (and for an AfD which is that old you should get the benefit of the doubt). The deleted version doesn't cite any third-party sources, doesn't claim any awards which are more impressive than coming second in a league at the sixth level of English women's football and mostly consists of team rosters which must be very out of date now, so I suspect it will need to be rewritten anyway. Hut 8.5 12:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC) I'm in favour of either granting you a WP:REFUND or allowing you to recreate the article from scratch, though you will have to clearly demonstrate notability. SportingFlyer T·C 23:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Thanks for the replies, I am keen to try and bring it back (in much improved form) but didn't know the best way to go about it. I also didn't want to arouse any consternation by breaking any rules, so I appreciate the guidance given here. If it could be userfied to me I would be most grateful, although I realise I would obviously have to strip out all the out-of-date stuff before rewriting and adding references to knock it into shape. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC) @Bring back Daz Sampson: I've userfied it to User:Bring back Daz Sampson/Swindon Spitfires Women's and Girls' F.C. as that's pretty uncontroversial. Hut 8.5 22:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Thanks very much - I am happy with this outcome and for this review to be closed now. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

John Iadarola – Restored and submitted to AfD again. Sandstein 10:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
John Iadarola (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The last discussion on this topic was in 2017. Previous reasons for deletion included WP:RS and WP:TOOSOON. However, since this was last discussed, he has become the co-host of The Young Turks. The channel averages over 30 million views per month, and has over 4.55 million subscribers.[24] Additionally, his newer show "The Damage Report" averages over 300,000 views a day. [25] As part his program, he has interviewed propionate public figures including Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang.[26] Additionally he is often cited by news outlets regarding his political analysis, such as Mediaite, Paste, Washington Examiner, Newsweek, and The Washington Post. He has also been on Politicking with Larry King and has been a contributor for KTLA. I now feel that I can assist in creating this page without running into WP:RS issues. This combined with his prior discussing on a show he hosted for Fusion TV and "True North" (a Verizon produced mini-series), makes me feel that this is now eligible for creation under WP:WEB. GeekInParadise (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC) As the creator of the original article and active proponent for previous keep votes, I certainly concur with the above. I felt there were sufficient sources the first time and continue to hold that opinion. Unfair, escalated standards seem to get applied when someone simply doesn't like an article, or related articles. AfD depends on votes, that is the reality, whether you profess an opposite opinion for public relations purposes. It is far easier to find an echo chamber of "me too" delete votes than to find anyone who will take the time to read. The Young Turks is a huge player in new media. New media does not get the same respect as old media. TYT is an overt politically progressive media source. That certainly offends those of differing political persuasions. Challenging the notability of Iadarola's article has been used as a pawn to keep the significance of the network and his prominent contribution to it, down. Trackinfo (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Relist A new discussion is needed, and Afd is the place for it. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Comment Shouldn't there be a refund, and or recreation, resubmission from draft? If we go back to AfD unimproved, we are likely to get driveby delete !votes. Lightburst (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Relist as per DGG. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Relist I did not notice that the article is available. A new discussion will be helpful in determining notability as DGG has said. Lightburst (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Note: The article was redirected rather than destroyed. It's former version is available here. Further note, at the time he was the #3 anchor of the main show, plus hosting his own morning show. As of Cenk Uygur's run for congress Video on YouTube this week, he has been elevated to the co-anchor of the main show that is getting tens to hundreds of thousands of views daily. Trackinfo (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC) I'd vote to simply revert the redirect and add the new, qualifying sources in. If anyone thinks the article should still be deleted then, it can go to AfD. If the user improving the article wants a little more time, they can copy the most recent version to draft space and then bring it over. SportingFlyer T·C 04:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Sergey Naydin – Moot. Page has already been userfied, nothing left to do here. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sergey Naydin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The notability criteria for gymnasts have changed some months ago after the execution of the first Junior World Championships and seem to have established, including well sourced new Wikipedia articles. The article in question was a well written one, too, but deleted due to notability reasons. I am asking for undeletion because I want to continue working with it. I recommend to move it to Sergei Naidin because that's the common name used by the FIG (link) and on Wikipedia articles (1 vs. 2). Thanks in advance, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC) @DerHexer: If a draftspace copy is what you want, I'm happy to provide one, though of course you could undelete it and move it to your userspace yourself. I don't see on what basis you are challenging the AfD, though; consensus was clear there...Vanamonde (Talk) 04:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC) @Vanamonde93: As said, the not-notable discussion have been at a time when the text was a different one. In the mean time, the notability criteria were lifted for younger gymnasts (with good results, as said). He now is notable, as a medaillist of Youth Olympic Games (just like medaillists of Junior World Championships are notable). Of course, as an administrator I could myself restore it, even directly to the main namespace. I just don't think that this would be appropriate, being an active member of that topic. I am also open for other suggestions: I don't think that a new AfD would be useful because the updated notability criteria are very obvious; restoration to my username space where I would just add some photos, maybe some updates for the last year, and would move it to the main namespace afterwards. The latter would work for me and I would be glad if anyone else could do this. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC) @DerHexer: Here you go: User:DerHexer/Sergey Naydin. Please leave a link to the change in the notability criteria when you recreate this, otherwise it's not unlikely that someone will tag it for CSD#G4. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Comment - Has this been taken care of? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 November 2019

Sahar Nowrouzzadeh – Endorse, as despite the perhaps low participation in the AFD there is a feeling that the close accurately reflects the outcome of the AFD. While there may be more sources now than when the article was deleted, most people here think that a properly written draft would be needed before restoration and that a merge or a redirect should be considered too. A redirect was also considered in this discussion but a clear redirect target could not be determined. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sahar Nowrouzzadeh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Individual has been the primary subject of many news articles since the AFD process concluded. A quick Google search for her name shows that she is at the center of a controversy including the U.S. president and was a key figure in the Obama administration's highly notable peace agreement with Iran. Ave Caesar (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse as a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse The closer read the discussion, what there was of it, correctly. However, only two editors commented. This was closed less than a month ago: have there really been many news articles since the AFD process concluded about this person? But if you, or anyone, have sources not previously considered, you are welcome to start Draft:Sahar Nowrouzzadeh and attempt to write a better version that clearly demonstrsates notability. of course this will fail if the sources do not exist. If you want the previous version as a starting point, i for one would be ok with it being restored, moved to draft, and marked as an AfC draft. But any person requesting that should do so on the understanding that it should not be moved back to mainspace until and unless there is a significant improvement in sourcing. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC) The US State Department's internal watchdog apparently released a report three or four days ago concluding she was improperly forced out of her position as an expert on Iran in the Office of Policy Planning because of her ethnicity and associated guesses about her political beliefs. In the current climate ... yes, there have been a lot more sources since a month ago. I can't speak to lasting notability, or versus BLP1E, of course, but there's a whole lot of news stories. e.g. [27] [28]. I'm also fine with the old version being moved to draft/sandbox/whatever to give it a go. WilyD 06:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Looks like the new sources have made this a plausible search term. We should have at minimum a redirect rather than a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 12:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC) The obvious question being, a redirect where? The interest in this lady will come from people who're following the Trump impeachment enquiry but this seems too tangential to mention there. Hmmmm.—S Marshall T/C 12:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC) I think it's likely to remain difficult to evaluate how the situation is going to shake out for some time. Restoring a bio (or reworking into an event article?) with the expectation it's possible it'll need to be merged in the medium/long term wouldn't be a wholly unsuitable approach. The opposite approaching - trying to redirect/merge somewhere - I think is likely to be a whole lot less manageable if that turns out to be the wrong approach as the situation develops. WilyD 07:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse. If you want to recreate, use draft, and follow the advice in WP:THREE. As it was properly deleted, do not allow recreation in mainspace without AfC approval. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Washington Redhawks – Some agreement, but not quite consensus, that this was a BADNAC. There seems to be general cosnensus that any possible merge discussion can still happen per normal procedures. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Washington Redhawks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Non-administrator closed as no consensus. There was a clear consensus for merger. 4meter4 (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Relist as a WP:BADNAC. Any admin can re-close this immediately in a way they choose - I am not arguing against the no consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 04:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Note: Deletion review should not be used...when you have not discussed the matter with the user who closed the discussion first. Which 4meters4 has not done. And not arguing against the result does not a bad Nac make. 4meters4 is in the comfortable positron of seeing consensus in their own position, but, actually, while two editors !voted "merge", two argued for the article to be kept, and one "anything but delete". ——SN54129 08:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC) @Serial Number 54129: You should not have closed that AfD per WP:BADNAC as it was a close call, you should probably have closed it as a merge anyways which I don't think administrators can implement, and you should self-revert. 