Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2020 Deletion review archives July 2020 >

30 June 2020[edit]

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

I have no idea how anyone could say there was a clear consensus on this decision. There was no clear consensus for a merge, at best it was no consensus (or alternatively the deletion page should have been left open for another 7 days to get a better idea of consensus), and the dismissal of anyone's view who suggested keeping the article as a "single purpose account" is rude. Deus et lex (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - Giving less weight to comments that do not reference policy is fair, and SPAs receiving more scrutiny isn't improper; it's hard to imagine that editors who don't know how to sign their comments (there's a hint on the edit source page) could know Wikipedia policy well-enough to comment. Otherwise, any company/person could just canvass a bunch of people to an AfD, have them stack up votes, and we'd keep reaching "no consensus". Addressing each keep vote (by a SPA) in turn: no reference to policy, inadvertently suggests WP:TNT and makes no attempt to show how the subject is notable (other than by saying "is notable"), your keep vote was the same (no reference to sources or attempt to show notability), ditto, then a sockpuppet, [...] (you get the idea).
It isn't the closer's fault that all of the keep votes failed to address policy, sources, or make any attempt to actually show notability. Saying "subject is notable" with no evidence is a useless comment, in that it doesn't help prove your point. As HighKing stated, This isn't a !vote-counting exercise.
The delete and merge comments made adequate reference to policy, whilst the keep !voters failed to make their case. Closer addressed consensus accurately; it's a toss-up as to whether to delete or merge, but since this DRV requests overturning to keep / relist, that point is irrelevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- how refreshing to see a closing administrator not prostrate themselves worshipfully before unsupported claims of WP:ITSNOTABLE, to say nothing of the obvious canvassing and/or meatpuppeting. Simply put, the delete side made their case, the keep side did not. I didn't participate in the AfD and , if I had, I probably would have said to merge. Reyk YO! 12:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge but with no bar against a new version with better sources being created, preferably via a draft, at some future time if any editor finds proper sources. Jack4567 made a policy based keep argument, but it seems that HighKing's refutation convinced Jack4567, at least for a time. Most other keep views were not persuasive, although the views of Deus et lex had some merit and do address proerp policy issues. Close was correct on the discussion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments as closer: Although not mentioned in the close (as it can plainly be seen from the face of the discussion), the deletion request was made on June 19, and the discussion was closed on June 30, a period of 11 days, so the discussion was already open for well over the usual seven day period. No discussion is entitled to relisting, certainly not one where an unusually high number of participants have only a handful of edits or have only recently begun editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, in merging the article into the parent company, I took care to maintain the content on the ACCC prosecution referenced in the discussion. The information of significance was therefore preserved, and placed in the context of the supertopic. Any reader coming to Wikipedia to find out about Employsure will find out what is significant about Employsure. BD2412 T 15:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse And honestly, I'd probably salt the title given the way that AfD went with all of the SPAs involved. A merge was permissible but generous based on the discussion. It's not rude to ignore SPAs when they show up en masse and don't present actual reasons for keeping the article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That content was irretrievably promotional from first creation. I can't find a single NPOV revision to revert to. I don't often use emphasis like strong endorse at DRV, but on this occasion I think it's warranted.—S Marshall T/C 16:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - It is common practice to disregard arguments that (1) make no compelling policy-based argument or (2) are from SPAs who appear to have been canvassed on- or off-wiki. The fault was in the arguments for those advocating for Keep, not in the closer deciding to assign less weight to them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2 18:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the Keep comments largely had no basis in WP:CORP, e.g. bald statements that the subject is notable, statements that the subject is important or well known, statements that the subject has appeared on TV, etc, etc. There was one attempt to argue on the basis of sources, but HighKing did a pretty good job of rebutting that. I don't see any reason to reopen the discussion, it was open for longer than the required period and had plenty of participation. Having a large number of SPAs show up is suspicious and suggests external canvassing, the closer would be entitled to downweight those comments in that case. Hut 8.5 18:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a reasonable outcome. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Merge was endorsed by only one editor. This is not a reasonable close - consensus is a policy even if some do not agree with it. Either relist or close according to the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. A closer's job is to assess consensus and this closer did not. Lightburst (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are referring to the !vote of User:Cunard. However, I did not ignore the comments of User:Coolabahapple: "so a "merge/redirect"... is out of the question?"; and User:Jack Frost: "Per Coolabahapple, it does possibly warrant being skinned and merged..." Based on the totality of the discussion, including the concern by the few non-SPA "keep" voters that discussion of the ACCC prosecution be preserved, merging was the only reasonable close, per WP:PRESERVE. BD2412 T 18:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, i was pleased to see that it was BD2412 who closed this afd as i have found previous closes carried out by them to be, like this afd close, policy based, and sensible. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't let me get a big head, though. BD2412 T 01:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 June 2020[edit]

28 June 2020[edit]

27 June 2020[edit]

  • User:Not David Brown/sandbox – Page restored temporarially. I have undeleted the page, so you can copy it to wherever you want. Once you have done so, please ping me and I'll re-delete it. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Not David Brown/sandbox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reason 5. I'm in the process of just trying to archive some past work of mine. I wish to recover these past projects of mine and have the chance to save these old projects to a different Wiki. The article was originally deleted without any true reason, and although I understand the rationale, I do not know what rule of Wikipedia's the article was breaking. Seeing this doubles down on this thought. Users are permitted to use their own user space for experimentation that includes trial pages for templates with the purposes of being a kind of personal sandbox. Looking deeper at Reason G2 for deletion, "It applies to subpages of the Wikipedia Sandbox created as tests, but does not apply to the Sandbox itself. It also does not apply to pages in the user namespace." I personally considered this content of mine to be testing/experimental content. What I am puzzled about though is posting "blatant vandalism" onto one's own user sandbox. However, Wikipedia states on the issue, "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose." I clearly was not undermining my own purpose of my sandbox article and I believe that the original deletion ignored the assuming good faith. And if I may be completely honest, I really just want to be able to save what was once on this page to move it to a different Wiki. I don't mind if its content is deleted again as long as I can save it. I guess it's an atypical sort of request, so I hope I posted this in the correct forum. Thanks! (Edit: And to clarify on the 2015 deletion discussion, by "future projects" I was meaning to move this content to [[1]], but in the end I was never given the opportunity to transfer) Not David Brown (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can request a copy of the deleted article by asking any admin, specifically the ones listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles may be willing to consider your request. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 June 2020[edit]

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

Reason 5... Just take a look at the reasons for Keeping that a non-admin unfortunately bought into. "I've listened to his videos while editing Wikipedia", "He popularized We are Number One, The Flintstones: The Rescue of Dino & Hoppy among other things. He deserves credit", "Is an extremely active channel with its almost hourly posting schedule, which is what differentiates it from other parody Youtubers without Wikipedia pages (even the more popular ones)", etc. Nuff said. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse By my reading of that discussion - and it wasn't a great discussion - there wasn't a single user who !voted there who agreed with your nomination. There's no way we're going to overturn this. SportingFlyer T·C 07:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Could not possibly have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that a consensus like that is unassailable.—S Marshall T/C 10:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So just to be clear, it doesn't matter how invalid the rationales for keeping are? This is my first time on DRV--I'm just asking for the !votes to be scrutinised. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got a lot of sympathy with you. In a discussion that was flooded with votes that didn't contain much detailed analysis, you rightly persisted in trying to focus on the sources. But where you've got a unanimous "keep" response at a well-attended discussion, DRV expects a "keep" outcome. I might suggest renominating it for deletion in a few months' time.—S Marshall T/C 14:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same boat as S Marshall here. Unfortunately, even if we invalidate all of the keep !votes, that leaves us at a no consensus, but we can't have a soft delete here since this was a well attended if poorly argued discussion. Anyone who has spent time at AfD has had articles kept that should clearly be deleted, which is the result of a consensus-based process. Also note I'd be more willing to overturn if you were arguing for keep against a bunch of terrible delete !votes. SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I was almost ready to say that, despite the overwhelming nose count, none of the keep votes cited any policy-based arguments. Then I found where User:OmegaFallon pointed out how the subject specifically meets WP:ENTERTAINER, and found a source (a PhD thesis) which discussed the subject. So there's at least some defensible reason to keep this. And, despite the fact that there's some controversy here, I think this was a perfectly acceptable WP:NAC. My suggestion is to, per WP:RENOM, bring this back in a few months for another look. On the other hand, I don't know what argument you could make in a few months that would be better than your point-by-point refutation of the existing sources. So, maybe just accept that editors at AfD have a fair amount of latitude on what they consider notable, and in this case, they disagreed with you. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse you can certainly submit this for AfD again hoping for a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS but I would have you read WP:DELAFD first. This was a clear snow keep where no other result was possible. Lightburst (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I agree with the appellant that the article appears to fail to satisfy Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but this is a clear case of consensus, and the closer was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is unusual in that it is an appeal of a Keep rather than an appeal of a Delete, but consensus is consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Couldn't have been closed any other way. The AfD nomination was woefully poor. See advice at WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Several users !voting keep and basing it on Wikipedia policies such as GNG. Clearly the keep side presented the persuasive arguments. —C.Fred (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling – Opinions here are fairly well split. Closes within my discretion on the basis of this discussion are endorse, maybe overturn to no consensus, or relist. In this case, "endorse" and "overturn to no consensus", as DRV outcomes, are more ambiguous than usual because the original close doesn't choose between "redirect" and "merge"; so if I went with one of those, then we still don't know what to do but the locus of the discussion becomes talk pages instead of AfD. In the circumstances I'm going to select relist as the close that'll resolve matters most quickly.—S Marshall T/C 19:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reason 5: Article was deleted for failing to meet notability requirements (WP:NMG), however discussion centered on the question irrelevant to notability of whether the subject ever existed. The discussion should have been relisted at 7 days (WP:RELIST) so that relevant discussion from more users could occur and a consensus could be reached. Instead discussion was closed on the 8th day. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm somewhere between relist and weak endorse. I originally typed out a relist considering the discussion was poor, the close valid, and the outcome probably correct. A relist here is probably the optimal solution considering the request from a non-participating user and considering how poor the discussion was, but I don't think there's anything technically wrong with the close. I'm putting weight on the fact WP:GNG was not clearly argued for. Also, it's not a good look to edit war a redirect after a close. SportingFlyer T·C 01:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been involved in the edit war, so I'm not sure why that would reflect poorly on me or this discussion. It is unfortunate that these users can't funnel their frustration into the proper discussion, but I believe my actions should stand for themselves. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AquitaneHungerForce: That comment was not aimed at you by any sense of the imagination! I wasn't replying to you but rather commenting as usual per the DRV, but because I don't have a firm vote I didn't bold anything. I looked at the page's history, and there's been an edit war because another user did not agree with the close - my assumption is that they will make their way here at some point. SportingFlyer T·C 07:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, was this discussed with the closing admin before you listed here? This is a prerequisite as listed in the DRV instructions. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added the template to the closing admin's talk page as per step 3 of WP:DRV, however this notice was posted during step two i.e. prior to adding to the discussion page. If I am misunderstanding the protocol or the steps I would like things to go in the right order. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I'm in agreement with SportingFlyer's arguments, there—nothing technically incorrect about the original action, I don't think, but the discussion was certainly not enough to show consensus of any form thanks to its weak nature. The lack of relevant arguments, the sparse discussion present, and the lack of relist in the first place really strike me as reasons to relist this AfD and attempt to find a reasonable action to take here. Moonwater21 (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. There was no serious evaluation of the sources in the AfD. Whether or not the AfD outcome would have ultimately been correct is irrelevant, since DRV isn't for relitigating the AfD. Relist it and let it develop a consensus. Spicy (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus with no prohibition on an immediate renomination, but no mandate to relist either. No one but the nom favored deletion, and the only argument given was "Does not appear to meet notability requirements" with no details, and no mention of a WP:BEFORE search. Much of the brief discussion was about whether the album exists or not. Tothebarricades.tk and Chubbles pointed out that there are published sources, and those favoring a redirect, Lugnuts and Superastig gave no policy-based reasons for this view. There was no policy-based consensus here to do anything with this article, and so the closer should have found. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were doubts cast of this release even existing, hence the redirect. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there are sources that discuss it, that is no bar to an article. Consider The Last Dangerous Visions, which famously does not exist, never did and never will. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another example is Paul McCartney's Cold Cuts, which remained unreleased, even after bootlegs got in the way. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 17:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same thoughts with Lugnuts. I could've voted to keep the article since there are some sources about it. But, the existence of this "lost work" or fan-exclusive remains in question. Therefore, with the analysis from Chubbles, I was left no option, but to vote for a redirect. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 17:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist: Though I was one of the 2 participants who voted for a redirect, it'd could've helped if it was relisted for other users to participate. That could've given me some time to reconsider my vote. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 17:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Happy for a re-listing. Per the above and the AfD, there were concerns about it even existing, but a relist can't do any harm. And to flag up any possible conflict of interest, Godspeed You! Black Emperor are one of my fave bands. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still think AfD is the wrong venue for this discussion to be occurring; the original nominator is the only one who actually thought the article should be deleted (as in, the blue link turned red). But the close of this discussion did feel premature at the time. Chubbles (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this was a proper reading of the !votes and a proper close. Lightburst (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Proper close. Do not relist, because the AfD failed WP:BEFORE, and could have been closed as Speedy Keep. Failing WP:Notability does not mean deletion if there is a merge target. The merge should be carried out, subject to consensus at Talk:Godspeed You! Black Emperor. Consensus at Talk:Godspeed You! Black Emperor is enough to reverse the redirect, if that's how the discussion goes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ‘’Oppose deletion‘’, as earlier; merging is non- optimal but it makes so much more sense than outright deletion. I deeply regret getting so upset about this a few weeks ago (is “quarantine rage” a thing?), for the childish name calling and for the unilateral undeletion (I only did this once and was thinking of it as a mild sort of civil disobedience because no one listened to what I thought was an air-tight defense on the grounds of the GNG.; I had no intentions of fighting an actual edit war) Apologies. Unacceptable behavior all around, but I think I’ve been right on the merits here. The GNG should supersede other considerations and on those grounds the notability of the article is literally beyond dispute, as it has been discussed by major magazines and standard books of reference. Tothebarricades (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 June 2020[edit]

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

From the closing admin's talk page:

Discussion with closing admin

→ in re: Skyhorse Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
→ see also: User talk:SkyhorseSales1, User talk:JohnFloghaman, User talk:Kotoba321, User talk:ElWrite11,

Hi Athaenara. Would you undo your speedy deletion of Skyhorse Publishing? I reviewed the 9 October 2010 version of the article from the Internet Archive and did not find it to be promotional. The 27 April 2020 version of the article from the Internet Archive seems to be neutrally written in general. I do not think WP:G11 applies to either of these versions. If later versions are promotional, they can be reverted to the last clean version. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: That version was a brief description with zero references and an external link to the company's website and hadn't much to recommend it. I think it would be better to take a fresh approach and ask the questions which should be asked: was the company ever notable, is it notable now, can reliable sources be found which demonstrate either of those things, and does it merit an encyclopedia article here. – Athaenara ✉ 14:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(I was refering to the 2010 version; the April 2020 version was a thoroughly fluffed up company description worthy of its own website, not an encyclopedia.) – Athaenara ✉ 15:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe Skyhorse Publishing qualified for WP:G11 so recommend overturning the speedy deletion.