4meter4 should have discussed it with you first, true, but that doesn't change the procedure here. SportingFlyer T·C 08:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC) you should probably have closed it as a merge anyways which I don't think administrators can implement I have no idea what you're trying to say, sorry. but that doesn't change the procedure here It literally is the procedure here, and I was directly quoting the instructions. Unless they're not meant to be followed of course 🙈 😃 ——SN54129 09:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC) I meant to say non-administrators, sorry, typo above. The fact it wasn't discussed with you doesn't mean the DRV is invalid - typically we require them as many problems can be solved without going to DRV, but I think this was a clear WP:BADNAC so I'm not that fussed. SportingFlyer T·C 10:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Comment. It's clear to me that the keep votes were not entirely against merger based on their comments, and that merge seemed to be the most balanced close in this case. Merge was a theme throughout the conversation, and it seems like merger was a compromise everyone could live with based on everyone's comments. CorbieVreccan spent most of his keep comment making merger suggestions. Paul McDonald suggested merge as a viable option. Bagumba and I both recommended merge. WriterArtistDC wanted deletion and hewhoamareismyself preferred keep but admitted others might have valid reasons to merge. All and all merger is the best close in this case.@Serial Number 54129: you deleted this preceding comment from this page on your last post. (I'm assuming by accident.) Please be more careful when posting. 4meter4 (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse - there's really not a consensus for merge here. It's sometimes imposed as a bit of a super vote in no consensus cases where it's suggested, but the point is made (and looking, correctly) that the proposed merge target is really too large for a merge, which isn't then addressed. Merge arguments invoked WP:FORK (which is wholly inapplicable), and WP:SUSTAIN (which does seem to be applicable, but is somewhat subjective and didn't catch on. There's not a consensus here for anything. It's perhaps maybe not always a great idea for non-admins to close things that aren't completely clear cut, but when they get it right, I can't not endorse. WilyD 10:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse. Accurate close.—S Marshall T/C 10:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Void close as WP:BADNAC. I had already done that on my own, but User:Winged Blades of Godric saw fit to revert my close, calling it a super-vote. I'm not going to edit-war over that, but clearly this was a BADNAC, which says non-admins should not close discussions where, The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. That's clearly the case here. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC) On the one hand, BADNAC is a good bit of advice. On the other hand, it's a supplement to an informational page, so it doesn't need to be adhered to rigourously when it doesn't make sense to do so. Unless the close was actually bad (and I don't think it was) re-opening it on principle so it can be re-closed the same way is needlessly bureaucratic (especially when the "rule" against it is actually just a bit of advice as to what's probably best practice, and not a rule at all.) WilyD 14:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC) And, I suppose—unlike an advice page—WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is policy. ——SN54129 15:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC) To be fair to RoySmith here, his remark can also stand on WP:DRVPURPOSE point #5. He's free to say that a non-admin close of a contentious discussion amounts to a substantial procedural error and that would be given weight by the DRV closer. I differ from him about whether an NAC should be an automatic reopen but deletion review is often concerned with errors of process. It's the nature of the venue. Almost by definition everything or virtually everything that comes through DRV is contentious, and there isn't a good way of appealing a DRV, so we tend to be very conservative about mistakes, wanting to reopen anything that could be wrong.—S Marshall T/C 16:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC) He's of course free to say that, but he's wrong, and the only reason I can think to think the argument he presented makes any sense at all is if you feel absolutely compelled to follow WP:ANYTHING because it's some immutable authority. I didn't try to invoke the authority of NOT#BUREAU, only made an argument along those lines because it applies. And since this is a discussion, not a !vote, when someone's vote is clearly in error, it makes sense to point that out. WilyD 06:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse not a great discussion for a non-admin to close but I think the close itself is reasonable. AfD isn't the best venue for deciding on merges. Obviously AfDed articles can be merged if it's clearly a good idea but it isn't supposed to be for just deciding whether to keep content as a standalone article or merge it somewhere else. There was clear consensus against outright deletion so that's all that was happening here. I don't see much of an attempt at a convincing rebuttal to the ONEEVENT argument, but equally the point that the suggested merge target is already very long is perfectly reasonable. I'd suggest that whether to merge it (or possibly merge a bit of it) is better discussed on the relevant talk pages. Hut 8.5 19:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse I probably would have done it differently, but that doesn't make what was done the wrong action. Want to merge? Open a merge discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Void Close as per User:RoySmith as WP:BADNAC, noting, as does Roy Smith, that nearly everything that comes through DRV is contentious, and comes through DRV because it is contentious, and so should be left to neutral administrators. Just leave it open for a regular AFD administrator to close it. The close might be No Consensus, or Merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC) There are now four admins agreeing with the close so I don't think overturning it for that reason would be valid now. Hut 8.5 09:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC) I'd caution--there is no WP:SENIORITY and just because one or even four admins come to the same conclusion that doesn't mean others cannot speak against that conclusion openly. I endorsed earlier, and I've not changed my position, but I'm also open to other arguments. Let the discussion run its course. I'd like to hear WP:ALLARGUMENTS.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Sure, I'm not suggesting closing this discussion, I'm just saying that the AfD closure shouldn't be overturned at this point just because it was made by a non-admin. Hut 8.5 19:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC) This was probably not clear cut enough to be really a good discussion for a non-admin close. But I think the closer got it right. in fact, had it been closed as "Merge" and brought here, I would probably say "OVERTURN". (yes one of the those selecting KEEP spent a number of words on possible merge targets, but only to demonstrate why each was unsuitable. Some others discussed byt did not favor merge, and no clear policy-based argument was made for merging.) As Per WP:PI Procedure should be followed in general, but this isn't a case I can get very worked up about. In any case, a merge does not need an AfD result, nor is an AfD the place to go if a merge is what is wanted. Any editor can open a merge discussion on the article talk page at any time, and if consensus is achieved, a merge can be done. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Void close as a BADNAC, in support of Roy Smith. Challenged NACs disputed by an admin. Should not have to spend a week at DRV. No consensus to delete. No consensus to merge, mandating a merge from AfD. The nomination and discussion lack a sufficient source analysis to support the discussion. I read the leading sources as quite dubious. My reading causes me to lean to “Rename to Washington Redhawks Hoax, with question as to whether this was a notable hoax. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC) An admin reverted the NAC’s close. That was a proper action, long term policy. A non-admin reverted the admin’s revert. That was not OK. That non admin’s revert should be chastised. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC) I didn't realise the user who reverted RoySmith wasn't also an administrator. I view this in the same serious light as SmokeyJoe. SportingFlyer T·C 01:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse the closing rationale. While there may be a case for merging, there wasn't a consensus to delete. Maybe it was a WP:BADNAC call, but, per Paulmcdonald, one could just initiate a merger proposal outside of AfD and it would probably achieve wide support, no? It might even survive a bold move. Doug Mehus T·C 00:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC) The decision that needs an AfD discussion is that of whether or not an admin should hit the "delete" button. The outcome of this discussion was that the article and its content were not deleted, and the nominator here also doesn't want them to be deleted, so I don't see the point of discussing the issue here. Just start a merge discussion at Talk:Washington Redhawks, which the AfD closure does nothing to preclude. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Well said, Phil Bridger. My thoughts exactly. Maybe it was an incorrect close, but did the requestor also discuss with the non-admin closer about adjusting their closing decision or rationale? That's worth mention as well. At any rate, WP:DRV is generally to review whether consensus was correctly assessed, which usually means the requestor is requesting an article be undeleted or deleted when it should've been kept. This does seem like a needless "knuckle rapping" exercise for the non-admin closer.Doug Mehus T·C 20:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Procedural close per no apparent attempt to discuss with the closer, per this. Doug Mehus T·C 20:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Void close per WP:BADNAC. Recommendations of Roy Smith. In any event, a merge is similar to a keep and could likely have been discussed on the article talk page. AfD non-consensus keep - then discuss merge on talk. Done. Lightburst (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Lightburst I'd still argue that closing this procedurally per the nom not making an effort to ask that the close be reassessed first having been done. Doug Mehus T·C 19:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC) I consider that proper. Perhaps it may have avoided a deletion review so you are probably correct. But here we are... Lightburst (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Lightburst Yeah, but like you said, I just don't think it's even necessary to go through this. Why couldn't the nom just propose a merge on the talk page, outside of AfD or, heck, be bold? Given the apparent support, it probably would've survived a bold move.Doug Mehus T·C 19:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Yes, here we are, but here we don't need to be. Merging is an issue that can be discussed and implemented between editors on article talk pages without any admin involvement, so it doesn't need any permission from AfD or DRV. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Meh. Probably not an ideal non-admin close, but at this point it would be preferable to open a merge discussion at the article talk page rather than reopening an AfD that has been closed for nearly a week. Lepricavark (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Noting that, either way, there is a clear consensus that no consensus was the correct close. ——SN54129 13:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 November 2019

Kasumi Suzuki – Consensus is to allow restoration of the new version of the article. It can be challenged again in a new AfD. Sandstein 10:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kasumi Suzuki (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I have found sources since then where Kasumi Suzuki has had lead roles in various media projects in this edit, including Karas (1), Kaidan Shin Mimibukuro: Yūrei Mansion (1) (2), and Drama 8 Geinōsha (1). She has also appeared in recurring roles such as Threads of Destiny (1) and Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger (1). If anything, it would be wrong to redirect her article to Ojamajo Doremi simply because most Japanese sources list the latter two as some of her bigger roles. This is also off-topic, but the original nominator for the article was given a topic ban for handling deletion processes and a proposed topic ban for entertainment/voice actor-related articles. lullabying (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC) Allow Re-Creation as Draft subject to review by a neutral reviewer. Is that what the appellant is asking? I don't think that there is an issue about the close and merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: I'd prefer the article to be restored. It was redirected to Ojamajo Doremi due to the original AFD saying that she doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR when I have found sources that state she has been in some lead roles. Moreover, Ojamajo Doremi isn't even her most notable role so it seems weird to redirect the article there anyways. lullabying (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Comment - I am not sure that I understand. I am supporting allowing a re-creation as a draft subject to review. Are you asking to have the original article, which didn't contain the new sources, restored, or to have a new version of the article? Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC) It's certainly true that the article before the AFD had no sources, but I can integrate the sources as shown in the latest edit. lullabying (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn. The new clues @Lullabying: brought to light days ago seem to have been overlooked in the AFD three years ago, and they seem evidently nice. ミラP 23:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Restore. I was going to close this, but then decided to comment since doing so would give me the opportunity to chide User:Onel5969 for reverting User:Lullabying's perfectly reasonable new version. The AfD was three years old, the new version was totally different from the old one, and contained a dozen sources (as opposed to the zero sources that were in the old one). How does this add up to Restore as per AfD, nothing new since then? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC) @RoySmith: Perhaps @Onel5969: meant that there was no new news about Kasumi Suzuki since when the AFD closed, even if @Lullabying: submitted new information that would have changed the course. ミラP 17:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC) Oppose overturning. I wasn't going to comment until I saw the above comment about chiding me. The article was not closed due to a dearth of references, but simply that the actress did not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Did that editor take any effort, as I did, to look at the new sources? Hopefully not, since if they did and still felt obligated to opine as they did, they really need to bone up on WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NACTOR. Ref #1 is a promo. Ref #2, is not an independent source. Ref #3 is a listing, which shows she had minor roles on various tv series. Ref #4 is a simple listing which doesn't even mention the actress. Ref #5, shows that she had a significant role in a one-off tv production, which is like having a featured role on a single episode of episodic television, which never counts as per WP:NACTOR. #6 is a very brief mention, literally, she is simply listed. #7 is a character bio on a non-independent source. #8 is probably the briefest of mentions, simply mentioning her first name. #9 is a promo for the DVD of a show. #10 and #11 mention her as well, but the article claims this is a "lead role", however the imdb.com page doesn't even list her as a cast member; in addition, the similarity between these two refs would appear to indicate that they are based off a press release. And finally ref #12 is an ad for the blu-ray. All of these sources were available prior to the AfD. None indicate she has the prerequisite of more than one major role to pass WP:NACTOR, and the totality of the current sourcing doesn't come close to passing WP:GNG. My comment, "Restore as per AfD, nothing new since then" is simply that, since the prior AfD was closed as redirect, and there have been no significant roles since the AfD was closed, and since the additional sources clearly don't meet WP:GNG, the comment was apt.Onel5969 TT me 01:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Comment: Ref 4 does list her in credits, and ref 12 is not an ad -- it's an article, and it lists that she is cast it in at the end. IMDB is also not a good source to reference. Ref 5 is a program outline. Ref 6 -- I don't understand why a brief mention is bad? lullabying (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC) @Lullabying: Oh nothing is bad, just that it doesn't count towards GNG, but it can still count towards other notability criteria. "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". ミラP 17:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC) Comment Given the issues with the one who sent the page to AFD in 2016, someone take a look at all of his AFDs closed as delete in before the first topic ban. ミラP 17:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC) Restore and allow any editor to list at AfD. When nominated at AfD, the article had no sources. After the changes by Lullabying, the article had 12 sources. It is clear that Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion does not apply as this is not a "sufficiently identical cop[y]". Onel5969 has raised concerns about the quality of the sources. These concerns can be discussed at a new AfD. Cunard (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 November 2019

Hans Riemer – Move user draft to mainspace. The general consensus here is that the AfD was long enough ago, and the new draft is sufficiently different, that G4 doesn't apply. I've gone ahead and moved the user draft into mainspace under Hans Riemer (Maryland politician) and cleaned up the existing WP:DAB page. Please note that this doesn't imply any specific endorsement of notability; if anybody wants to bring Hans Riemer (Maryland politician) to AfD, they are free to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Hans Riemer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) First, as an FYI, the closing editor, Crisco 1492 has retired. I never saw the article that was originally deleted, but I have created a draft of the new Hans Riemer article. I think the new content is well written, well sourced and shows the notability of the subject. Mr. Riemer is currently a county councilman, but has done national level work on the issue of social security and political campaigns. I would like the current redirect, Hans Riemer deleted, the old content restored, and the new content added "on top." Thank you. --evrik (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Comment the deletion discussion was several years ago and this doesn't appear to be a WP:G4 - has the redirect been salted at all? I would note - not to turn this into an AfD but as a note for the author of the article - that if this gets restored, I would be a firm delete vote at AfD, since local council members do not receive automatic notability, it's written promotionally, and I don't think any of the sources get him to WP:GNG. (If anyone has any questions on why, please find me on my talk page as to not dilute this discussion.) SportingFlyer T·C 03:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Comment the redirect has not been salted. I came here first because I want to avoid this going right to an AfD. While Riemer’s current position does not confer notability, his previous work does. Also, the sources include the Washington Post and congressional testimony. --evrik (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC) I have no problem with you recreating the article in mainspace since it's not a WP:G4 though based on the sourcing that's currently available, I would take it to AfD to see if community consensus would be to delete the article. The Washington Post (since it's covering local politics and only sort of mentions him) and congressional testimony (primary) isn't enough for me to support unequivocal recreation. I don't think we need to formally endorse the deletion. We'll see what others have to say here though, we have a full week! SportingFlyer T·C 11:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC) If I have to take it to AfD, I will, but before I do, I wanted to run it by here. Also, I'd like to get the history restored and merged so it is all in one place. FWIW, he has also been covered by the Oakland Tribune, Inside Politics (CNN), The American Prospect, MSNBC. --evrik (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC) I'm not 100% sold this doesn't fall under G4 - nominally, any new significant source would make me decline a G4, but I'm not seeing any sources here that don't make me think "local politician covered in local paper", the reasoning behind the previous AfD. WilyD 13:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Twenty years ago, he was the head of a national advocacy group ("2030 Center". C-Span.), he had high level positions with both Rock the Vote and the Obama Campaign. One of the people he worked with twenty years ago, Maya MacGuineas, is notable enough to justify her own page. He works on a national commission for the FCC, and several regional commissions. All this without mentioning his current elected position. --evrik (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC) evrik, while I understand you're trying to demonstrate new information, given the length of time since the deletion discussion and the newly created article, these are all arguments for an AfD, not DRV. WilyD, since evrik claims they never saw the deleted version, WP:G4 cannot apply. This is best restored to mainspace and sent to AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 23:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC) In practice, what "substantially identical" means for G4 often gets interpreted as "substantially identical with respect to whatever issue caused deletion at XFD" - if an article is deleted on notability grounds, any new article using just the same sources is going to get deleted, no matter how you re-write the ext. It's true it's not clearly specified, and my instinct is always to require a new AfD if there's any serious change, and here it's a bit nuanced. But if G4 is "Are you 100% confident a new AfD would be identical to the one that got it deleted?" I'm at 98%-99% here. Which isn't me arguing in favour of a specific position - I ain't doing that, but a suggestion that restoring as is is probably not the best path. WilyD 08:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Comment If this page is undeleted, there is no indication that this person is the Primary Topic for the name, so the article will need a bracketed disambiguator. After it is in mainspace at that title it would be possible for someone to propose a move to establish him as the Primary Topic, but this would need discussion. PamD 16:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC) That is not relevant to this discussion, nor your on-going edit war. --evrik (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Hans Riemer should point to the most notable person with that name -- which, with all due respect to the living Mr Riemer, is clearly the federal-level Austrian, not the US county councillor. The outcome I would prefer is to move Hans Riemer (Austrian politician) to Hans Riemer, move the draft to something like Hans Riemer (Californian politician), and then add hatnotes to each article.—S Marshall T/C 13:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC) User:S Marshall - I didn't know that Riemer had moved across North America. Do you mean Hans Riemer (Maryland politician)? (We could make things really confusing by saying Hans Riemer (Montgomery County politician). The confusion is probably due to Montgomery County needing disambiguation.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC) You are, of course, quite right. My sincere apologies.—S Marshall T/C 18:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC) User:S Marshall No apology required. I haven't lived in Montgomery County, Maryland for decades. By the way, there are 20 places called Montgomery County, of which 18 are in the United States, one in Australia, and one in Wales. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC) If I enter Washington County or Orange County or Franklin County, et cetera, I am predicting that a bot will tell me that I probably didn't mean to be making an entry of a disambiguation list. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC) @Evrik - I would absolutely support creation of the Hans Riemer article due to the positions he has held and prominent media coverage, but I think that the disambiguation page should still remain as it is, so I don't agree with you changing it. It might be hard to get enough consensus here to completely avoid the possibility of a deletion nomination, but I don't think that should stop you from going ahead. Challenger.rebecca (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 November 2019