Cunard (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article as at the time of deletion (which is substantially the same as the version Cunard refers to above of 27 April 2020) would properly qualify for deletion as CSD:G11. However, there are satisfactory versions in the 13-year history (I'm talking going back to 2015 or earlier) which are encyclopedic. I would restore and revert to the version as of 15 July 2015, which is the latest version prior to the addition of advertising/PR type content. Anyone wishing to selectively add back references or material considered neutral and relevant can then do so. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the 27 April 2020 version of the article from the Internet Archive meets WP:G11, which "applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopaedia articles". The article is not "exclusively promotional" and does not need "need to be fundamentally rewritten". It even contains material that the company's management would likely prefer be omitted:

      In June 2017, a group of Skyhorse employees announced intentions to hold a union election in order to join United Auto Workers Local 2110. [19] According to a National Labor Relations Board count, staffers fell short of the votes needed on November 30, 2018, with 18 voting for, 28 voting against, and an additional 23 votes submitted but counted as ineligible ballots. [20]

      In April 2018, Skyhorse announced “a major reorganization” with job cuts of 16 full-time positions and plans “to reduce new titles published by ‘approximately 25 percent’ in 2018” compared to 2017, when it released 1,120 titles.[21] Publisher Tony Lyons announced the decision in response to a decline in net sales by 19% in 2017, and issues related to paper shortages and book distribution.[22]

      Rather than reverting to a revision from five years ago, I would prefer that the article be restored to its latest version with any promotional text (which would be minimal) removed afterwards. Cunard (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you've said that already, and I have already indicated my disagreement. I know your preference is to go into great length in deletion discussions, but mine is not. To be clear I am making my restore strictly conditional on a revert to the 15 July 2015 version or earlier. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G11 A speedy deletion is not valid unless all revisions of the article (or page ) are properly speedy-deletable. The revision of 20 April 2020, in my view, did not warrant a G11 deletion, although there is some promotional contentr which could be edited out. The version of 15 July 2015 is not even arguably promotional, so the G11 in any case cannot stand. If restored to the 15 July 2015 version, the sources from later versions remain in the history, and can be used to update to a fully NPOV version includiung more recnt events. I am going to temp undelete so that non-admins can judge the actual versions, not just the ones that IA has stored. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to 2015 version I don't really have anything else to add that hasn't been said already, but I think Stifle is correct and I support that resolution. SportingFlyer T·C 17:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done a temp undeletion on this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with reasoning of this request with and note the talk page and perhaps the logo really ought to be automatic without request, however the list does look unwieldingly lengthy and omitting Skyhorse Pub, Skyhorse Pub. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc, Skyhorse Publishing Inc. and possibly , Skyhorse might seem appropriate although their are some inbound links from "what links here" that would remain broken if they are not restored. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G11: Tag with issues if necessary, and give Cunard or elseone time to some out issues min 48h or a week or longer if necessary then raise AfD if still necessary. Pragmatically its best to avoid speeding'ing long standing articles with a number of edits as it put pressue on admin resource to be responsible for viewing many versions of an articles history.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy. The existing text is not irredemaby promotionl; its problems can be resolved by routine editing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Though the article probably required more cleanup but deletion per G11 wasn't justified.Siddsg (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Not sure if I have any type of authority on these things, but it looked to be a very good article that was noteworthy and had lots of links to other articles and a range of references. Naihreloe (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Caste-based prostitution – no consensus to overturn, endorsed by default. This is an inherently emotive and difficult topic, and the AfD itself was somewhat entangled in general discussion about inclusion of this information in a variety of other related articles. Both the AfD and this DRV have both been substantially complicated by good-faith disagreement over inclusion policies: a reasonable argument can be made that there's significant coverage of "caste based prostitution" as a separate topic to satisfy the bulk of WP:N but also that WP:NOPAGE still makes it a better encyclopedic treatment to deal with that information in context, taking into account other considerations like undue weight. It's completely possible for both of these viewpoints to be generally valid, and so this ends up being something of an editorially stylistic decision: there have been quite a few assertions that it's a WP:POVFORK, which seems heavily disputed, but it's also entirely possible for something to be an undesirable fork without specifically being a POV fork. Ultimately, here does not appear to be anywhere near a consensus that the overall decision was incorrect. I would note that original close also explicitly allowed a redirect to an appropriate target; this does not seem to be generally objected to, and it remains an editorial decision as to where that goes. ~ mazca talk 10:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Caste-based prostitution (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was thinking of doing a Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents because this is part of a broader issue but I think it is not appropriate to go to ANI before doing smaller steps first. The issue is that a group of users go edit ninja for any article that are seemingly negative concerning India. This same issue happened with another article I was not involved in and it made another user retire over this issue [2]. It is difficult to save an article in an afd because their numbers help win vote tallies. There is a lot of work for closers to go through and going against a vote tally might come off as too bold. I mentioned as a reminder in a “note to closer” on the afd that it should be more than the polling process as mentioned in the Wikipedia policy on article deletion. However, the reasoning given for delete by the closer was only that it was ‘clear consensus’. The justifications given should count as well and the justifications given to delete would come off to those uninvolved with the issue as poor and insincere, I believe. This group asked that the article be redirected but any mention of the content in the article to be redirected to is also removed. Any mention at all in any other article is also deleted with reasons that will keep varying as long as it stays deleted with sometimes acrobatic arguments, such as in this rfc. JustBeCool (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've just struck content that had been removed above ... see [3] for request and reasoning and its all essentially good faith stuff and pretty minor point. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Seems to have been no attempt to discuss their good faith reasoning with closer with prior to bringing to DRV as might have been best practice per WP:DELREVD. Such an attempt may not have been successful but the attempt should probably have made before raising DRV.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: (if not thrown out for non discussion). I'm far from the best judge of these things and I'd normally wait for others comments but I take on board concern of WP:CFORK and cannot justify any reason to overturn. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why didn't Cactus Jack's contribution decide the matter?—S Marshall T/C 07:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as keep per my detailed reasoning in my userspace subpage here; it's quite lengthy so I'm linking it instead of posting it here directly. Disclaimer: I !voted Keep in the AfD discussion. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 07:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closer does not appear to have erred or failed to follow the deletion process. This was a POV fork of prostitution in India and we don't do those. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: this user participated in the AfD, in which they !voted Delete. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 18:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Discussions are independent of one another and it is not usual to place notes like this under people's DRV contributions. See poisoning the well. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep as per Cactus Jack. The argument that this is a POV fork does not overcome the multiple sources presented in the AfD showing that this is a separate more specific topic, with GNG-passing significant coverage as a separate topic not limited to one specific caste. Arguments that this is a POV fork should have been discounted. Arguments that this did not pass the GNG did not stand up. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep. This is a difficult one, so I'm going to get into the weeds here. The delete arguments were a mix of WP:GNG, WP:OR, WP:NOPAGE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:POVFORK (and, uh, the Wikipedia:Duck test for some reason which escapes me). As an AfD regular, WP:NOPAGE really doesn't come into the equation, so let's cross that off. I don't have access to the article, but WP:INDISCRIMINATE typically applies to lists/directory structures/miscellaneous or trivial information - it doesn't appear to be relevant here. Cactus Jack and Justbecool made a convincing argument that WP:GNG is met by providing heaps of sources. The assertion the sources weren't independent didn't seem to be a viable argument. Therefore it's logical to conclude the information isn't WP:OR and passes WP:GNG. That leaves WP:POVFORK. POVFORKs are typically a content issue, where someone tries to get around the fact there's an edit war by creating a page with new information - as far as I can tell, and I may be wrong on this because I can't access old logs, the page was "upmerged" and then the information was deleted from the redirected page, which would actually be a reverse POV fork. There's nothing suggesting the article's not neutrally written, just that it's a POV fork, which doesn't seem to be the case. Therefore, all of the deletion arguments fail, even though there's more of them, and the article should either be kept or the information allowed to be presented at the page that the redirect currently points to. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Given last comment pragmatically temp-undelete requested. Also despite my endorse above I would have no objection to a good faith attempt to create a draft in draftspace that could be accepted back to mainspace if a DRV review established sufficent quality reached, no content was removed before accepted back to mainspace and WP:CWW attributions were respected on return to mainspace. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done a temp undeletion on this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know that it really affects anything, but this article was mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel/Archive. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the AfD wasn't initiated as a "we should delete this article" but rather a "should we have this article," I find it concerning a sock made the initial redirect, but am not sure it really changes anything. SportingFlyer T·C 19:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was involved but Cactus Jack and SportingFlyer make an excellent case to overturn. For what it's worth, I very much got a vibe of WP:IDONTLIKEIT wearing a thin WP:SYNTH/WP:POVFORK costume from many of the delete votes. Crossroads -talk- 19:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep - both POVFORK and NOPAGE get invoked a lot, but the former very blatantly doesn't apply (to the point where I'd suggest anyone invoking it is likely to be acting in bad faith), and the latter ... I don't see it, and nobody actually makes the argument, but rather they just link it (but it's a very subjective kind of guideline, so ... they could really believe that. OR and GNG also get invoked, but neither invocation comes with any kind of explanation of why people think they apply (and GNG very blatantly does not, OR ... I really see no evidence it does, though I'd be more opening to seeing an argument, because it's not impossible) WilyD 12:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the closure. The article was a clear cut breach of WP:POVFORK and failed to address the fact that none of the sources treated the subject as a separate subject, thus it failed WP:GNG. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: this user participated in the AfD, in which they !voted Delete. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 18:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Regardless of bad faith continuously assumed by the OP,  WP:POVFORK and WP:NOPAGE was never addressed, just like it hasn't been here. This is why most participants agreed that we don't need the article. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this user participated in the AfD, in which they !voted Delete. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 18:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • POVFORK can't be addressed because the argument was never made, and has no hope of being made at all. It's very clearly a cover for IDONTLIKEIT, which you can't invoke for a delete. There's no POV, so there no POVFORK. WilyD 07:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was already made clear that separate article on a non-notable subject isn't warranted especially when anything "caste-based" is covered on the particular caste' page which the OP never touched. It's a no-brainer that the page is a blatant violation of WP:POVFORK and WP:POINT. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's very far from being a "no-brainer", though, isn't it.—S Marshall T/C 14:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was made clear that some editors don't think an article covering multiple castes is warranted. That is not quite the same as the claim by Capankajsmilyo above that It was already made clear that separate article on a non-notable subject isn't warranted. The argument that there is a systemic issue, commo9n to multiple castes, was made, and only addressed by pointing out that it was covered in some articles about individual castes, and that many examples in the article came from one of those. The argument that a wider issue needed to be covered in a wider article was not rebutted. It is far from a no-brainer that this was a POVFORK. I for oen see no POV used in the creation or writing of the article, nor does it seem to be a FORK of any existing article. A proof-by-assertion that this is a POVFORK doesn'tork.how what it is a fork of, and how the fork was guided by a POV in writing, or selection of sources, or whatever. No one did that in the AfD, and no one has yet done that here. In the AfD, POVFORK was a vague wave, not a policy-based argument DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • POVFORK can also mean creation of an article which heavily duplicates other. That was the case here. Siddsg (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it can't. That's a fork, not a POVFORK.—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I had seen this AfD and deletion was predictable. The crux of "delete" argument was that no reliable sources significantly cover the subject separate from the content which has been already covered on the articles of particular castes. Failure of WP:POVFORK, WP:GNG and WP:NOPAGE were legitimate concerns. Others also raised potential of creating more POVFORKs as "keep" would set a bad precedent. Overall, the "delete" argument was stronger as it remains undisputed. Siddsg (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Sock strike Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain of the etiquette, but for what it is worth users Aman Kumar Goel and Capankajsmilyo were involved in the original afd, the same way Cactus Jack and Crossroads made the disclaimer that they were involved. An argument made here and in the afd was to the effect that caste based prostitution is not treated as a "separate subject". If I understand correctly, I believe the argument is that the sources talk about one low caste group at a time and not an overall topic affecting multiple castes. I am not sure if sources mentioning a topic affecting one group at a time and not affecting multiple groups is grounds for deletion. In any case, if one looked at the sources, they mostly follow individuals or one tribe at a time but do refer to the wider phenomenon. For example, the first source in the article [4] followed the Bachhada but mentioned "caste-based prostitution" in reference to multiple groups (Bachhadas, Bhedia, Bhantu, Nat, Kanjar, and Sansi]]. The Al Jazeera article [5] followed the Nat Purwa but mentioned, "A Pan-India phenomenon? Nat Purwa is not unique: academic Dr Anuja Agrawal , who has conducted research on the subject, said it's difficult to estimate the exact number of such "prostitute villages" in India. 'They are spread across [the Indian states of] Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan,' she said. 'And like Nats, for other communities such as Bedias, Faasi and Banjar. Prostitution has emerged as a strategy of survival among several such communities.' Agrawal says all these communities are inter-linked: 'They share a distinct past. They were all nomadic tribes who settled with their communities in small villages.'" The other Al Jazeera article [6] also follows another group, the Perna, but discusses in length the wider history affecting other low caste tribes, "Mainstreaming will be a trickier proposition for DNT communities that have found their way into the sex trade." The external link [7] is a report about "ritually sanctioned caste based prostitution" affecting two groups "the Bancharas and the Bedias" and not one. JustBeCool (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLUD and don't repeat the same AfD argument. Siddsg (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The same delete argument that this is not a 'separate subject' was repeated from the AfD, so why is only repeating the rebuttal not allowed? That is if I was repeating. It is User Capankajsmilyo who at the same time is saying "anything "caste-based" is covered on the particular caste' page which the OP never touched". I don't know who to please, either I am repeating or I never touched the issue. JustBeCool (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It does not appear that the concerns of a biased spinoff, e.g. in Wiki-colloquialism the "pov fork" were adequately rebutted in the discussion, the closer weighted that argument properly, thus the close as a deletion appears sound. Also, is the tagging of "this user voted to delete" by a user who voted the opposite a proper procedure? It seems a bit unseemly. Zaathras (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's polite to mention that you participated in the AfD discussion when you vote at DRV. The good news is the users who close DRV discussions are some of the most experienced in terms of deletion on the project, so even if you don't mention you participated in the AfD, if your DRV !vote matches your AfD !vote it will likely be discounted by the closer (if considered at all) unless there's an additional argument that you're making (for instance, if you vote to keep the article, the person closes the AfD as a delete, and then you endorse the AfD.) So it's fine to point it out, but I don't specifically remember seeing it, and considering the user here is one of the two users who made the strongest arguments in fighting to keep the article I think it would be polite to stop doing this, as it creates more of a battleground mentality than we need. SportingFlyer T·C 00:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it, will remember that going forward. This is only my 2nd DRV and clearly I still have a lot to learn. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 00:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see why such an opinion would be automatically discounted. If they just regurgitated what was said in the deletion discussion, sure, but if the person articulates an endorsement here that addresses the closure and not the discussion, that should be counted. Zaathras (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're involved in the AfD, you may be biased towards the outcome of the DRV. I'm just mentioning the closers understand and weight this when closing. If someone makes a good argument even though they were involved, a closer will know what to do with that. SportingFlyer T·C 19:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus or keep. After the first relist, Cactus Jack provided a number of on-point sources that make a rather convincing case for notability. The subsequent "delete" opinions, like many before them, did not really address the sourcing situation. Rather, they cited numerous policies such as OR but without making clear how, in the light of these sources, these policies require the deletion of the article. Under these circumstances, the "keep" side made, in my view, substantially stronger arguments, and their opinions should have been given more weight by the closer. Sandstein 08:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Even after the relist, most of the participants agreed the page should be deleted on the grounds that it was a POVFORK and failed notability on its own. Vague handwaves against those arguments were unconvincing. Closure reflected that pretty well. NavjotSR (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you check, those who are asking for a delete in this drv are the same participants who originally wanted the article deleted in the afd, and as I understand those do not count if there is a vote tally. Also if you check, it is those making the argument to keep who are the ones providing long, detailed specifics both here and in the afd and those asking to delete do little more than vague links to any wikipedia policy with little explanation, right or am I seeing this wrong? JustBeCool (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Completely "wrong" since "Delete" easily outnumbered "Keep". NavjotSR (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject of the article, while unpleasant, appears to be notable.the article was unbiased and had a neutral POV. I think this is an IDontLikeit case as there wasnt really a reason the article was deleted in the first place. Heyoostorm (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not AfD. Kaweendra (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I had voted for delete because this subject wasn't notable on its own. I still don't see any attempts to expand existing articles before creating this small redundant fork. Kaweendra (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep The arguments made for deletion seem to be motivated by IDONTLIKEIT since they don't address the points made. In the page history there is basically an edit war over this content which seems appropriately sourced. PainProf (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So an account which was created days after this DRV is already throwing a lazy cheapshot "IDONTLIKEIT", but "don't address the points made". NavjotSR (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly that is inaccurate, secondly this response could be a bit more civil. Thanks. PainProf (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC. I think keep or NC would have been within discretion. I don't think delete is. I feel Cactus Jack's arguments were persuasive enough that keep was probably the better close, but given the close was to delete and I view NC as being within discretion I would prefer overturning to NC but could support either. Hobit (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. But facts outweigh opinions. And arguments that the subject wasn't notable fall apart when sources are provided showing that it is. Doesn't do a lot with POVFORK, but just knocks down the lack of notability arguments to the point that they have very little weight. The only argument against the sources after they were presented didn't really seem to hold water. Hobit (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The article was a POVFORK for starters and failed WP:GNG. That said, the appellant has not exactly raised any policy-based issue with the closure. desmay (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true that the DRV appelant hasn't raised any policy-based issue with the closure, but you see, others subsequently in this discussion have raised some very grave and serious issues indeed. I don't know where this idea that the article was a POVFORK comes from and I think that idea is entirely fictional. The reason why it didn't fail GNG was exhaustively explained during the AfD by Cactusjack.—S Marshall T/C 23:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I've been trying to figure out what POV is claimed to be being expressed in this article and how this article gets around a "disagre(ment) about the content of an article or other page". Anyone care to explain that? I just don't see how anyone has justified that claim either here or in the AfD. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very "POV" is the title itself, the usage of shoddy sources (NGOs, primary sources) to push such POV made it even more blatant and was already made evident from numerous comments, such as that one of Otr500. desmay (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is: what POV is it pushing?—S Marshall T/C 09:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The closer User:Spartaz had informed last month that he is not active on Wikipedia and no notice when they would be back any time soon. Does anyone know what the policy should be next? JustBeCool (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it matters, as the person who closes the deletion discussion is not the one that closes this review discussion, it would be a conflict of interest otherwise. When this discussion has run its course, someone else will determine its fate. Zaathras (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid closure. Nothing here has been said which would require AfD's outcome to be overturned. Enough editors raised a number of severe issues with the creation of the article. Tessaracter (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion the discussion suggested that this was a fork and all the content was already covered elsewhere. For the record admins whose decisions are under scrutiny are involved for the purposes of the outcome and therefore cannot close the a DRV of their own close. Spartaz Humbug! 18:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The afd mentioned this was covered elsewhere but cited the article of the tribe Banchhada where that article has the sentence, "Banchhada (or Banchada) is a tribe in central India that is traditionally identified with prostitution". That is hardly "all the content was already covered elsewhere". Much of the content would not necessarily be relevant to the articles on each caste group anyway, as mentioned previously in detail to the point of being accused bludgeoning too. In any case, that different parts of an article's content are covered in other separate articles is not a criteria for deletion, if I understand correctly. JustBeCool (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:DEL-REASON a content fork is a reason for deletion. I would have expected Caste-based prosition to have been stood up at section level in Prostitution in India in the first instance, and perhaps Prostitution in Nepal revisited first, and other Prostitution in XXX developed first to avoid CFORKs. I have little doubt a quality Caste-based prostitution could be created but needs careful consideration to avoid CFORKs before mainspace, and this didn't happen in my opinion in this instance.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because it is the right thing based in the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep or no consensus (I did not participate in the AFD) - per Sandstein and SportingFlyer's arguments. If all arguments are given even weight, it's no consensus. But on my reading, the keep arguments were substantially stronger: they showed that it met GNG with multiple independent RS. The POVFORK argument wasn't really shown; rather, it was just asserted ("clear POVFORK"). (I notice the same bare assertions in this discussion.) Asserting it's a POVFORK isn't the same thing as demonstrating it's a POVFORK, and delete !voters answered these assertions by pointing out that the content is not covered elsewhere. For this reason, I think the keep votes should be weighed heavier than the delete votes. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A lot of the delete votes were variants of WP:NOPAGE, which seems to apply here. The Sources do talk about prostitution as it relates to caste, but mostly in relation to specific cases. So yes, the argument is that it can be mentioned in other articles, but it doesn't need its own dedicated page and to do so may also introduce a non-neutral POV in suggesting there's more widespread caste-based prostitution than the sources say there is. In short I would see a solid consensus to delete here, and I think the closer called it correctly.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "Redirect to Prostitution in India". The delete arguments were flawed as the content is suitable for Wikipedia, but the article suffers some problems. I read a consensus to fold it into Prostitution in India. This option was commonly pu tin the AfD and not rebutted. Similarly, many of the "delete" !votes referred directly to non-delete non-keep rationales such as WP:NOPAGE. Many clumsily alleged POVFORK without detailing what the POV problem is and where the neutral content is. The article, Prostitution in India, is distinctly lacking in material that was covered by Caste-based prostitution, at least in terms of explicit structure. I consider the page to have been a premature unilateral WP:SPINOUT of Prostitution in India. Redirect to Prostitution in India, and resolve the many details at Talk:Prostitution in India. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The stubbiness of Banchhada and the failure of Prostitution in India to even mention Banchhada is evidence against POVFORK. The content is simply not there, not explicitly structured certainly. This is one big Wikipedia:Structurism issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 June 2020[edit]