Technical Psychotronics – "Delete" closure endorsed. Sandstein 08:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Technical Psychotronics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) quoted scientific references on experimental results on animals, including primates , as well as outline of technology principles should give enough information to anyone with technical or scientific background, and neutral to novelties, that the presence of the article in question is perfectly justified. Instead , the deletion process reflects obvious non-scientific bias of the deletor(s) invoking "conspiracy theories" where pure reason should be applied. Archibald751 (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse. The deletion discussion appears to have focused on Wikipedia policy, and the close properly represents consensus. No objection if this is restored to draft space, but this does not belong in article mainspace, per the consensus at the AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse I reviewed the sourcing in the original article and found the scientific references were being misrepresented, i.e. there was no mention of technical psychotronics, blank carrier waves, or technology "discontinued in civilian science". FYI, the same material was also inserted into another article by an IP [29]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Comment User LuckyLouie makes 4 edits per day on Wikipedia since 13 years, total over 20 thousand edits , which implies he is a paid editor. As such, his remarks are not an objective scientific input in public interest, and should not be taken into regard with respect to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archibald751 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC) What absolute nonsense. Reyk YO! 13:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Balderdash. I have an average of something over 8 edits per day since 2005. Does that make me a paid editor also? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Try not to get baited by a user whose first non-reverted edits were to this very deletion review forum. SportingFlyer T·C 01:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse as a valid closure. But the comment by User:Archibald751 on User:LuckyLouie looks like a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse the AfD was lightly attended, but with clear consensus, and given the discussion of POVFORK should not be restored at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 08:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC) (Statement by closing admin) While lightly attended, the AFD in my opinion had sufficient consensus to justify a delete close, and the arguments posted here for overturning aren't convincing. Ad hominem are seldom valid reasons for disregarding opinions in an AFD and I see no reason to make an exception here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse- consensus at the AfD was pretty clear. There is no reason to overturn this. Reyk YO! 13:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Logical delete remarks citing policy. I find it difficult to consider a consensus that ran one week, and had low participation (2 !voters). The listing might have benefited from a relist. It is also difficult at deletion review because we do not have the benefit of seeing the original article. I find myself looking for mirror sites like this, so I can see if the article merits incubation, or is nonsense. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse. Normally, I'd have some sympathy for the argument that with only three participants, anybody asking for a relist should be humored. I generally think, "Had this comment been in the AfD, would it have changed the way I closed it?" For a low-attendance discussion, that usually leads me to think a relist is fair. In this case, however, the article was such a pile of dung, there's no chance further discussion would have resulted in any other result, so a relist would be an unconscionable waste of time. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse Consensus in the AfD was clear, and I would have joined it had I participated. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse based on the AfD and the first sentence of the deleted article: "A scientific term being combination of psyche- and electronics was first proposed in France to describe new technologies of thought-reading and transmitting with electronics means." So, complete bollocks, but apparently not notable bollocks. Guy (help!) 17:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse the article claimed that for decades there has been classified research into people controlling computers with their minds using radio waves, and that this now has enormous commercial applications ("since end of the nineties the technology is increasingly used in commerce, banking, administration"). There is no way in hell we are going to have an article which says this. "Conspiracy theories" is an accurate reflection of what the article actually said, it asserted that "There are coordinated efforts by the users to keep it hidden from public view as long as possible" and that there is very little information about it because it has been classified. To the extent that this is a real topic it can be covered at Brain–computer interface. Hut 8.5 21:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 November 2019

User:ADilbert/Eazdeals – Restored and associated MfD re-opened. I'll note for the record that although I disagree with OP's rationale, DRV isn't the appropriate venue to host a de-facto MfD. As such, I'll invite interested parties to make their case(s) at MfD. FASTILY 02:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:ADilbert/Eazdeals (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This page was tagged for an A7 delete. When it was declined and pointed out that a user page is not subject to A7, it was nominated for MfD but shortly afte tagged for G11. It was however, deleted under U5, and the MfD left open. I went to discuss that with the deleting admin, Fastily but the edit notice on User talk:Fastily indicates a lack of interst in discussiong u5 deletions, so i cam directly here. So much for the history, now for the merits. U5 specifically says with the exception of plausible drafts and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?. This page appeared to be a user draft, in an early stage of development. It consisted of a company info box, one sentence describing the topic in an apparently factual manner (eAZdeals.com is a web based reseller of computers and electronic equipment, and one sentence describing the purpose of the buisness in a somewhat promotional manner eAZdeals was developed to create an engaging on-line shopping experience that is easy to use while driving sales and increasing customer loyalty. No sources were cited. No other content was present. As a clear attempt at a reasonable draft of an article, U5 clearly does not apply. G11 was not acted on, and it could be argued that it is therefore not relevant, but i am sure that someone will raise the issue. G11 says This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion Since the deletion of one sentence would make this clearly neutral it cannot be said to require to be fundamentally rewritten -- editing one sentence is not a fundamental rewrite. Notability cannot be assessed at this stage of the development of a draft, I have no idea if this is a notable topic or not. But it does not qualify for speedy deletion under either G11 ( as requested) nor U5 (as indicated in the deletion log). The tagger is a very experienced editor, and the deleting admin is an admin. Both should have known better. I have reproduced eddentially all the content of the delted page here, and see no need for a temp undelete, but i will do that if requested. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC) For the record, my edit notice is not directed towards other administrators. Without commenting on the merits of this request, I have no objection to restoration provided you are willing to take full responsibility for this page. -FASTILY 05:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC) If that's the entirety of the content and it's been untouched for a decade, why is this here? It seems overly pedantic to me to try to keep this undeleted. What's going on here? SportingFlyer T·C 10:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC) I care not about the page itself. Either G11 or U5 are perfectly reasonable. What I'm concerned about is that people are wasting effort on this trivia. It's a garbage page in user space. So what? There's tons of garbage in user space. It's not hurting anybody. Why did anybody even care about this enough to delete it? Why did anybody care enough about the deletion to bring it to DRV, where more people have to waste time on it? There's lots more important stuff that needs to be done. Let's move on. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Comment I saw this at MfD, and would never have noticed the page if no one had tried to delete it. I care about mis-use of the CSD far more than I do about this particular page, although now I am tempted to see if I can actually develop it into a valid article. But I will not be dropping the matter at this point. The danger to the project of people who tafg and delete pages improperly is, IMO, far larger than any "junk" in user space. No one is forced to spend time discussing this who does not choose to do so. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Whenever I see something like this deleted as U5, I try to figure out the thought processes behind considering writing a draft, any draft, even a poor or promotional one, of an article to not be "closely related to Wikipedia's goals", before I even get to the clause that explicitly excludes "plausible drafts". Sometimes I take the tagger or deleting admin to task about it, and mostly get ignored. Eventually I come around to the cynical idea that, in practice, what's actually written at WP:U5 doesn't matter except for the part about "the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages", and so the criterion is a handy tool for admins to delete anything in userspace that they don't like which was written by users too inexperienced to know how to object effectively. Anyway, endorse as a reasonable G11. Removing two thirds of the article's prose is a fundamental rewrite in my book, even if it's an easy fundamental rewrite. —Cryptic 17:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Well it's not a U5 as it was an attempt to write an encyclopedia article, however bad, and G11 could have been addressed by removing the "Concept" section. However what we would have been left with is a ten year old draft with 11 words of prose, an infobox, and no sources, written by someone with zero other edits, so I can't see any particular point in restoring it. Hut 8.5 21:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Comment - Well, as the tagger, I certainly thought that, as it was, it was purely promotional, with no content that would have made a credible claim of significance. I still think that it was a reasonable G11. I respectfully disagree with User:DESiegel that I "should have known better". I did find the U5 surprising. I see three possibilities, given that the thing was in user space: (1) overturn and delete as G11; (2) overturn and send back to MFD, which will get rid of it also; (3) endorse the U5 just to avoid the nuisance of a do-over; (4) promote it to article space and let it go to AFD. Yes, I have been working with the mathematicians today, and I changed the postulates in mid-stream. Either delete it, or let it be deleted, and it doesn't really matter how, and if an editor can create a case for notability, good for them. Whatever. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC) AFD and MFD are the same thing, just observed in different coordinate systems. Therefore your points 2 and 4 collapse to a single point, and you're right back to three possibilities. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Robert McClenon, do you not see that when an article or draft includes both promotional and NPOV content, and the promotional content can be removed in a single simple easy edit, that that is what both G11 and WP:ATD say should be done? That speedy deletion should be reserved for only clear-cut cases, and that when there is any reasonable alternative, it should be taken? WP:CSD says Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. and Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion for more information). It seems to me that this page could have been "handled" in any of several other ways, not involving deletion, much less speedy deletion. It is true that if there are both promotional and NPOV content, the promotional content can be trimmed out. We can agree to disagree on whether there was any salvageable NPOV content. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC) RoySmith That is an amusing way to put it, but I think the differences between AfD and MfD are subtle, but important. In particular, notability is often the chief issue at AfD, but normally is not relevant to an MfD. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 06:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC) I've struck that comment. It was an attempt at some math humor, that fell on its face. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn and restore based on the closing administrator's consent above. Lightburst (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse "This page appeared to be a user draft, in an early stage of development." - no, it's a page to host an external link created by a user with no other edits, ten years ago. It exists entirely for Search Engine Optimisation purposes, to cause their website to be higher ranked in searches and drive traffic there. WilyD 07:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC) It is possible that that was the intent, but it never has worked. All Wikipedia links carry the NOFOLLOW attribute, and so none of them is ever used by any search engine to affect the ranking of any page linked to. That is why ba link to the "official" site in a draft about an organization which has not yet established notabilioty is not considered promotional. But if the concern was SEO, a simple addition of {{Userspace draft}} would have placed a NOINDEX attribute onto the page, so that no search engine would even consider the page or its links. WP:ATD surely suggests that such changes are better than deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC) NOINDEX isn't foolproof. I tag all my user pages NOINDEX but I still occasionally find them in search results. Now if I were a marketer, "occasionally" would be more than frequent enough an occurrence for me. -FASTILY 23:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Proper procedures have not been followed here, but that appears to be because there isn't an exact procedure to follow for cases like this. We have some text that appears unlikely to be turned into an article, and if it was would likely be deleted as not meeting our inclusion criteria. Given that it is in user space it will not be linked in any search engine, so sniffing it out to delete it in dubious circumstances seems a waste of everyone's time. Now, this is not one of Giano's abandoned pages, such as User:Giano/ExchangeStreet Offices, Aylesbury, where if that had been deleted those involved would have met with some hostile resistance, but it still should technically have been left alone. That said, there is no benefit in keeping the material, so it being removed is not the hill we should be trying to defend. Neither endorse nor overturn, but simply sigh. I think what is needed here is a procedure to deal with dubious texts in userspace. A platform where we can discuss the matter and arrive at a consensus to delete. SilkTork (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC) There is a procedure for dubious text in user space. It is MfD. It had been started. Had it been allowed to go to completion, I would have had no argument here. I might have expressed a view at the MfD discussion, but if consensus had been formed at such a discussion, I would have nothing to say here. One might have wondered whether it was worth an MfD to delete such a page, but if consensus felt it was, so be it. But use of speedy deletion beyond the strict limits set out at WP:CSD is in my view always objectionable, no matter the nature of the page involved. The criteria page says at its start: The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here. (emphasis added.) It is that principle that is at stake here, and I defend it as per Wikipedia:Process is Important. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Thank you for that. I don't think I've spent much time in MfD - I may do that for a while to get familiar with it. I agree with you that process is important, because without process there is a possibility that things we don't want to happen will start to happen. And I understand that you felt you had to come here rather than just giving the deleting admin a heads up because the admin had put up a notice on their talkpage which didn't encourage discussion about such matters. But at the end of it all, a page that should have been deleted has been deleted, so undeleting it in order to delete it through the proper process is starting to get a bit pointy. The process has already been messy enough with one admin simply undoing a A7 tag with an exasperated comment rather than helping that user with either a) advice, b) putting on the correct tag, or c) taking the article to MfD, or whatever. Then when the user takes it (appropriately) to MfD, another user tags it with G11 and a third user (non-admin) closes it as Speedy delete which an admin then does, but under U5. Process has been confused throughout, and discussion to point out the appropriate procedures would be helpful to all concerned, though I'm not entirely sure that this DRV is bringing such awareness to those involved as to where things went wrong, and how we can improve in future, especially as there is some disagreement as to how exactly it should have been deleted. So I'm back at sighing. As far as I can see there was no ill intent here - indeed, I think everyone here had good intent, but things didn't quite go smoothly. This happens. I think at this point if anyone wants to speak collegiately to anyone about their part in this process to gain some clarity about appropriate procedure moving forward, that would be helpful. I don't think this deletion should be overturned just to make a point when an informal chat will serve that purpose better (and perhaps Fastily could consider making it clear on their talkpage that they are not turning away genuine queries from admins or indeed non-admins regarding deletions, but simply directing users to the right place when appropriate), nor do I see it as appropriate to endorse a deletion that should have occurred in some other way, but I do see the benefit of simply letting the deletion rest as it is, and this review being quietly closed. SilkTork (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC) A minor point of sequence. An A7 was declined in a fairly normal way. The tagger started an MfD, also rather normal. Another editor tagged for G11, and an Admin deleted under U5 with the G11 tag still on the page, and the MfD still open. Then i started the DRV, and only after that was the MfD closed because a deletion had already occurred. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 06:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC) To clarify my views: Had the speedy deletion not occurred, I would have opined Keep in the MfD, on the grounds that there was no policy-based reason for deletion. If this is undeleted and sent back to MfD that would be my view still. It might not prevail, but it is not true that everyone here is in favor of deletion, or agrees that thsi is a page that should have been deleted.". But a consensus MfDiresult would not have gotten me to start a DRV. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 06:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC) SilkTork calls for some clarity about appropriate procedure moving forward and to identifywhere things went wrong. Well, my view is that things went wrong when na page that did not hav G11 levels of promotion was tagged for G11, and wronger when it was deleted under U5. I will gladly assume that there was no ill intent, and I know that not everyone will agree with my view. As to "appropriate procedure moving forward" I think it is simple, don't tag for a CSD that does not fit the written criterion it is tagged for exactly, and don't delete under a criterion that doesn't clearly fit. If there is any doubt, allow a consensus XfD discussion instead. The CSD are bright-line rules, with no give in them, more so than almost any other policy on WP, expect perhaps BLP. They should be adhered to as such. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 06:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC) I think this is all very sensible advice, and I support it. SilkTork (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn U5 plainly does not apply here because even non-notable drafts are related to the purpose of Wikipedia. G11 doesn't apply because there is enough non-promotional content to make removing the promotion not a fundamental rewrite. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 November 2019

Takuya Uehara – Endorse AfD close, allow new draft. A new draft would need to have better sourcing to be viable. There were some sources presented here at DRV, but they didn't seem to impress people as sufficient, so there's more research to be done. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Takuya Uehara (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The subject has been covered in the media several times: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] And that's not all of them... ミラP 14:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Comment I am not sure those sources are enough for WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Analyzing them: 1. Passing mention by name only. 2. " Takuya Uehara with the lyrics of" and the quotation of what he said "Uehara, who appeared in “Handsome Live” from 2007 to 2016, said that the lyrics of “Spring Flowers” ​​put the thoughts toward fans and juniors that they will not change even if the distance is away" is not in-depth. 3. "Uehara, who has played Grell Sutcliff for the first time in two years since Black Butler: The Burning Licorice, which was staged in 2015, said, I think everyone was surely waiting for me. I would like to mark the history of the musical “Kuroshitsuji” with everyone. Please come and see me." Mostly WP:PRIMARY quotations. 4. WP:ROUTINE announcement of his casting "Takuya Uehara in the assistant role of Sano Sagara" 5. Another quotation plus name drops "Mark, Uehara and Mizuta sang the Roger part", "King of the World was sung by Uehara, Hirama and Mizuta.", and "Hirapa and Uehara also rapped". Nothing WP:SIGCOV. 6. I will admit, by far the best source. If more can be found like this, it would be great. 7. and 8. A passing mention. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC) @Jovanmilic97: Thanks for the comment about source 6. I did says that's not all of them. I'll try to find more soon. ミラP 17:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Tip If anyone wants to find more good sources on this subject, please search "植原卓也". ミラP 17:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Allow Re-Creation in Draft if that is what is being requested. If an Overturn is being requested, Endorse as a valid closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC) My basic problem with this is that I don't have the language skills or cultural knowledge to identify which sources are reliable and I have good reason to be very mistrustful of machine translations. I note that both ja.wiki and zh.wiki have rudimentary articles which appear to consist of a list of media appearances with minimal biographical data. I would recommend to allow recreation if-and-only-if we can find reliable sources for basic biographical data such as date and place of birth. If that kind of information can't be sourced then it seems futile to attempt a Wikipedia biography. I would suggest popping a neutrally-worded note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan in order to attract editors who have the skills to find and evaluate the sources.—S Marshall T/C 09:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse valid close without prejudice to recreation in draft space with better sourcing. Guy (help!) 13:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse, but Allow Re-Creation in Draft or undeletion and move to draft. The Afd Clsoe was reasonable. The nominaiton was particularly through, although only one other editor commented in the AfD. It woulkd appear that additional quality sources are needed before this is ready for mainspace. i do not know if such sources exis tor not. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse but allow draft Lightburst (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Since this is the oldest one still active at this time, this should without a doubt be moved to draftspace. ミラP 00:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 November 2019