23 June 2020[edit]

  • Eastern Rail Services – Endorse / Draftify. Unanimous consensus to endorse the close by SpinningSpark. No comment on the longer history prior to that close. It was requested that the deleted article be restored somewhere so it could be worked on, and nobody had any fundamental objection to that, so I have done so. It is currently at Draft:Eastern Rail Services. Please note, however, that several people pointed out that better sourcing will be required to meet WP:NCORP before this can be moved back into mainspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Eastern Rail Services (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD process was a mess. It was closed Once as delete, and silently reopened, Then it was closed a Second time as Keep and then reopened again. This latest closure is not a correct assessment of editor consensus. The closure is a WP:SUPERVOTE - the closer chose the arguments of the most verbose editor. This is a no-consensus AfD and there is no prohibition on any editor starting a new AfD. I ask that this third close be overturned to no-consensus. Lightburst (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. AfD is not about counting votes, it is an assessment of consensus based on policy. The "keep" arguments were for the most part non-policy based assertions that WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, ignoring the strict requirements of WP:NCORP which exclude routine and non-independent coverage. The "keep" close was correctly reverted, as it was an inappropriate NAC by an editor with all of two months' experience, whose talk page is full of warnings about similarly bad NACs. This is not a supervote, but a correct application of deletion policy. Spicy (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: (though I am formally requesting a userification while we are here). The final close which had proper reasoned explanation, for which Spinningspark is to be complemented for as it was a toughie for anyone to pick the baton up from. On the first close by Spartaz a DRV at that point would in my opinion WP:TROUTed the closer for failure to provide an explanation when requested, though a DRV would ultimately have endorsed the decision. Sarcastic re-opening by Spartaz is not of the standard expected of an admin.(diffs may be inserted later[8][9][10] "20:46UTC"). If there had been a formal relist with advice on how to succeed it may had prevented the 2nd close to no-consensus by an inexperienced non-admin which was again not formally relisted. I would like to see a format relist record on the AfD (not just history comments) and for an understanding the relist would be expected to run for at least 48 hours in such circumstances. The most serious matter here was the voluntary self-outing of someone following the WP:COIN and I confirm I have spoken to a singly WP:FUNKy person on this matter who might have to recuse from this discussion. I am pretty sure this DRV was inappropriately raised and action against the raise may be considered. Please be aware at some point I may raise a DRV for the purpose of a userfication and with a possible view to Great Yarmouth railway station but I need to look at that in more detail first. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the closer, I declined to userfy this when requested because no new sources were offered or existing sources in the article identified as being overlooked by the AfD. I'm perfectly willing to put it in draft space if there is any kind of chance it can be brought to a passable standard, but just rehashing the already rejected material seems pointless. It will just lead to another unnecessary and difficult AfD. SpinningSpark 16:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I respect your concerns, I also wish to develop this from attributed content. I also wish to examine in detail the edits from some of my content added to the article that can be used elsewhere possibly on a merge. If you're really worried about a re-introduce to usespace that sidesteps DRv salt every target required and sanction anyone you does a sidestepping re-introduction to mainspace. But thats for everyone here to decide. Userification is a simples option and blocking can be used if people abuse it. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: Just to say it has been pointed out to me there was a late snapshot copy of most of the dangers you think of in this respect already exist. But you will also note, if if memory serves correctly, that most of my contributions were backed out previously by Hopldoele. I did a courtesy thank at the time as I possibly/definitely had a bit of WP:CRYSTAL in my added content that I'd strung together in that (hurried) editing session..... though I actually think other stuff was backed out due to our both having a good faith misunderstanding as to the location of sidings in question; and I'd like to scrutinise that in calmness with a full userfication. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- chucking out detailed arguments on the grounds that they're "verbose" is just a means of levering AfD away from discussion of article content and sources, and toward a mechanical counting of snouts. No actual error on the part of the closing admin has been claimed. Reyk YO! 16:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I won't vote, as I procedurally re-opened the AfD after it had been closed as keep by a brand new account. But, FWIW, had I !voted in the AfD (I didn't) I would have done so to delete. That being the case, it is fair to say I would endorse this close, based both on the parsing of the respective weights of argument made there and the lack of persuasive argument made in this nomination. ——Serial # 17:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given it is publicly noted that you thanked me [11] (I assume for challenging the original close on Spartaz's talk page would you care to comment on that? (You'll never thank me again! .. also for those now checking thank logs they may find a couple relating to admining the AfD or commenting on the re-openings. Re-openings are likely to increase stress levels for one side or the other and it is better it is available on the AfD page to show it had happened rather than people having to search history, which in some cases inexperienced users might not).Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the thanks log doesn't actually say what you think it does; I'm sure I was thanking you for these edits to Howrah railway station, a topic close to my own heart  :) but, in any case, I'm not sure of your point? Are you saying that use of the "Thanks" feature involves one in a discussion? I think I'd find that a hard argument to push, personally—particulary if they may have been of a purely procedural nature. ——Serial # 10:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not even Master Of Ninja has thanked or even come back to me on that edit or creation of the Rail Museum, Howrah stub. However text copies from by "Notices" does show: "‪Serial Number 54129‬ thanked you for your edit on ‪User talk:Spartaz‬. /* Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Rail Services */ new section ‪Serial Number 5...‬ ‪Spartaz‬ 5d " and "‪Serial Number 54129‬ thanked you for your edit on ‪Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Rail Services‬.