Southcott (band) – Endorse, the arguments about Allmusic apparently have not convinced anyone that the AFD close was incorrect. Draftification received a bit of discussion but not conclusive due to concerns that it's not clear how it could be improved there; if people want to ask for it they can ask at WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Southcott (band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Allmusic is an accepted reliable source. It is not user-generated content. Biographies and Allmusic reviews are by Allmusic staff, some of whom are well known and long-established music writers. It's a myth that 'anyone can contribute' to Allmusic - it has user reviews, but these are clearly distinct from their staff reviews. Joda85 (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse DRV is used to charge that the close did not correctly reflect consensus, not that you didn't like consensus. Please see this, this, and this for discussions about that source. What I find funny is that this complaint repeats word for word this post and this post from Michig. It's an odd coincidence from an SPA. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Joda85 is a member of the band, as evident in this post and the rest of the ensuing thread on User talk:Sandstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Is it really odd that someone trying to overturn an AfD copies and pastes something from that same AfD discussion? I'm not really sure what you're trying to insinuate here. --Michig (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Michig, I assume you were talking to User:Chris troutman. I just observed that he was a band member, which isn't insinuating anything. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Correct, hence the indentation used. --Michig (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse (or possibly draftify). I probably would have relisted this again, but I can't find any fault in the actual close. Participants at AfD have wide latitude to decide which sources meet our criteria. In this case, they obviously felt that the existing sources were not enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO, and the close correctly reflects that consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC) See my reply to Lightburst, below, for thoughts on draftification. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse - The issue is not whether Allmusic is an independent reliable source (which it is not), but whether the closer acted reasonably, which they did, with reasoned statements to Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse Allmusic.com is not a reliable source[38]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC) No objection to re-drafting in draftspace, although I think it is hopeless. Proponents and authors need to read WP:NBAND and WP:RS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse Regardless of one's views about allmusic (and it can be a reliable source if used carefully, IMO) one source does not make a topic notable. I might have disagreed (or not) but the consensus was celar, and whether the sources in or out of the article are sufficient for notability is a judgement call, unless the judgement was way out of line with obvious facts, and that was not the case here. However, there should be no bar to starting a new draft in an attempt to find and display better sourcing, if that can be done. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse per above. SportingFlyer T·C 11:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Can we Allow Draft? I can attempt to improve it. I have no problem with the closure here. I also see no issues with draft-spacing the article WP:PRESERVE. The band was once a rising concern and they had a following WP:ENT. I checked them out on the Wikipedia Mirror site Melodic Pop-Punk- sounds like many others. Since they have broke up, I am not sure any more information can arise - perhaps obituaries of the members... they did have a reunion in 2016. Lightburst (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC) I have no fundamental problem with draftification, but we need to be clear on what improve means. The problem found at AfD was that this failed WP:MUSICBIO due to a lack of good sources. So, your job will be to find better sources. Not more sources. Better sources. WP:MUSICBIO lists 12 points. The only one which seems plausible is point 1 (multiple, non-trivial, published works...). So, read that carefully (especially the clauses under except), and go find the sources. The best thing would be if you could find WP:THREE such sources and list them here at DRV. If you did that, it would eliminate the need for the trip through draftspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Perhaps I can take two weeks to work on this article. If I cannot make the article WP worthy we could delete it with no harm to the project. I don't actually know if I can do it, but one of my interests is musical people and acts. I think it would be a challenge based on my preliminary search. I will leave it up to the participants here. Lightburst (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse. No prejudice one way or another on draftification. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 02:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse, this is not the place to relitigate arguments that failed at AfD but in any case AMG, which absolutely does include self-sourced and subject-submitted content, is basically a directory and does not support notability. The fact that the requester self-identified to Sandstein that they are part of the band doesn't get past the fact that the four accounts that added almost all the content are also WP:SPAs - this appears to have been an advertisement. Guy (help!) 13:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse because there were two clear supports for delete, and the one oppose was opaque, presented as a comment, whose arguments were refuted. While I agree with the oppose that AllMusic is a reliable source when considering the professional staff material, it is a grey area as far as Wikipedia goes, with no clearly defined guidance on the matter. I think what is needed is a RfC on AllMusic to establish when and how it can be used as a reliable source, and for the results to be posted in an easy to find location. SilkTork (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC) My comment was not an opaque oppose presented as a comment, it was a comment presenting coverage that I found, which, if other people had found more could have contributed to notability. And it was not refuted, just the usual nonsense about Allmusic bios and reviews being user-submitted content, and an almost full-page article being dismissed as a "mention". --Michig (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse. The close was reasonable given the coverage identified and the balance of views expressed in the discussion. --Michig (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Lera Loeb – No consensus. Some initial confusion about who the deleting admin was aside, the question here is basically whether the debatable claims of notability or significance - which, as we know, are not the same thing as far as WP:CSD#A7 and WP:GNG are concerned - in the article are actually valid and thus an argument for overturning the A7 speedy deletion. It seems like every aspect has been convered, from the notability of related topics, whether they spill over as "significance" to related subjects, to reliability of particular sources, whether a claim of notability is also a claim of significance and whether being/saying to be a mail-order bride is a claim of significance. By headcount we see 7 endorses and 9 send-to-afd-es, which is perhaps closer to an "overturn and list at AFD" but not clear enough to make a consensus IMO, and the strength of the arguments does not clearly lean into a particular direction either. Thus no consensus, and the deletion is thus maintained by default and the deletion is reversed. I know that sometimes we treat "No consensus" on reviews of speedy deletions as "list at AFD"; the reasons I didn't go for this here are that a) whether to do this has been extensively debated here already and b) a lot of people are hinting that an AFD would likely result as "delete". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Amended the close as I had forgotten that we overturn no-consensus speedy deletion reviews. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lera Loeb (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This article has been in existence for about a decade with no concern by anyone about its worthiness for inclusion. It passed WP:GNG with in-deth significant coverage including a very in-depth article from Glamour [39]. This was a very public example and examination of the "mail order bride" phenomena which explained its importance. But suddenly this was tagged for speedy deletion saying A7 and the same editor who tagged it deleted it in less than four hours after they placed the tag. I was given notice of the deletion tag as creator in the same amount of time and if I wasn't still a relatively active editor I wouldn't have known about this at all. Speedy deletion, especially in less than four hours of proposal by the same editor, wasn't appropriate particularly when the article already had in-depth coverage linked in the article. If an editor didn't feel the topic was notable the most drastic move here should've been AfD. I notified my challenge to the deleting editor but after two days, a lot more than four hours, there has been no response.Oakshade (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC) EDIT: The tagging editor was not the deleting one. Apologies to both. Oakshade (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Comment - okay, this is a tough one. Autobiographical works (which the Glamour profile sort of is) aren't good for establishing notability. As it stands, I think I'd lean slightly against an A7, but I also find it very hard to condemn it as a wrong choice. I don't think there's any chance at all this would survive an AfD in its current form. I think the wisest course of action would be that if someone wants to make a go of it, let it be userfied to them. Otherwise, restoring for an AfD that would inevitably be fatal seems pretty pointless. WilyD 08:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse List at AfD. I disagree with Wily about this being a tough one. It's an obvious WP:A7 in my eyes. A7 requires that the article, does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and indeed there was no such indication in the article. I've tempundeleted it. It only states her place of birth, occupation, spouse, that she was a mail-order bride, and the title of a short film she wrote. None of these things indicate why she is important. And, not that it's actually germaine to A7, but the two sources were 1) an article that the subject co-authored, and 2) WP:DAILYMAIL. There's zero chance this would survive AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Update: CSD is only for uncontroversial deletions. I still think A7 was perfectly reasonable, but there's enough people here making plausible assertions of notability that this is obviously not as uncontroversial as I thought. So, it should be listed at AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Err, read the whole of A7 - it's explicitly a lower standard than Notability. The Glamour source would go a long way (though perhaps not all the way) to establishing notability, except that she co-authored it, which takes a lot of winds out of its sails. (Or conversely, that you're profiled in a significant publication is prima facie evidence of significance/important, and indeed, the only evidence of significance/importance generally accepted on Wikipedia). Otherwise, it's just your subjective judgement of who you personally think is important. The Daily Mail is a) The Daily Mail, and b) a trivial mention, so it's of no consequence here, I agree. WilyD 13:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC) AfD it, so we can have a proper seven-day discussion and then delete it in the proper way. Considering how well-established it is on Wikipedia that the Daily Mail isn't a reliable source, and having read the other source in detail, I really can't envisage this article surviving a full AfD. But fair process is important in a collaborative project such as this one and so it's right that this editor should be allowed to make their case to the community.—S Marshall T/C 14:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC) @S Marshall: in what way does this not meet WP:A7? What indication does the article give that this person is important or significant? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC) I feel that a valid way for article-writers to assert someone's notability is by linking the sources that have noted them. (Arguably, that's the only kind of "assertion of notability" that should count at all, but that's a separate debate.) For me, A7 is about stopping you from writing articles about your neighbour or your teacher. In this case there are inline citations to national publications, so for me it's over the bar. I accept that others' mileages vary.—S Marshall T/C 17:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Hmmm. That's not unreasonable, but I interpret A7 to be talking about what's actually in the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC) What's actually in the article is a citation to Glamour magazine, which is an indication of importance/significance by virtue of its coverage of the subject. We should encourage editors to demonstrate potential notability by means of sources, rather than by making outlandlish claims in the text of articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC) @S Marshall: - regarding an article being "well-established," there is no temporal restriction on CSD#A7. Toddst1 (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC) I didn't say the article is well-established. I said it's well-established on Wikipedia that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source.—S Marshall T/C 08:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse the A7 speedy deletion. The question is not notability. The question is whether the deleted stub makes a credible claim of significance. In my opinion, it does not make a credible claim of significance, and the deleting administrator acted reasonably. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC) It might make sense to read that essay before linking it. It again makes the point the credible claim of significance is a lower standard than notability, not a separate, unrelated standard. The idea we could A7 articles that would be kept at AfD on Notability is fundamentally daft. The whole point of speedy deletion is to delete things where the outcome of a discussion would undoubtably be delete - which isn't the case for things that present evidence they may pass WP:N. WilyD 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC) List at AfD A7 is intended to be a lower bar than notability, so evidence of notability exempts an article from A7. Furthermore whether something meets notability standards is supposed to be discussed at AfD or PROD instead of being handled through speedy deletion, so articles with something which could plausibly be viewed as evidence of notability shouldn't be deleted under A7 either. I'm not at all sure the Glamour article and Daily Mail article constitute evidence of notability, but I can see someome making a serious argument at AfD that they do, so AfD is where is should go. Hut 8.5 21:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC) The article did not assert importance or significance. Whether it asserted notability is muddier. I'm not at all bothered by judging the Daily Mail source as not even plausibly GNG-qualifying, even in a speedy deletion context. I personally wouldn't take the Glamour source as GNG-qualifying either, especially given the shared byline, but I wouldn't think it unreasonable to do so. (Even though someone who did would be wrong, wrong, absolutely brimming over with wrongability.) So while this wasn't a particularly good speedy, it wasn't a crazy one either; and it should go to AFD now that it's been challenged, without implication of wrongdoing on the part of the deleting admin. Also, the drv nom's assertion that this was tagged A7 and then deleted by the same person is blatantly false. Unimpressive. —Cryptic 01:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC) I acknowledged, noted and apologized in the DRV nom that the article was not deleted by the tagging editor, but in the end that is just a red herring as the deleting editor being different than the tagging one has nothing to do with the inappropriateness of deleting an article with significant coverage by arguably reliable sources already linked in it as well as the film and A7-aversion verbiage of the lede (the topic “revealed that she was a mail order bride”). Oakshade (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn A7 The statement She revealed in 2009 that she was what is commonly known as a mail-order bride. is in my view, a claim of significance whether the article would stand up at an AfD (quite likely not without additional sources, but I haven't done a WP:BEFORE search to see if there are any) is not in the least relevant to whether an article fits A7. Any plausible claim of significance, whether or not supported by sources, any sources at all, is enough that A7 does not apply. Being a modern mail-order bride is unusual enough (or at least sufficiently rarely reported) to be significant. If well supported by sources, it might be sufficient for notability. I wouldn't object if this were drafified, for possible improved sourcing. I do strongly object to speedy deletion here. Since sources are irrelevant to an A7, the quality of the sources currently cite is also irrelevant. One must presume that during an Afd there would be a search for further sources, which might or might not bear fruit. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Mail-order bride#Country-specific information has some relevant stats. Even the lowest of them shows that " '{{PAGENAME}} was a mail-order bride' is a claim of significance" is not a reasonable position. —Cryptic 04:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC) But the claim is not "XXX was a mail-order bride" but rather "XXX revealed that she was a mail-order bride." People in such situations may not be uncommon, but they rarely talk about this to the media, and even more rarely draw any media attention. That is significant. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Send to AfD. Challenged A7s should go to AfD for discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse Looked at the historical version. Clear WP:A7. Understand the rationale, but sending to AfD would be a clear waste of time. SportingFlyer T·C 12:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Comment (!vote above stands.) A speedy deletion is supposed to be clear cut. If several experienced editors think it should be restored (even to go to AfD) then it isn't clear cut and should be restored, even if others think it was an A7. Note also that there is no bar to recreating a page deleted by speedy -- G4 would not apply. A WP:REFUND request could recreate this as a draft ifd anuyone wnated to work on it, in user space or draft space, or any admin could do so unilaterally. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Send to AfD Challenged SD should go to AfD for discussion. The community can decide. Lightburst (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn and send to AfD. The significance/importance bar for CSD A7 is a lower hurdle than notability. While it might not survive AfD, that would give an opportunity for more source searches, and the film is also enough of a claim to survive speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn and debate. The film negates the A7 criteria, and so this needs to be sent to AfD instead (as is the case for a failed speedy/PROD). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 23:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse per RoySmith. I disagree also with the view that contested A7s should go to AfD. If you can't make a credible claim of significance in an article you create, then create a new one that has a credible claim in it. That's much easier than a 14-day DRV/AFD circle-jerk at the expense of wikipedia's servers. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse. The only claim to notability is by inheritance as the mail-order bride of Steve Loeb, who is also not actually notable. Guy (help!) 13:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Do note that A7 is not about claims to Notability It is explicitly a lower standard than notability. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse: No reasonable claim of importance in the article at all. (I'm surprised to he the folks say that since she wrote and directed a film nobody heard of with nobody notable in the cast that she's somehow important.) Beyond that, this deletion review seems like a complete waste of time and creation of drama - note the indignation (and inaccuracies) in the the drv nom. Mkativerata said it well above. However with this goat breeding festival underway, the best course at this point is to userfy the article, let whoever gives a toss improve it and move it back to article space when it has a snowball's chance of survival. Toddst1 (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse, but am open to AFD The article had exactly zero claim of significance. The external link section all goes to sites that are usually frowned on here, and two citations to a magazine article a UK internet article do not establish reliable independent third party coverage for a biographical article's sources to the standards set forth by Wikipedia. A check of the google search included in the csd template for admins also fails to ride to the article's rescue here: most celebrates judged significant or notable enough to be on Wikipedia have millions of results, while this girl has just under 700,000 - and when you account for mirrors, repeat coverage, and social media that has little if any place in or on a Wikipedia article that number inevitably shrinks further. Compounding the problem is that she's not in any major movie production, the article states only a "short film" but in a broad sense anything can be considered a "short film" - for example, any of the instructional videos or an audio read thorough of a Wikipedia article could be claimed as "short films". As for being a mail order bride, that sounds like a nice solid foundation for an article to be built on, but she is not the first mail order bride, nor will she be the last, and while it does make her story unique, it fails to establish significance or notability because its not been a major factor in her life's story or life's work to date. As for taking it to afd, I am open to that since it'll will allow the CSD-A7 tag to be switched out for the far more potent CSD-G4 tag. G4 speedy deletion criteria prohibits articles deleted via afd discussion from returning at or anywhere near their form at the time they were axed, so either option is ends with a red link as opposed to an article. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn A7 and send to AfD. There are claims within the article that the subject is a "writer, producer and film maker" and "mail order bride". Both of these claims are supported by sources. As such we cannot decide just by looking at the article if the subject is or is not notable, but there is enough information there for the matter to be debatable. We have articles on writers, on producers, and on film-makers. Mail-order bride is a notable topic, and that there is a credible claim supported by a reliable source that this person may be a notable mail-order bride then A7 can't apply. The dubious nature of this (and why it needs discussing at AfD) is that one of the sources is the Daily Mail, a depreciated source. But that the Daily Mail has coverage supporting the claim that the subject is indeed a "writer, producer and film maker", then it is plausible that other sources may also exist. The other source is fine - it is an in-depth interview written by a notable writer, Jessica Pilot, and published in a notable magazine, Glamour (magazine). The style of the interview article is to present it as though the subject is talking directly to the reader, and this may have misled others to think it is purely autobiographical. But the by-line at the top indicates that Jessica Pilot is the author (or ghost-writer). By itself the one source supporting a claim of mail-order bride notability is not quite enough, but the length of the piece, and that it was written by a notable author, gives plausible reasons for thinking there may be other sources covering this, so an AfD is appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn. The citation to Glamour magazine in the article is enough to overturn speedy deletion. Arguments in a possible AfD would condider sources such as this published by the NYU Press and these from academic publishers, but that would require overturning of the speedy deletion first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Bridger (talk • contribs) Endorse A7 – no credible claim of significance or importance is made in the article. Being a mail-order bride is not a claim of significance or importance, anymore than being a plumber is, or being a mathematician, or being left-handed, or being a virgin. There are lots of mail-order brides; there's nothing significant or important about them. That "mail order bride" is a notable topic doesn't mean that individual mail order brides are notable because of it (or the lower bar of "significant" or "important"). Same with being a writer, producer, filmmaker... there are millions of people that can make that claim. A filmmaker who lived in 1919 might be making a claim of significance or importance – back when that was a rare profession requiring specialized knowledge – but not in 2019. Every teenager is a filmmaker these days. If her article claimed that she had won an award, or her films were screened somewhere significant, or that she was the first mail-order bride, or the most expensive mail order bride... but just listing essentially her occupation and background doesn't get past A7. (And it doesn't matter if her husband is or isn't notable, because notability isn't inherited. "I'm so-and-so's wife" is never a credible claim of significance or importance. Unless maybe "so-and-so" is, like, the Pope.) – Levivich 17:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 November 2019

TOPCAT (software) – Early close as decision is endorsed and userfication has taken place so requests to close, including by the nominator, have been made with no objections. SilkTork (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
TOPCAT (software) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Requesting userfication for possible article developement, noticed the following new source [40] (Sept 2019) (among others)}. While I could WP:TNT which at one point Ihad thought of per Draft:TOPCAT (plotting software) and intersect with [41] my perference is to work from the pervious page with rightful fully attributed history, talk page and no need to reverse engineer citations. Userfication WP:REFUND refused by Muboshgu at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#TOPCAT (software); Closer suggested I route to DRV User talk:Randykitty#TOPCAT (software). Thankyou Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Allow userfication- The original AfD probably should have been closed as no consensus in the first place and if new sources have been published in the mean time I can definitely see this surviving another AfD. Reyk YO! 11:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Comment from closer: with three policy-based "delete" !votes and you the only "keep" (qualified as "reluctant") I think this was a rather clear "delete"... --Randykitty (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC) That's not really how I interpreted Newslinger's and djmleighpark's comments, but whatever. I think it should be userfied now since new sources have turned up subsequently. Reyk YO! 11:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Userify I'm extremely skeptical that the sources in the draft, self-interested journal articles, and powerpoints on a couple university pages lend themselves to WP:GNG, but I see no harm in restoring this to user space for improvement. I also agree with RandyKitty that the close was spot on. SportingFlyer T·C 11:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Userfy. I doubt it's notable, but if somebody says they have new sources and wants to try writing a better version, I can't see any reason to deny that. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Userfy. I think the close was correct based on the deletion discussion. However, since the article subject was right on the edge of meeting WP:GNG, it does make sense to provide interested editors with the deleted version of the article when new sources emerge. — Newslinger talk 00:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse the AfD ran for two weeks. The closing admin made the only proper close based on the !votes. Lightburst (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC) The close was correct, but the refusal to userfy was grossly incompetent. WilyD 18:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC) I agree strongly with this. Userfication and draftization requests at WP:REFUND with any sort of rationale, even a token one, should be, and are, hardly ever declined. Certainly not with the generic "REFUND doesn't restore afd articles to mainspace" template. Refusal indicates either abuse or an overwhelming suspicion of it, either on the part of the page's previous editors (G10; G12) or the requesting one (some G11s; G4 where there's evidence that the userfication will be to circumvent deletion policy, not explicit improvement). —Cryptic 21:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Careful...I have had admins also refuse to allow drafts. One said they did not want it "lingering in draft space". I did not think it was "abuse". I also did not think it was "grossly incompetent" as was stated above. These are borderline WP:PAs against an admin interpreting local consensus correctly. Try to remember that we are all volunteers and WP:AGF Lightburst (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse and userfy - obviously the close is correct, but also obviously anything that's deleted that isn't problematic in content (mostly meaning, no copyright or attack page problems) can and should be userfied to anyone who wants a go at writing another draft. They're free to write such drafts without the previous versions, so userfying is only being ethical about authorship (and conversely, refusing to userfy is only refusing to be ethical about authorship). WilyD 18:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Comment: In this case if I had of asked closer first (I noted some desire to minimize wikipedia time) before making a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion or not imposed a time limit on closer when I went back to closer I may have avoided DRV. Obviously not an issue here if this has been marked as soft delete but likely doesn't meet the criteria for that and that would have allowed restore direct to mainspace which is not what a closer would have wanted. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse and userfy. I think the clsoe was marginal, but within reasonable range of discretion. But I do not see any justification for a refusal to refund as a user space draft (or draft space either). DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Muboshgu has now restored this to userspace, as requested by Djm-leighpark. I think this discussion can now be closed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Comment: Thanks all for support and help... Following the userfy I am happy for this to be closed, think I may need to get the talk page restored but that's not a matter for here. Welcome for a third party to do this. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 November 2019

Alfa Noranda – Endorse. There were some oddities in the process, but there's wide agreement that we ended up in the right place, i.e. with the article in draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Alfa Noranda (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I am querying the process, rather than the cause for this article for deletion. The article does admittedly look terrible in the draft form and does need fixing. However the article was nominated for deletion, then the result is a speedy keep by the same editor. The closing template seems to have been put around the sub-heading, rather than within the heading. However my issue is with (a) I see no discussion or debate how this conclusion was achieved as there is no other comments on the page, (b) the page still seems to have been deleted. I am unclear of the process here but it seems very unusual; I'm not remotely interested in the article, but to an editor just browsing it is unclear how the result of speedy keep was achieved, and then why the article has been deleted. Perhaps User:MoonyTheDwarf could help clarify the situation? Master Of Ninja (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse Master Of Ninja The article was moved to draft, which was surely reasonable. The move left a redirect behind, which was then deleted under CSD R2 as is perfectly proper and indeed needed. The actual content is now at Draft:Alfa Noranda, and has not been deleted at all. All this should have been clear from the deletion log entry. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC) This should be closed as there's nothing to see here - while the lack of text isn't helpful, the nominator clearly withdrew their AfD and decided to draftify the article for improvement. SportingFlyer T·C 04:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Not a problem from my point of view - just wanted to make sure there wasn't any procedural irregularities. Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Master Of Ninja: Yep, I draftified it. Sorry for the late response, been on a short break. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC) MoonyTheDwarfI've made some small improvements with templates, categories and tidying up the intro. Can't add much more however as not familiar with the topic and it has some what I think is Indonseian terminology. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Endorse entirely sensible action to allow the article to be improved rather than deleted. WP:NOTBURO, we don't need to faff about when the article and its history are fully preserved for improvement. It's pretty likely the creator is connected to the subject and does not have English as a first language, an AfD on this would have been brutal. Much kinder to draftify so someone can help turn it into a decent article, IMO. Guy (help!) 14:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC) We've sort of ended up where we should, but I understand Master Of Ninja's concern as the process used has been a bit ragged. User:Fosil73 created the article as what appears to be a cut and paste from another language Wikipedia. User:MoonyTheDwarf immediately took the article to AfD, notifying the creator. As the creator then started to work on translating the article, MoonyTheDwarf appeared to see the potential of the article, and so closed the AfD as speedy keep which is allowable as nobody else commented on the AfD. MoonyTheDwarf then moved the article into Draftspace, though without following WP:DRAFTIFY, so User:Fosil73 has not been made aware of what has happened, and when they follow the link on their talkpage they arrive at Alfa Noranda rather than Draft:Alfa Noranda, so they are no longer working on the article. I would say that MoonyTheDwarf has acted in good faith, and we've ended up where we should, but ideally - as the article was being actively edited by the creator - once it had been sent to AfD it should have remained there to allow time for the improvements to be made rather than be speedy kept then moved into Draftspace, which for the creator was an effective deletion. Alternatively, contact could have been made with the creator before nominating for AfD, to discover the source of the material, and what the creator intended; and at that time the Draftspace process could have been pointed out to Fosil73 both as a place to move the article and as an indicator of how to do things in future. I think what needs to happen now is for MoonyTheDwarf to finish off the paperwork and inform Fosil73 of what has happened to the article, and let them know that they can continue editing it in Draftspace. SilkTork (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Oh, shoot! I forgot to do that! I'll do that now. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC) I think this can now be closed. SilkTork (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.