commenting in article: Closed and re-opened, please leave any close/reopen to an experienced admin. Thankyou. ‪Serial Number 5...‬Articles for de...‬ 4d" which is more detailed than the thank log, is not publicly available, and the text could easily have been manipulated by me. As Eastern Railway zone (and stuff Howrah Junction stuff) and Eastern Rail Services are similar I can possibly understand your disremembering.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies saw I got mentioned here. Not sure where the discussion is going on here. I only saw the Rail Museum, Howrah just now when I looked for it! I have publicly thanked you for this. I just don't have time at the moment to play close attention to a lot of the topics here. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Is it. Mind you, you seem to be complaning that the AfD was both closed as delete, reopened, closed as keep and re-opened again  :) I mean, there's no harm in hedging one's bets but this seems to be tking it to extremes! ——Serial # 11:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
U owe me a pint - except I dont drink - anymore. A key point is AfD re-opens are likely inflamatory, albeit sometimes necessary. Find a close we have closure, what is done is done and that is it. But if you suddenly go to someone one assumed you seen asa a closure, and find it re-opened - what may not be a good experience - especially if "silent". On a re-open we currently seem to void and silently remove the close and silently reopening (assuming nobody noticed). Now the a re-open was followed by a mandary explicit relist as with a commentary as to the reason that would be another matter. (And in this case might have not led to the second relist. (I wasn't prepared to do a re-list as I at that stage possibly was considering contributing to the discussion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. On a first skim, it smelled of SUPERVOTE, but on a patient reading, I read it as a correct reading. Delete !voters were pointing to lack of required sources to meet WP:CORP, and keep !voters were not bringing evidence, just opinion and assertion. Re-creation, via draftspace, is a reasonable possibility, if some of the sources alluded to can be named. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: sorry to press you on this. The AfD had three closes, the first by admin Spartaz [12] the second by Captain Galaxy [13] and the final close by Spinningspark. If you are saying the even the final close by Spinningspark "On a first skim ... smelled of SUPERVOTE" then it perhaps shows the need for explanitory commentry in such cases. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. Captain Galaxy (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfDs are not votes. Admins should give additional weight to persuasive arguments, and less/little weight to poor ones. Such consideration was correctly given here. I see no procedural error by the admin which requires action from this forum. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume by "the admin" you meant the final closing admin. There were two other admins who administered the AfD, (3 if you include Sandstein's first relist which is pragmatically standard practice}, did you mean those as well? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Djm-leighpark, I was referring to the closing admin, or their reasoning rather. The relistings, undoubtedly, were correct decisions, and were shown to be correct in hindsight given the far greater quality and quantity of discussion after the relisting. The second closure was non-admin. Spartaz's first closure was undone by themselves within 12 hours, due to concerns of it being a supervote. Hence, whether that first closure was procedurally correct is materially irrelevant for this DRV. I don't see how said closure negatively impacted discussion at AfD - there were a total of 19 comments after that closure - and I see no arguments being made here claiming there exists further points that were not raised at AfD.
The basis for this DRV is the claim that there was a procedural error. I see no procedural error here, at least not one which plausibly implies a different outcome at AfD.
Further, thinking of AfDs as votes, or polling as consensus, is a misconception. And I'm glad it's not that way, and that some administrators have the courage to take decisions that differ from the poll, or attempt to make helpful decisions (based on the weight of the arguments presented) where a simple tally of the poll might suggest "no consensus". I'm sure nobody here would rather have all discussions on Wikipedia to turn into a peanut gallery or, perhaps worse, RfA. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanking for your clarification. I don't think at any point I've said its a !vote count. I do refer to the essay Wikipedia:Guide to deletion which says "A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached.". Which Spinningspark did and Spartaz did not; leaving me to question the quality of his summing up (not actually directly querying his decision). It is actually not a procedural error to summarise the decision, but its probably best practice when a skim view might indicate that no concensus would be a normal outcome. I don't think its a procedural requirement to re-list after backing out a closure, as happened here [14]. A Silent re-open (with the close entry removed) violates the general view that a discussion should not be silently removed from the discussion page. If a good summarisation had been given to the reason of the first close I'd likely have asked for a userfication/draftification. I have hinted amerge of some content may be possible; but equally it is true I am not raising it on this DRV. THankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, with respect, "Fuck you!". I undid the close because I was in a state after my mother unexpectedly died and I was in no place to deal with anything. Respecting adminacc I reversed my close because it couldn't stand if I was unable to explain myself. I actually didn't and don't want to explain this on wikipedia as it's a private matter but you can't let it lie. That leaves me no choice but to provide an explanation that I have no wish to provide. So, to repeat myself. "Fuck you" Spartaz Humbug! 21:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spartaz regardless of anything else you have my deepest and I respect the conflict that arose between RL and admin work, and RL has to win. It should normally be sufficient to say personal RL stuff has come up and to withdraw, if you have said that and I missed it I sincerely apologise. Again my condolences.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ping me ever again. I'm not interested in your sympathy. And I certainly see no need to delrev my comment bearing in mind that doing so would leave all your nasty insinuations about about my actions and motivations uncountered and unexplained. FYI there is no normal reaction or behaviour for an editor to follow in these circumstances and I have no requirement to satisfy your bureaucratic demands in the way I react. Perhaps you should better use your time to review the content and tone of your original message and consider whether a less pompous and demanding approach might have got better results all round. Spartaz Humbug! 22:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had already reviewed the tone of my message and yes, it was overly harsh and I had already reviewed it should have been of a lighter tone, and it might have yielded an alternative result. Any further replies here will only frustrate you. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not at all surprising that I see the endorsements of this administrator's close. Imagine that the article was closed as Keep or no-consensus. I believe that most of you would endorse those close decision as well. The WP:LOCALCONSENSUS would support a keep or delete close. What do you suppose that says about our AfD process? The wrong administrator turns up and a wildly different result occurs. Also, I have been here long enough to know that an AfD is not a vote count - but thanks for always reminding me of that fact at these reviews. Carry on. Lightburst (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: Reading your comment in detail I need to point point out by edit of "03:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)" was an edit conflict. Be aware I am increasing minded to drag you to WP:ANI for a discussion on a ban from XFD/AFD discussions. That said I would love to have kept the article as much as you and it is perhaps important to demonstrate poor administration/clerking of AFDs can lead to unnecessary discontent and disruption. The only point of being here really is for lessons learning and possibly an disucssion/RFC to tweak AFD re-opening guidelines in the future; as re-openings can be extremely inflamatory.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse When a closer gets it right (weighs arguments, understands criteria for notability, doesn't simply count !votes) as in this case, it should be recognised and pointed to as an example of a good close. On the other hand, complaining that the close was "not a correct assessment of editor consensus" because the closer "chose the arguments of the most verbose editor" while not attempting to show why the reasoning of the closing admin's might be flawed only shows that Lightburst does not understand the AfD process, does not understand WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability and worse, appears incapable of learning. This isn't the first time this exact complaint has been made and the behaviour and conduct remain unchanged. I'd endorse a holiday away from AfD/XfD discussions for Lightburst at ANI (and a couple other Rescue Squad members too) should ANI get involved. HighKing++ 13:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 ——Serial # 13:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst I would personally have closed as no-consensus, the closure was within the reasonable range of closures open to the admin and I endorse it. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the AfD process quite well. With that said, I too can get it wrong at times. The HighKing has often got it wrong at AfD and yet I have not called for an "AfD holiday" or disparaged him with comments about being "incapable of learning". There is a history between myself and the HighKing...I and the ARS have helped save a few articles that were nominated by the HighKing. It was never personal - sometimes he got it wrong.
I respect the consensus of my fellow editors. You can see my own AfD record here before drawing conclusions about my competence at AfD. It is clear that this discussion has gone off track so I will not contribute to this thread any more. I think we all contribute in our own way, and the HighKing provides a needed service to the encyclopedia. I do not think he should be barred from AfDs: AfDs suffer from low participation as it is. Have a great day building the encyclopedia! Lightburst (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A correct reading of consensus. This could not be kept, and a lazier admin might close it as a no consensus, so this wasn't an "any close goes" AfD (I'm not sure those exist.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 June 2020[edit]

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

Hi, Satheesh Menon’s wiki page was deleted without proper review. If I need to create new, I have to rewrite all of the content with pictures as I don’t have a backup. Below is the url I saved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satheesh_Menon_(Actor)

If you want articles of Satheesh in the internet, please find below or reach out to the Malayalam movie industry for confirmation. Innocent who was the President of AMMA (Association of Malayalam Movie Artists) might be a good starting points as he was in that role for over 20 Years when Satheesh was very active. Please remember he works in Malayalam movie industry and not Hollywood to figure in Time Magazine.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Satheesh-Menon

https://www.nettv4u.com/celebrity/malayalam/movie-actor/satheesh-menon

https://www.nowrunning.com/celebrity/70127/satheesh-menon/index.htm

https://in.bookmyshow.com/person/satheesh-menon/IEIN018603

https://in.bookmyshow.com/person/satheesh-menon/IEIN018603/filmography

There is an interview and news article in Asianet news - leading channel in Kerala which I can’t paste here as it in YouTube.

https://www.topmovierankings.com/malayalam-actor/satheesh-menon

It’s a shame that we are not allowed to paste YouTube links. His interview has come on Asianet News (leading channel in Kerala) and is posted on their YouTube channel. Search for Satheesh Menon Asianet news in YouTube. That’s a significant one you are ignoring!!

Another link from gulf news though Satheesh Menon is spelt Satish Menon

https://gulfnews.com/uae/satish-c-menon---local-stage-artiste-1.436229 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2993:2500:1D08:2CAD:2D07:8F82 (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While that discussion effectively serves as a soft delete, there's an issue that none of those articles demonstrate notability for the purposes of WP:GNG, and the Gulf News article appears to be about a different person. SportingFlyer T·C 00:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deleted article, which is a horrid mess that I won't be tempundeleting, also had [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. —Cryptic 00:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for providing those. None of those sources demonstrate notability either. The only good news for the subject is he does seem to have been in enough films that I would assume he is notable if you brought in say Malayalam sources into the discussion, but I can't find English-language significant coverage easily available online. SportingFlyer T·C 02:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A large chunk of the deleted version is a copyvio from the Gulf News article [22]. It's distinctly possible that some of the remaining text is copyvio as well. The deleted article is awful and shouldn't be restored to mainspace. It also appears to have been written by the subject or someone close to them. Hut 8.5 07:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. The first revision is lifted directly from imdb, complete with identical miscapitalizations. —Cryptic 15:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The gulf news article is indeed his and you may contact then directly to clarify. Do you have Malayalam sources to bring into discussion? On the comment of the subject creating this article or someone close to him- “prove it” or don’t raise allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2993:2500:1D08:2CAD:2D07:8F82 (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject owns the copyright to the Gulf News article then hard proof of that would be needed before we could use the content in Wikipedia. Don't bother though, it's completely unsuitable and it would need to be rewritten anyway. You're the one arguing this thing should be restored, if anyone should be providing sources it's you. However if the Gulf News article was written by the subject then it doesn't demonstrate notability.
The article was created by Menonsatish5 (talk · contribs), who clearly has some connection to the subject. It also had several images added by another editor which would almost certainly have been obtained from the subject or taken by someone personally close to him, e.g. a picture of him on holiday with his wife. Hut 8.5 12:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There's surely no consensus to delete, when there's no participation other than User:Johnpacklambert who is already has an AFD-based topic ban, due to questions about competence, and who seems to fire out "Delete" votes very quickly with no chance to properly evaluate the subjects. Isn't this effectively a Prod, that should be restored on request? Nfitz (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- legitimate copyvio concerns shouldn't be overruled by WP:IDONTLIKEJPL. No strong objection regarding writing an entirely new article from scratch *without* all the Ctrl-C Ctrl-V. Reyk YO! 07:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This deletion happened over three years ago. Why is this only being raised now? Stifle (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies wasn’t aware of a timeframe to revert. This was overlooked amidst many other priorities, hence the delay. I assumed it’s all going fine without any issues until I realise the page is no more available. Does that have to do with anything on the improper deletion? Let me try and get some media attention on this by sending the story to leading diaries. Might help to establish if he is notable or not as well :) I will list only facts from this whole thing including the responses for sure and no “allegations” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2993:2500:1D08:2CAD:2D07:8F82 (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse due to the copyvio concerns. At the least, the article should be rewritten in their own words to avoid another deletion, assuming the article can stand alone on notability grounds. --MuZemike 16:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the copyright violations (which are no longer visible, and weren't expressly concerned in the AFD) were that bad, then it should have been a G12 speedy delete. Otherwise the lack of participation should have lead to a relist, and without a consensus should be eligble for WP:REFUND. Ah, I missed that this was from 2017 ... somehow I thought it was 3 months old, not 3 years. Nfitz (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article's not being deleted per G12 doesn't negate the copyvio concerns, in particular when discovered after the fact. --MuZemike 17:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what copyright violation are we talking about? May I know? Or are you discussing among yourselves in a language you guys understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2993:2500:99B4:8E9C:F16A:4F71 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the deleted text that most people can't see contains a copyright violation. I've been assuming good faith, though really, it's an alleged copyright violation. On one hand, if this discussion is going to be about content of the article that wasn't discussed in the AFD, then it should be restored for the duration of the discussion. On the other hand ... copyright violation. Is it acceptable to restore the page, and blank it, so the contents can be reviewed in the history? Nfitz (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Third paragraph of WP:DCV says that copyvio-containing revisions in the page history should be reversion deleted, which strongly suggests restoring a copyvio for our inspection is a bad idea. Reyk YO! 10:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be hard pressed to find an admin who will restore copyright violations. Some of the text in the article is likely copyvio-free but I don't think it's worth the effort of sorting it out for a piece of badly written self promotion. Hut 8.5 12:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can you point me to a location where the quality of article is listed? I can then compare and see how bad it is written. Secondly, as I said before rather then raising allegation of copyright violation, either you point out the sections or delete those sections and make the remaining bits live. If you can’t make that effort, make the whole thing live again rather than raising false allegations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2993:2500:61AB:BEE7:4EC2:317D (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what is that copyright violation again? If I am supposed to know it?

Phew! At last I found a sensible person in this community :-) thanks mate for being sensible and pragmatic. If there was indeed copyright information, then please blank them and it’s an opportunity to correct them. But in terms of notable or not, if the links and local channel videos in YouTube (that’s where all of the channels upload past videos of the news articles), I suggested to reach out to ex- President of AMMA - Shri Innocent (Association of Malayalam Movie Artists) who reigned that role for 20 years during the period Satheesh Menon was very active. Shri Innocent was also a member of parliament in the previous Indian parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2993:2500:99B4:8E9C:F16A:4F71 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Although we can't see the article, it seems multiple uninvolved admins have attested to substantial copyright violations, and at minimum appear to support blowing it up. Of course, recreation of the article isn't prohibited, and if lack of pictures is your main concern you could try politely asking an admin for a copy of the pictures. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I leave it...it’s a nexus!! My efforts from now on will be to bring this experience to people via social media. This is wiki for you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:2993:2500:2935:BD3C:94A9:DB2A (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion based on the apparent motivation of the lister to "bring this experience to people". That's not what Wikipedia is for. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on User:Stifle - weren't they just (in poor English) paraphrasing the Wikimedia Foundation mission statement of "... collecting and developing educational content and to disseminate it effectively and globally"? Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 June 2020[edit]

  • Lady A – Resolved. (Closing my own nomination; anybody who thinks that there are still things to be said is free to reopen the thread.) Sandstein 15:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lady A (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This redirect discussion was improperly closed by a non-administrator (WP:BADNAC) and should be reopened.

The non-admin closer, Captain Galaxy, should not have closed the discussion because they appear to have relatively little experience and because the closure was likely to be controversial. There is no basis in policy or procedure for the speedy "procedural closure" undertaken here. The argument that the discussion should be deferred because of an ongoing page move discussion is one that can be made in the RfD, as one other editor did, but it is no basis for a speedy closure.

At any rate, the argument is mistaken: As the other editor in the RfD recognized, the move discussion appears almost certain to not end with the page being moved. There is therefore no reason to defer the RfD. Sandstein 13:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: My apologise to you for any inconvenience this may of caused. You'll be happy to know I have reopened the discussion. This is a mistake that I hope not to cause again. Hopefully we can work together on better terms in the future. Captain Galaxy (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Galaxy, thanks, and my apologies for not contacting you beforehand. I was under the impression that our instruction recommended contacting only closing administrators before opening a DRV, but I now see that they have been changed to refer to any closer. Sandstein 15:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 June 2020[edit]

19 June 2020[edit]

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

Non-admin closure of a bundled multitopic discussion, not a correct reading of the consensus: two people voted "delete/redirect all" while the other two voted "delete or redirect all except Double Live", so there was 100 per cent support for the others but a literal 50-50 split (i.e. a consensus failure) on Double Live in particular. That album has more and better sources than the others, which is why the split emerges: two people didn't take the sourceability difference into account at all, while the other two did. So this had to either be relisted for another week, or closed as "redirect all except Double Live", as there's clearly no consensus for treating that album the same as the rest of the bundle. However, as a participant in the discussion it would be improper for me to just revert the closure myself. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • We can just undo the crystal clear WP:BADNAC and have someone else close this, not even sure it's worth discussing for seven days. SportingFlyer T·C 23:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2020 Formula One pre-season testing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The sources in the article do not demonstrate notability, my source analysis was blatantly ignored, and most of the keep votes gave no actual reason for it. The keep votes include terrible reasoning such as "keep and we can decide if it's notable later", the article creator, and "it's an F1 event". There is no evidence that this is notable, so this should be overturned to delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse A clear no consensus. It's not a great discussion, but the source analysis actually lends itself to the idea this might be notable. I would probably have !voted delete myself (well, probably offered a merge into the season article as a whole as an unneeded fork) but this can't be closed any other way. SportingFlyer T·C 17:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Joseph2302's source analysis contained at least two "decent write up" of the topic and so his conclusion that it should still be deleted did not follow the evidence. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, with a fish for the nominator. The discussion is a very good example of what is meant by No Consensus. The nominator appears to be saying that the closer should have supervoted. Duh. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I'm saying it's not a vote, and the keep voters made no policy based arguments. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joseph2302 is quite mistaken. Neither he nor the original nominator made a policy-based argument whereas I, a keep voter, cited the policy WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew, WP:PRESERVE references editing policy, not deletion/notability policy, and would be properly disregarded by a good closer. Joseph2302, the keep !voters weren't the strongest ever, true, but they discussed the notability of the article enough that closing it as a delete would almost certainly be considered a supervote, even if specific policies weren't brought up (the phrase GNG appears nowhere in that discussion, for instance.) You can always try again in a couple months, or put up a merge suggestion into the main season article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination seemed to want the material putting on other pages, "What's worth nothing about this can be mentioned in the season article or if only really relevant to them the articles on the cars and the drivers." This is not deletion; it's the sort of action described at WP:PRESERVE. Anyway, the point is that I certainly cited a policy and so Joseph2302's claim is blatantly false. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cited a policy that doesn't apply, as called out here. And I did a proper source evaluation of all the bullshit sourcing in the article. This is exactly why people think we have too many sports articles on Wikipedia, because people fight to keep mindless crap like this. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above comment was intended as a general comment about ridiculous inclusionism of non notable article, not specifically aimed at any specific editors on here. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant endorse- Ugh. This AfD typifies everything that's wrong with the process generally. Many of the keep !votes are simply hot garbage. "It might become notable eventually"? Really? And these are the !votes that get all the sage nods and veneration? Meanwhile an actual analysis of the sources gets flicked aside contemptuously just because it came late in the process. By, you will notice, the same people who on other AfDs think drip-feeding cruddy sources at the 11th hour invalidates anything that's been said before. I can certainly understand OP's frustration here. Also, check out the cynical ref bombing. Unfortunately, even taking into account the rubbish nature of the keep votes and the substantially stronger delete ones, I can't see that "no consensus" was outside the realm of plausibility. Reyk YO! 12:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse not a great discussion and the Keep !votes do seem rather weak to me, but the main argument for deletion is basically "it's not encyclopedic", and while that is a legitimate argument it is very subjective. The source analysis did state that a couple of the sources were reasonable so it's not exactly a knockdown argument. Several people mentioned opening a discussion about this type of article at a relevant Wikiproject, that sounds like a good next step. If people who actually edit in this area don't think these articles are a good idea then that may well be convincing in a future AfD. Hut 8.5 16:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I was a keep !vote at the AfD. This could not have been closed any other way. additionally the nomination rationale was sorely lacking as I stated in my !vote rationale. Lightburst (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse or even overturn to keep. No valid deletion argument was presented, and the delete views should have been discounted as not policy based. The source analysis by Joseph2302 petty clearly shows that the WP:GNG was satisfied. Those who dislike this can renominate in 6 months or so. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to deal with issues where deletion process has not been properly followed. It is not a place to argue or re-argue matters which have already been adequately ventilated at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another AfD has been started: WP:Articles for deletion/2020 Formula One pre-season testing (2nd nomination). Andrew🐉(talk) 13:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Enes Batur (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Unfortunately, I didn't find time to further elaborate on my initial statement in XfD and the discussion was closed with minimum participation, so I decided to submit the article for review. The nominator claimed that this individual is "an actor but with no significant roles". It's true that he's not one of the award-winning actors in his native country, yet the two comedy movies that bear his name and in which he had the main role sold 17 million and 7 million liras according to Box Office Turkey. The other movie in which he had a supporting role sold 10 million liras. Another thing that the nominator mentioned was that he is "a YouTuber but with no evidence of significant coverage". That again is not true. He was the first Turkish YouTuber to hit 10 million subscribers in 2019 and was featured in YouTube Rewind 2019: For the Record. At the time the article was deleted, it had references to news and short bios published by major newspapers and news agencies in Turkey such as Milliyet, Habertürk, İhlas News Agency and CNN Türk. I could even further expand it using the text available on Turkish Wikipedia. The person seems pretty notable to me, that's why I wanted to see what the other users think. Keivan.fTalk

  • The deletion review instructions, and in particular WP:DRVPURPOSE item 2 of "when DRV should not be used", specify that requestors should seek to discuss the deletion with the closing administrator before listing that here. That doesn't appear to have been done in this case. Can you clarify please? Stifle (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I probably misunderstood that part because in the instructions for submitting a review it is stated that we need to notify the closing administrator on his talk page, which I did, and that’s why I thought he would automatically be able to discuss it here anyway if he wished to do so. Keivan.fTalk 15:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: Meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. For the evidence of first two claims, have a look at this simple search. There are multiple reliable sources that are independent and non trivial like Haberler.com, Hurriyet.com etc. And for the 3rd claim, it should be noted that he has a wide fan following based on his social media statistics. He also has worked in multiple notable films (per Keivan's comment). Although i personally don't consider these youtubers or whatsoevers as notable but by wikipedia standards, he is (unfortunately) notable. Regards Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 16:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Not the best discussion with two per nom delete !votes. Considering there's an additional argument to be made to notability with sources that wasn't done for some reason, and also considering the light discussion, allow for a relist so that argument can be made. SportingFlyer T·C 16:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The other voter (Johnpacklambert) in the discussion can be found on all other Afds and no matter who the subject is, always votes for delete in the same way without stating any reason. I have already pointed out this on one other discussion (see this). Also have a look at his contributions. Looks like that the majority of his edits originate from voting for deletions in Afds. For a guy whose 95% edits trace from Afds, it is unbelievable that we can not find even 10 edits from his contributions that are votes for keep. (Forget 10, thats impossible. We should aim 5). I'm not campaigning against him but he does not seem to be the right guy voting on Afds. Regards Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 18:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a whole lot of respect for JPL's afd track record either, but nobody's perfect. 1 2 3 4 5. —Cryptic 21:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    5 This comes after i made a similar comment on one of the other Afds. I'm not calling out for him to be perfect. But the way he shoves away 95% of the articles is really different. Suppose if he has about 150,000 votes on different Afds (excluding the edits made on Afds)(estimated), then i think that he has favoured keep in not more than 1000 of them (as per statistical analysis) which is very unrealistic. Regards Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 00:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you completely ignore that user's delete, it's still not an unreasonable delete close, though that would give more credit to a relist. It appears as if you're relitigating the argument, which isn't what we're here to do. SportingFlyer T·C 22:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist Certainly no fault of the closer, but yes, SportingFlyer is right. Hobit (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse proper close. The article can be recreated if new information has come to light. Lightburst (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article already had enough information that I, or any other user who might have been interested and had a knowledge of Turkish, could easily build on. Not to mention that there was place for change and introducing new sources and info as it hadn't been properly updated in a while, but all of that was thrown away with two votes and a discussion that wasn't productive in anyway. Yet again, I'll respect the wish of the community and wait for a reasonable result here. Keivan.fTalk 00:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per Pesticide. The mention by Keivan.f that there were multiple news sources with coverage, essentially a claim that the GNG was passed, although without using that term, got no substantive or policy-based response, merely a disproof by assertion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can possibly overturn this? Keivan.f's argument is basically WP:NEXIST. If specific sources had been identified it's a different story, but there's really no other close here apart from delete. That's why I think a relist is appropriate - present actual sources and give the discussion a little bit more time and there may be a different result, but I don't think overturn is even an option. SportingFlyer T·C 17:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NEXIST is part of WP:N, thus it is a guideline, and following it is policy-based. It says, in significant part 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. This is also the point of WP:BEFORE, and failure to do a proper BEFORE search is a valid reason to overturn an AfD. So is failure to address the policy-based NEXIST claim. However, I would not strongly object to draftifing after an overturn, to allow such additional sources to be identified and cited in the text. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said that the article had no sources at all. It was properly sourced at the time that it was deleted, yet, as DESiegel mentioned, neither the nominator nor the other two voters took into consideration the existence of other reliable sources and nobody bothered themselves to actually search for them online, even though that's what voters usually do. I have saved a bunch of articles that were on the brink of deletion by adding suitable references, expanding them, or even translating an acceptable version from another Wiki. I will try to do it again, whether the outcome is 'overturn' or 'relist'. Keivan.fTalk 05:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy does not state that WP:BEFORE is mandatory, much less than "failure to do a search is a valid reason to overturn an AFD". If you feel policy should say that, feel free to gather a consensus at an appropriate venue to support your proposed change. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BEFORE starts by saying Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to: followed by a list of checks and considerations. On the matter of an online search, it later says: The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. and If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. This is more than a recommended practice. To be sure, there is no automatic sanction for not doing the BEFORE checks, but when it becomes apparent that they have not been done, that can be and on occasion has been grounds for DRV to overturn a deletion as the result of an improper process. It is not an automatic overturn, as say a close by a sock would be, but it is within the discretion of those discussing here at DRV. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been previous attempts to upgrade BEFORE to policy. These have bombed because participants, justifiably, felt that rigid BEFORE-wonking is already used too often to make personal attacks against nominators. It's probably best to think of BEFORE as a handy guide to making convincing AfD nominations, but that departing from its advice isn't a reason to disqualify the nomination. Reyk YO! 10:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • BEFORE isn't policy, but ATD is, and I can't get a cigarette paper between what they say.—S Marshall T/C 14:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If BEFORE was just an insulting recap of existing policy, that would be all the more reason to get rid of it entirely. But I don't think they're the same in outlook at all. The difference as I see it is that ATD guides the participants and closer of an AfD debate as to the kind of decision the AfD can reach. BEFORE, if we made it a policy, would just restrict people from being able to raise the question at all. That seems like a lawyerly distinction but it matters. Reyk YO! 15:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is BEFORE insulting? I think it's aimed at new users to try to stop them from starting hopeless AfDs—it's a response to a problem we used to have in 2006/7. There are ARS members who use it in an insulting way; but it's nowhere near as insulting as bluelinking CIR and that seems to be perfectly acceptable. I do think we could avoid a whole lot of useless process if we could get editors to use merges and redirects more effectively, so I'm fairly pro-WP:BEFORE.—S Marshall T/C 16:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you can think of a different way of proposing merges and the like that can't be obstructed by just one or two fans camping at the talk page and vetoing any attempt at improvement, I'd be all ears. But I think AfD does the job pretty well. It's a centralised process, so it can't easily be derailed or skewed, it has the ability to prescribe any outcome for the article from keep to delete and many other alternatives, and if it gets things wrong it can be appealed. That's why it matters that everyone be able to have their say. It's why I'm happy to complete nominations for IP editors if they're even remotely plausible, and why I have a high bar for topic banning someone from XfD entirely- even if I might privately wish closing admins would call certain people out on their bullshit more often. I remain against any use of BEFORE (or ATD, or any other acronym) to obstruct good-faith editors from bringing bad articles to the community's attention. Reyk YO! 16:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deleting administrator has closed the debate correctly in line with the consensus and I must endorse that. There seems to be some new sources available which were not around at the time of the AFD. I would support restoring the article to draft so that these can be added. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(closing admin comment) This is what I actually proposed when an editor asked me regarding the deletion a while ago. --Tone 21:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I don't see much consensus. One person is pointing out GNG. JPL says delete, as they always do - I really think there may be competency issues there, given the lack of discernment by JPL on so many AFDs, and I wonder if their AFD topic ban needs to be extended. I don't know why it simply wasn't relisted. Nfitz (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment- I see quite a few DRV comments of late, from multiple editors, on the general theme of "Overturn- JPL voted delete and he's hopeless". This is not the place to air grievances about another person. If (and it's a big if) JPL actually is unfit to participate at AfD, the correct remedy is to ask for a topic ban at ANI. This venting is unseemly, and we would never permit comments like "Overturn- user:suchandsuch just votes keep on everything" here. Reyk YO! 14:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course we would not permit such arguments. Inclusionists always get the presumption of being right, and those who do not want to include unsourced bios of living people always get the presumption of being wrong. It is a truly uneven system.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's true that no one should put you on trial here and I know that you're generally speaking, but I think it's okay for users to question the reason behind your vote, especially in cases where you haven't even provided an explanation. And here the article wasn't even unsourced, so that's why I was also a little bit surprised. Keivan.fTalk 17:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I should have provided more detail about this particular JPL vote ... but I was being lazy, and I assumed that all are aware of the issues with this particular editor. They remain under a topic ban restricting their creations of AFDs to one a day, because it was felt that they weren't spending enough time WP:BEFORE nominating. In this case, they voted delete three times in two minutes. The first at 15:37 UTC, 2 minutes after an hours-long spree of adding categories to articles. The second at 15:38, and the third at 15:39 for this subject (Enes Batur). In all 3 cases (as is often the case), they were the first to pass judgement. There's just not enough time to properly review the AFD and article in a minute, let alone do enough due diligence to cast the first stone. And this is not an isolated occurrence. As generally, most AFDs end in delete, their overall record doesn't look horrific ... but the sheer volume, leads to many wrong calls in a day. I'm hesitant to take anything to ANI - particularly involving shades of grey. I'm simply saying that a JPL delete vote does not, in itself, hold any weight. Nfitz (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I recall that I've said very similar things about Dream Focus, to be fair.—S Marshall T/C 14:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - clearly there is evidence here that was not considered in the original AfD. There was not really much consensus, and I don't place much weight in the two "delete per nom" votes. There may be a case for notability and passing GNG here, but DRV isn't the appropriate venue to discuss this. This should go back to AfD for more thorough discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse - There is no error by the closer, and there were no Keep !votes and there were Delete !votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely User:Robert McClenon, there were objections to deletion by User:Keivan.f who was noting the notability. Nfitz (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I commented in favor of keeping the article. The number of votes do not necessarily matter when it comes to move or deletion discussions; it's rather the arguments that matter, and no such strong arguments were made. I even wrote some counterarguments above in my request for this deletion review. The article could at least be moved into the draft space for me or anyone else to work on it before publishing it again. Keivan.fTalk 02:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - I think the closing admin might have served us all better if they just relisted instead of closing. Since it had not been relisted, and none of the delete rationales had any meat to them, leaving the discussion open was the better option. The close isn't technically incorrect, but it wasn't the best option available. Dennis Brown - 2¢
  • Endorse, but permit recreation. The AfD was nearly unanimous and therefore correctly closed. A relisting is appropriate only if consensus is unclear. DRV is not AfD round 2; it is not the purpose of this board to re-litigate the merits of the article's notability, even if the AfD discussion was poor. The correct way to proceed would be to recreate the article with the newly found sources, which would make it substantially different from the deleted version and therefore protected from speedy deletion. Sandstein 08:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. On reconsideration, the consensus isn't all that strong or clear, and could well change in a relisting based on the sources offered here. Sandstein 10:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 June 2020[edit]

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

2 votes for keep > 1 vote for delete: the page in question is in fact useful to a wide range of audiences, and would be lost or clutter in the primary article on Java programming languages.

If my use of this template/form isn't up to wikipedia standards, I apologize for being unfamiliar with these systems of abstraction. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.228.136 (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse The delete votes cited policy and the keep votes were pretty terrible for the purposes of keeping the article, so I don't have any problem with the close. Note that the nominator typically counts as a delete !vote as well, and AfD isn't a headcount. That being said, I do think the keep !voters raise some good points and I would highly suggest an RfC to figure out how to sort this (assuming there hasn't already been a discussion on how to avoid these sorts of problems) as other similar articles have been identified, and there may be a way to recover and re-source this article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be scope to transwiki to somewhere like the Java Wikia (I'm not a programmer; there may be a much better transwiki target). I can see the consensus that this content isn't for Wikipedia but it could reasonably be preserved elsewhere.—S Marshall T/C 00:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY relist: It is wildly inappropriate to close a discussion with very few !votes roughly split evenly without relisting it even once. I would also note that the closer's rationale completely ignores the fact that the "keep" !votes that supposedly admit the content is not compliant with policy are actually evidence that a full RfC with broad participation is needed on this issue, not that this specific page should be deleted without one. Modernponderer (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I wrote in the deletion discussion for this article, almost all language articles have this kind of article, with what can be considered as the same "problems". Now the Java language article has no version history anymore. This is bordering ridiculous. The result of this discussion is that now it is impossible to know what should be in a version history article for a programming language or a framework. .NET Framework version history, Qt version history, the Ruby history, the version table for Python, the Google Chrome version history, the Firefox version history, the iOS version history, the Android version history, the PHP release history, etc..., have exactly the same kind of content (with almost all sources coming directly from the developers of each associated language). IMO if this one was deleted they should all be deleted too. Hervegirod (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've only looked at the Qt article (the one I clicked on at random) but looking at only the sources in the article (no before search) I would support deleting that. We need reliable, secondary sources to back up version histories, or else they probably shouldn't be included in the encyclopaedia - but that's not the purpose of this discussion. There's no clear error by the closer here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was closed by the admin with "Even keep arguments evidence non compliance with NOT and content being OR". I may agree with NOT (at least its part of the discussion), but not with OR (almost all content seemed to be sourced, except it was often primary sources from Oracle). Funnily in the side effect of the article deletion now the Versions chapter in the main Java article has become OR because it previously referenced this article. And I would have been happy to know as a result of this deletion what should be put in a version history article, because for now it is still not clear and policies don't help alt all. I suspect that a lot of the articles which are specifically about versions history for a language or framework have spawned from previous chapters from the main article because there were two many versions, so just saying "it should not be an article, it can only be a chapter in the article of the main language/framework", also won't help. Hervegirod (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the WP:OR may have been a misstatement by the closer, as WP:OR was not referenced in the discussion. That being said, it doesn't change the fact this was a valid close. Furthermore, nothing "becomes" WP:OR - either it's sourced or it's not, and we shouldn't be citing wikipedia anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close was hasty as it came just 1 minute after another close. In that other discussion, nobody !voted delete but the article was still deleted. This is slapdash deletionism contrary to all our policies and procedures. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A supervote as there was clearly no consensus to delete. The views of the keep !voters were treated with contempt contrary to WP:DGFA, " respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants ... When in doubt, don't delete." Andrew🐉(talk) 22:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Clear WP:SUPERVOTE by the XfD closer. I am troubled that the closer did not assess the consensus correctly. Should have been relisted or kept. FYI: last week the same closer had a similar supervote close and gave no explanation... and then quietly reversed the decision when questioned and did not even reply to the editor who questioned the supervote close. I think the closer can do better. Lightburst (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfDs aren't votes and the Keep !votes didn't really present much of a rationale for keeping the article, other than just disagreeing with the nominator. The only arguments in them are that the information is not available easily and that other articles have the same problems, neither which which is very complelling (the latter is listed in WP:AADD). I'd be happy with restoring it as a redirect so it could be very selectively merged somewhere else or possibly rewritten from scratch. Hut 8.5 06:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This page is the first result when searching for "java version" on Google. I have myself referenced it many times and based on search result rankings, many other people have too. Also the information contained in this article has not been migrated to the main Java article. Outright deletion is a brash decision that does not consider the broader impact. A Wikipedia article does not exist in a vacuum and this deletion has important ramifications. Puckout (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reading #It's_useful/useless, the example given "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." can be applied directly here: "This list brings together changes between and support lifetimes of many Java versions and is useful for navigating that subject." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puckout (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I see no consensus to delete. Nfitz (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The user who deleted the article now has this on his talk page: "I am away. Please do not leave any messages. Feel free to ask another admin your question. Spartaz Humbug! 11:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)" (actually added June 19th, not 16th). It does not seem he will be available to resolve this issue in a timely manner. Could another admin please step in? --Puckout (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion will be closed after seven days, if the close is that there's a consensus to restore the page then the closing admin will restore it. Hut 8.5 19:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist: I'm not sure the content was appropriate - I can't really see the page - but my first thought is that this borders on a case of WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The closer appears to have misunderstood the keep arguments; they did not claim WP:NOT, they simply claimed the article in its current form was not ideal and could do with some chopping. One clearly specified that the article originally only listed major changes, but as time went on it grew (too much) in size. An article in need of some fixing is absolutely not a good reason to WP:BLOWITUP. Perhaps the overall deletion decision could be correct with reasoning that the delete arguments presented a claim for the article not existing on Wikipedia in any form (citing WP:NOTDIRECTORY), and the keep arguments failed to present a counter-argument, by referencing policy which would support retention of the subject.
Since I can't see the article it's hard to comment accurately, but I'm not entirely convinced by the WP:NOTDIRECTORY argument. We have lots of such articles (Ubuntu version history, iOS version history, some are formatted well like Firefox version history, some not as well like Google Chrome version history, and some are in the middle Android version history). I do not think such articles are inherently not-notable, and there is an encyclopaedic purpose to retaining them, and should they be well written they are certainly not simply a directory. To support deletion, I think the article would have to be in an awful state and it, and its revision history, should be so messed it's irreparable (the TNT tipping point: an article should exist, but the article (and all the versions in history) is too deeply flawed to work from). I can't verify this, due to the deletion, but the keep argument suggests this isn't the case.
I think this should go back to AfD for a more thorough discussion. I see a case for retention or repair, and the consensus was not particularly strong, nor was there a clear case for violation of WP:NOT as the closer says - indeed, per WP:RELEASENOTES, such articles aren't necessarily a violation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've sort of made more of an AfD argument than a DRV argument there (since the closer is just weighing the discussion), but as someone who endorsed the close, I generally agree on the relist and wouldn't have any problems if the DRV closer were to relist this for a more thorough discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. There was way too little cogent discussion to make this sort of decision on. This wasn't some crappy article about an obscure pokemon character, it was an exceptionally well referenced article about a major subject with over 1700 revisions going back 14 years. Perhaps it doesn't fit our rigid definition of what we want to include in the encyclopedia, but that's not a decision which should be made on a 2-2 tiebreaker. I agree that we need some sort of RFC. A very similar case was Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 17#Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras (and I believe there was a Canon version of that as well). In that case, it was decided to delete, as was here. But, also in that case, there was strong feeling that an RFC was needed to hash out what we want policy to be about these sorts of articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: To be fair, in the Nikon case, the lack of sourcing was a consideration, and that doesn't apply here. This article had hundreds of sources, although some would argue that they were WP:PRIMARY. Still, the common theme is whether we want these sorts of compendia of versions/models/releases/products/etc. That's what the RFC should address. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 June 2020[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
1526 in Ireland (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't think the closer noticed that there was an option to close it as a merge. It could have closed as a merge, but the user claimed it could've been discussed outside of AFD, which I have confusing, because AFD's closed with merging happen all the time. The consensus asked for a merge, but it was closed as keep. Koridas talk? 16:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. I make closes like that all the time. The big decision that needs to be made at AfD is whether to delete the page, because that's the only option which requires an admin to carry out. Once you've got to the point where you know you're not going to delete it, if it's not clear what to do next, asking the participants to continue the discussion on the talk pages makes a lot of sense. That's exactly what User:Premeditated Chaos did here. BTW, it's strongly recommended that you discuss issues with the closing admin before opening a DRV. My guess is had you done that, she would have explained this basically the same as I've done here. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There's no consensus to delete. It's a bit frustrating for those who want to merge, but there's no consensus between merging and keeping even though there's a clear consensus not to delete. A merge discussion on the talk page is the next step here, and I don't think DRV can give a specific remedy in this instance. SportingFlyer T·C 18:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I don't believe that a 'keep' AfD blocks a merge. The important thing is that the page wasn't deleted. pburka (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Whether or not to merge can be discussed outside of AfD. Use the article talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • RoySmith has essentially explained my point of view here - once there is a consensus to not delete the content, there is no need to keep the AfD open. Further discussion about whether or not to merge can be conducted outside of AfD (and in this case, should probably be expanded to consider the entire series of "152X in Ireland" articles). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately, AFDs can either be closed as delete or not-delete. If an AFD is closed as any of the not-delete outcomes, anyone desirous of changing between that and another not-delete outcome can take forward their suggestions on the article talk page, or just WP:BB and get on with it. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If it isn't endorsed, it's going to change to non-consensus. Keep doesn't preclude a later merge. Nfitz (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse a proper no consensus close Lightburst (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • RevSpace – AFD technically endorsed, but underlying article deleted as requested per CSD:G5 Stifle (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
RevSpace (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article created 17 September 2019‎ by puppet of User:Elfinshadow who has been banned since Feb 2019 for adverising/promo (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dwaro/Archive. No significant contents contribution besides the creator. It was kept in the AfD whose consensus building process was disrupted by Dwaro; and an account that mysteriously came out of nearly a two year hibernation and went right back to hibernation as soon as the AfD was closed. A fair consensus was not achieved, because an input that should not have been taken into account was considered. Article should be deleted as an article created by banned user under a ban evading alternate account, because a SPI that identified a connection at a later time concludes the article was created while the ban was in effect. Graywalls (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Graywalls (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wrong venue. The closure of the AFD was appropriate based on the information available at the time. If we are now saying that the article creator was banned, then it should be tagged {{db-g5}}. If you are desirous of deletion for some other reason, as the AFD was 6 months ago it is appropriate to raise a new AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further reflection, per WP:WINAB I have gone ahead and deleted this article. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lana Rhoades (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Lana Rhoades is the #1 most popular/watched pornographic actress according to multiple sources. Several pornographic actors that are less notable than Rhoades have their own articles, so she should also have her own instead of being a redirect. Momo824 (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you want Wikipedia to have an article on this person you'll need to come up with evidence she meets the notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 06:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deleted by consensus consistent with the usual criteria. If you want to challenge that decision, you need evidence useful for Wikipedia. See the advice at WP:THREE. You could give the answer at Talk:Lana Rhoades, or in draftspace, or in your userspace. DRV is for challenging the process: the prior process of three AfDs and two DRVs looks quite sound. If you want to argue the facts, you need sources, see WP:THREE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:ENT, the following guidelines must be met:
  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
She meets guideline #1 due to her performances in films created by several of the leading pornographic porn studios, which have led to multiple wins and nominations of the most prestigious awards in pornography, including what has been called the "Oscars of Porn".[1][2][3][4][5]
She meets guideline #2 because she is the most popular porn star on Pornhub, with over 345 million views on her videos in 2019.[6] Along with her popular videos, Rhoades' large fanbase is also apparent in her following of 10 million users on Instagram.[7]
She meets guideline #3 because she has been one of the biggest faces of porn in recent history and has created a large online empire surrounding pornography, among the first in the adult industry to do so.[8][9][10] Momo824 (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://avn.com/porn-stars/lana-rhoades-678205.html
  2. ^ https://www.xbiz.com/news/247572/pornhub-announces-2nd-annual-awards-winners
  3. ^ http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=lanarhoades/gender=f
  4. ^ https://twitter.com/avnawards/status/957505772061184000
  5. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/susannahbreslin/2017/02/24/oscars-of-porn/#26d68c5d349a
  6. ^ https://www.pornhub.net/insights/2019-year-in-review
  7. ^ https://www.inquisitr.com/6043616/lana-rhoades-opts-leather/
  8. ^ https://www.dailystar.co.uk/love-sex/inside-rise-pornhubs-biggest-star-21767474
  9. ^ https://avn.com/business/articles/video/lana-rhoades-854161.html
  10. ^ https://www.pornhub.net/pornstar/lana-rhoades/about
  • I think there's probably enough there to write a new article. I can't tell for sure, but I'm unsure the 3rd discussion should have been closed as a speedy, too. Would allow a draft or refund to anyone who wants to work on it. SportingFlyer T·C 18:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - per abundance of sources by Momo824. Koridas talk? 18:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse the Forbes article doesn't mention her in the text and the other sources are either not rs, clickbait or otherwise not suitable to hang a BLP on. The daily Star is a tabloid for those not familiar with UK papers. Spartaz Humbug! 21:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every time a given article comes back to DRV with low quality sources presented, it becomes that much more unlikely it'll ever be restored. —Cryptic 21:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to Spartaz for why these sources aren't low quality. Momo824 (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spartaz, I included the Forbes article to back up the “Oscars of Porn” statement, not to provide any information on Rhoades. How about the rest of the sources? Momo824 (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pornbio was deprecated in great part because these awards have no value in determining notability and including a good source that does not actually mention the subject is a long standing trick used by unscrupulous editors to sway people to the idea that the sources are better then they are. I'm not suggesting that this was your plan but hopefully my comment will help you see why that was a bad tactic. As for the rest of the sources? If I may be blunt? They are shit. Spartaz Humbug! 23:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What makes them shit? They follow all the rules of WP:RELIABLE and WP:BLPSOURCES. They contain enough information so that no original research would need to be conducted. Pornhub, AVN, IAFD, and XBIZ are four of the most reliable sources for information on the adult industry and have been used as references in newspaper articles, books, and research studies on numerous occasions.[1][2][3] Along with those sources, Daily Star and Inquisitr are also pretty reliable sources that don't focus primarily on the adult industry and have also been used as references on numerous occasions.[4][5] If by shit, you mean not mainstream media, then I believe you are incorrect because, for obvious reasons, the mainstream media isn't very likely to publish an article on a porn star.
*I was unable to include the Google Scholar reference for Pornhub because its website is whitelisted on Wikipedia, but just search the website URL on Google Scholar to see the results. Momo824 (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avn.com%2F%22&btnG=&oq=%22
  2. ^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22www.iafd.com%2F%22&btnG=
  3. ^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22www.xbiz.com%2F%22&btnG=
  4. ^ http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailystar.co.uk%2F%22&btnG=
  5. ^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.inquisitr.com%22&btnG=
  • Endorse for a start porn industry awards aren't generally seen as making someone notable. The notability guidelines used to say that they suggested you were likely to be notable but that was removed because it wasn't a good standard. The trouble with comparing them to the Oscars is that the Oscars get massive amounts of coverage in the mainstream media and porn industry awards get little to none. Instagram followers etc do not make someone notable either. Wikipedia does expect particularly good sources for biographies of living people. Tabloid journalism, Twitter etc are not acceptable sources here at all, so you're left with a few profiles on porn industry websites, which I suspect will not go down well at AfD. Hut 8.5 06:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and list at WP:DEEPER. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has come to my attention that the AFD was closed after less than the requisite 7-day period. This is a process irregularity and therefore the outcome must be overturn and relist for a full seven days. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm proud of deletion review's role in downgrading PORNBIO, and I've consistently argued for pornstar articles to be deleted, but I think there's a lot of moving parts to this one. Taking the various discussions that we're reviewing in order:
The "delete" outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades was restored and relisted after DRV#1 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 September 1; the relisted AfD was re-closed as delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades (2nd nomination). I endorse the second close as it was clearly correct at that time.
Then someone re-created it and there was a third AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades (3rd nomination). I'm not overjoyed about that third AfD, being that it was closed as "speedy delete" by RHaworth, exactly one calendar month before the Arbcom case about him was opened and exactly two calendar months before he was desysopped for, and I quote Arbcom exactly, "repeated misuse" of the deletion tool. I would endorse it as a G4, but looking at the logs, that's not actually what RHaworth did. As far as I can see, he wrote "speedy delete" in his closing statement and then he protected the redirect instead of deleting the title (!).
Then, after all these events, the Daily Star, which is a British tabloid, published this. As a Brit myself I'll happily confirm that the Daily Star is not a reliable source for anything that relates to politics, economics, science or medicine. But it's maybe arguably a reliable source for what seems to be an uncontroversial statement about popular culture. Is it a reliable source for the claim that this young lady's the world's most-searched porn star? I find myself thinking that this gets us over the bar for G4 and into the territory that we should refer to RSN to decide.
Lana Rhoades is not shielded by BLP. She's not a person, she's a fictional character. (The performer who plays her would be shielded by BLP.) We're not dealing with any kind of presumption to delete here.
I think the very minimum intervention for DRV here is to overturn the outcome of AfD#3 to the "redirect" that actually happened. I'd favour doing that and referring the nominator to RSN for a consensus about that Daily Star article.—S Marshall T/C 13:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • RHaworth actually did delete a 30-revision recreation here. Nonadmins can see some evidence of that in the logs; the part that's a bit confusing is that he then restored most of the revisions related to the redirect created between AFD1 and DRV1. For admins, the versions you're comparing are 20:43, 16 September 2019 immediately before the end of AFD2 and 04:30, 1 December 2019 immediately before the most recent deletion.
    RHaworth did make many questionable deletions and I gave evidence at the arbitration case. But I don't think this is one of them. To the extent we're reviewing the G4 deletion related to AFD3, I endorse that; the new article, while textually unrelated to the old ones, was inferior in both content and referencing. The only genuinely new content was the inclusion of a partial filmography (not an improvement) and the actress's real name (probably not a good idea). —Cryptic 15:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I apologise. That's not very transparent from what the logs show me; shows me that he deleted four revisions, restored five revisions, and then protected the page. OK, I suppose I endorse the AfD that RHaworth speedily closed based on the sockpuppet, John Pack Lambert and the one editor whose view I think deserves full weight. Still think the subsequent Daily Star source gets it past G4 though.—S Marshall T/C 19:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What the h&^l? User:S Marshall says: "Lana Rhoades is not shielded by BLP. She's not a person, she's a fictional character. (The performer who plays her would be shielded by BLP.)" It appears that the August 2016 Pet of the Month is listed as Lana Rhoades. That would appear to be the name of a human. If this is a fictional character, who is the actress playing her? What the H@!l? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Star says the performer's name is Amara Maple.—S Marshall T/C 17:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Was that the only part of my analysis that you disagreed with?—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - the AFD was only open for less than 24 hours, the only delete comment was from a user whose competence in AFDs is highly questionable and shouldn't hold any weight. And numerous sources have been provided. DRV isn't the forum to be discussing sources - it's AFD, and that didn't happen. Nfitz (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I would agree with several of the points being made by S Marshall above. There are a few aspects to this:
  • The "Speedy Delete" close was probably flawed. For this to be a G4, RH needed to confirm that there were no new refs added since the 2nd nomination, which he did not (if new refs had been added since the last AfD, it is not a G4). Doesn't help that the nom, NL19931993, was shown subsequent to the AfD to be a sock. Probably enough for it to be re-listed on technical grounds.
  • In terms of notability, S Marshall's reference is the best I have seen yet, and while the Daily Star is not a good source for most things, for celebrities etc., it's huge distribution gives it some credibility. Similarily, here is La Opinión, the largest Spanish-language paper in the US with regular coverage on her [23]. It does seem that she currently is a major figure in porn.
  • PORNBIO was created because normal RS did not cover porn actors (stigma-issues), and therefore major porn industry awards could instead be used. The community decided to depreciate PORNBIO and now require porn actors to generate the same RS as normal actors for notability. I suspect she is getting close to "normal notability", but it is still borderline.
There is enough here to overturn and relist. Britishfinance (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn speedy There is enough this should be at AfD. Hobit (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There is nothing to discuss here that has not already been covered. A prior review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 September 1) already sent it back to deletion discussion (deletion #2) on procedural grounds due to the sources found, but those sources were deemed insufficient. Deletion #3 was on simple "Recreating the article" grounds. The sources provided above by the filer are terrible. Twitter, pornhub, xbiz, avn? I participated in afd #3 for the record. Zaathras (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Zaathras. Until and unless some mainstream or broadsheet news coverage is presented, I think this should stay as a redirect. I see a lot of references to PORNBIO, but not so much to WP:BLP, which I consider to be far more important. The UK Daily Star is not taken seriously enough to be used as a source much, but IMHO it's even less trustworthy and reputable than The Sun. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'm surprised to see this back here, and I think some respondents may lack context. I've looked into her past DRVs and AfDs when I was making my AfD for Eva Lovia a few weeks ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Lovia. The outcome for Lovia was delete. Ultimately, Eva Lovia and Lana Rhoades are of similar notability, in the non-Wikipedia sense of the word, have the same coverage in reliable sources, the same kinds of awards, etc. The previous AfDs on the issue are clear, and there is no reason to think that Rhoades would survive AfD.
Unless I am mistaken, the nominator and respondents suggesting to overturn seem to miss a key series of events. After a DRV suggesting new sources, the article ended back up at AfD in a week where it was deleted, on the basis that the sources did not establish notability.
The third AfD was probably unnecessary. I can't see the deleted article, but I don't believe she gained far more coverage in sources after AfD #2, and the article was probably very similar to the deleted one in that respect, and so I imagine it would've been eligible for speedy under G4 anyway. So, regardless of procedural anomalies in the AfD, I see no reason to plausibly think the outcome would've been different. Hence, overturn to keep seems inappropriate.
As for whether to relist, Momo824 makes a plausible argument under WP:ENT. As I noted in my Eva Lovia AfD, I do not necessarily agree with the decisions taken by AfD and DRV over the years to make it near-impossible for many pornographic performers to qualify. It's true that most porno performers will not be featured in The Guardian or CNN, yet I think some of the sources which are available are sufficiently reliable for these purposes (some are considered OK by the WikiProject at WP:PORN). Nevertheless, I can understand the more hostile precedent is also influenced from a time when there were far more performers with articles, and there was a desire to cut that down. So whether she qualifies under WP:ENT, or whether the sources are indeed reliable enough to write an article on her, seems rather moot, as the community has reiterated (over many years) its desire to apply a harsher criteria to pornographic performers. I don't see this having more success at AfD, or Momo's argument convincing people. But since there is some debate going on here, and WP:ENT was not raised in depth previously, there could be a discussion to be had. I'm torn between endorse and relist for that reason. Ultimately, I lean towards endorse, as I don't think there is a plausible chance relisting will result in a different consensus; no new evidence presented here and WP:ENT was mentioned in the 2nd AfD (albeit briefly), so I don't see that convincing editors. The sources listed are not at all better than the ones previously tried and failed for Rhoades, and other performers.
Finally, as a nitpick, S_Marshall: I'm not sure I would say Rhoades is a "fictional character". Her article would cover her as an individual, and simply be using her stage name as the title, on the basis that it is her WP:COMMONNAME. This is how most other articles on pornographic performers are constructed. Calling her a fictional character is equatable to saying The Weeknd or Lana Del Rey are fictional characters. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete without prejudice to a new AfD. This was improperly closed as "speedy delete" without reference to one of the WP:CSD, and no applicable criteria for speedy deletion are apparent. The notability analysis is for a proper AfD to conduct, not for DRV. Sandstein 15:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse unless the recreated version includes a genuinely new legitimate claim of significance (not merely another citation to promotional content). Porn industry sources are notoriously unreliable, recycling whatever material producers, managers, and agents circulate to promote their clients and products. G4 deletion was taised as an option in the AFD discussion, and the closer's defective closing state merits strong criticism, but does not justify reversing of a substantively correct decision. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 June 2020[edit]

  • Multiple Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episode posters – overturn - arguments for endorsing here are re-arguing the FFD, whereas the the overturn arguments have addressed the close. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Secret Warriors poster.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
File:Agents of SHILED Who You Really Are.jpeg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
File:Agents of SHIELD One of Us.jpeg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
File:Agents of SHIELD Aftershocks.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
File:Agents of SHIELD One Door Closes.jpeg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
File:Agents of SHIELD Afterlife.jpeg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
File:Agents of SHIELD Melinda.jpeg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
File:Agents of SHIELD Frenemy of My Enemy.jpeg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
File:Agents of SHIELD Dirty Half Dozen.jpeg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
File:Agents of SHIELD Scars.jpeg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
File:Agents of SHIELD SOS Part 2.jpeg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
File:Agents of SHIELD SOS Part 1.jpeg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
File:Agents of SHIELD Love in the Time of Hydra.jpeg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I am requesting the above deleted files to be restored. These were deleted by JJMC89 and their bot JJMC89 bot. I put this request on JJMC89's talk as the deleting user on June 8, but they have not been active since then so I'm hoping another user can help me restore these. I did put this request at WP:REFUND, but Hut 8.5 directed me to start a discussion here.

For all of these files, JJMC89 stated in their reason to delete was No policy-based rationale is provided for keeping the image. As I pointed out in my comments for all of these at the FfD, the site is extremely lenient and tolerant in regards to allowing posters for films, and television season (see MOS:TVIMAGE). Why does that logic then not apply to television episodes, of which these are all posters for? How, for example, is File:How I Met Your Mother S9.jpg allowed over these files, when there is absolutely no commentary about it on How I Met Your Mother (season 9) per WP:NFCC#8, yet each of the files deleted above had commentary in the respective articles' marketing section describing the posters? As I've been pointing out, particularly here, it seems extremely hypocritical to not allow these posters, when they are the only non free piece of content on the articles (satisfying NFCC 3), are used only in those articles (NFCC 7), and as I've been trying to argue, have more commentary/in article discussion about the poster than many films or television seasons do (again, NFCC 8). Thus, I am requesting these files be restored. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. This seems to be a WP:WHATABOUTX argument so I'll start by addressing the single example raised - The cover of a DVD to identify a season of a TV series to help a user know that they have reached the page about that season is different than a poster for an episode of a TV series. We may not have a solid policy for episodic posters (because very few TV shows create posters for their episodes), but the connection between a poster and a TV episode feels tenuous. The more general, "Policy" reason is for deletion WP:NFCCP, a policy that has been in place for more than 10 years to limit the use of non-free images on Wikipedia. While there is referenced commentary about the posters in the articles, inclusion of the images does not rise to the level of "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."  ★  Bigr Tex 23:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BigrTex: Can you please explain how an episode-specific poster (or even a screenshot of an episode as described at MOS:TVIMAGE) does not also help readers identify the article? A DVD cover or season poster isn't something that helps readers know where they've landed - the article title and infobox heading first and for most do that. As S Marshall noted below, NFCC 8 can be entirely subjective. You're saying a season poster is fine, but I'm saying one can make the argument that those all fail 8. Yes, not every television episode gets an article, and within those that do, an infinitely smaller amount have any specific poster associated with them. These happen to, and have commentary to help the reader's understanding of them. Let's take File:Agents of SHIELD One of Us.jpeg for example, used on One of Us (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.). How does having the commentary in the marketing section, but not showing the image of the poster, not increase the reader's understanding of it? I'd argue it does. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have misstated my position at least twice in your response. I do not argue against screenshots in episode articles, nor do I argue for posters on season articles. I choose not to answer your loaded question and instead will try to clarify my statement from above based on having read more responses: I can see where there is subjectivity to WP:NFCCP#8, however my interpretation of the policy (which I remember being put in place and have dealt with ever since as an editor active in the image space) is that the line is whether or not the image in question "significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic." I have trouble seeing how a poster advertising a television episode - two objects that are rarely viewed at the same time - increases the readers understanding of the television episode, much less does so in a significant manner. It would be much easier for me to see how a DVD Cover, frequently seen in close proximity to a television series by those of us who still use DVD players, or a screenshot of an important or noteworthy moment in the episode (for which their is referenced critical commentary in the article) might provide significant increase to a readers' understanding.  ★  Bigr Tex 20:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I apologize for misinterpreting your stance. I have a comment I'd like to address, but would also welcome some of the other editors who also endorsed this so I'm making a new comment below. Please respond to it there if you choose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Many of the lightly attended files for discussion discussions were two keep votes followed by the admin's delete. That being said, I think NFCC#8 was correctly applied here, for reasons explained both by BigrTex and AussieLegend here. SportingFlyer T·C 04:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SportingFlyer: How exactly do you feel NFCC#8 is not followed with these posters? As S Marshall noted below, NFCC 8 can be entirely subjective. I provide more of my thoughts in my comment above to BigrTex. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The omission is not detrimental to the understanding of the article, and we err on the side of caution with copyright. Also, it might be considered WP:BLUDGEONing to ask every single endorse !voter why they are endorsing it. SportingFlyer T·C 16:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • But I feel you can make that argument - The omission is not detrimental to the understanding of the article - for many images used on television episode articles, many of which use images with no commentary whatsoever (unlike these posters, which do have it in article). I apologize for any BLUDGEON appearance, but I felt each editor I reached out to would have their own opinion/point to make, and for discussion/formatting sake, talking below each editor's original point would be better than myself making one point and all editors who chose to respond layering their comments in that thread. I am making a new comment below, if you choose to comment there at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, to help people who aren't already neck deep in this, as an example, [[:File:Agents of SHIELD Love in the Time of Hydra.jpeg]) was used on the page Love in the Time of Hydra. To quote the use rationale from the deleted page, it was used to

Main infobox. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work, product or service for which it serves as poster art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work, product or service and know they have found what they are looking for. Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original artwork, namely the creator providing graphic design services, and in turn the marketing of the promoted item.

which is a bit general but pretty standard. An article about a specific piece of media, using exactly one piece of that media to help the user identify and understand it. That it's the promotional poster rather than a screenshot is a bit queer to me, but ... okay, it's the choice the creators made to best represent it, who am I to argue? It is specifically discussed, but I'm not sure that really matters, as it's representing the whole of the media (which is, of course, critically discussed). The discussion understood this very well. So, Overturn to Keep WilyD 08:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The policy reason for deleting was "Fails WP:NFCC 8". The copyright owner being extremely lenient is not sufficient, because Wikipedia is about creating free content. "Extremely lenient" is less than free. Get the copyright owner to release the posters to the public domain, and then come back. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Consensus was not clear. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I think we'd allow a screenshot here right? Why not a poster? given that the numeric !vote was to keep (in fact no delete !vote on most of these) I don't see how this isn't a standard exception to NFCC. But I'm not a master of NFCC as applied here. Hobit (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given Hut's comments below, that's a strong overturn. It's in a guideline that it can be used here. Guidelines, !vote, and generally accepted consensus are all on the same side here. Don't see how it can go the other way. Hobit (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the NFC was nominated for failing WP:NFCC#8, I see no contention of that point, and JJMC89 noted that. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 08:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fourthords: How exactly do you feel NFCC#8 is not followed with these posters? As S Marshall noted below, NFCC 8 can be entirely subjective. I provide more of my thoughts in my comment above to BigrTex. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, no, I didn't participate in the original discussions. I'm sorry if I implied that. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I understood you didn't participate in the original discussions. My question now was, you are "endorsing" these files stay deleted because of NFCC#8 with you see[ing] no contention of that point. So why do you feel NFCC#8 has not been followed with each of these files? I apologize if I am confusing your stance. - Favre1fan93 (talk)
    So, the NFC was nominated for deletion for failing WP:NFCC#8. The editors who wanted to keep the files didn't address the NFCC. When the closing administrator didn't find any arguments that offset or overruled the nominator's point, they deleted the files. I don't see any procedural malfeasance for DRV, and so endorse the closure. My opinion on these files and NFCC#8 isn't relevant because that discussion was already closed; here we're discussing the administrative closure itself, yes? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, proper closure. WP:NFCC#8 cannot be overridden by a local consensus at an FFD. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Stifle: How exactly do you feel NFCC#8 is not followed with these posters? As S Marshall noted below, NFCC 8 can be entirely subjective. I provide more of my thoughts in my comment above to BigrTex. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relistings will continue until the little people vote the way we want. And when they still don't, we'll delete it anyway. And when they complain, we'll stop editing until they give up. Smh. —Cryptic 10:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you actually look at what NFCC#8 says, it's inherently subjective. We're supposed to decide if an image might enhance "a reader's understanding" of the topic, and that's rather hard to apply, because a given image which, in context, doesn't enhance your understanding of a topic, might still very well enhance mine. It's something about which reasonable people might disagree. So I think the question for DRV is whether it's better to be relatively restrictive about NFCC#8 (i.e. the image may only be retained if it enhances every reader's understanding of the topic) or relatively permissive (i.e. the image should be retained if it could enhance any reader's understanding of the topic). And I think that judgment is wrapped up in another tension on Wikipedia, between those who're mainly concerned to build a library of free content, and those who're mainly concerned to build an encyclopaedia.
One of the problems with FFD is that it's more attractive to the closers who value free content than to the encyclopaedia-first people. And another problem is closers deciding that their personal opinion about what enhances "a reader"'s understanding of the topic is more important than the FFD consensus. We overuse the word "supervote" at DRV, but I can find no other way to characterize the decision to delete a file after a unanimous "keep" !vote by uninvolved editors.
All of which leads to me strongly agreeing with Cryptic, above. I don't doubt that there exists a reader whose understanding of the topic would be enhanced by these images, and I'm on the "write an encyclopaedia" side rather than the "everything must be libre" side, so in my view NFCC#8 is clearly passed, and the alternative view is clearly untenable. These discussions must be re-closed in accordance with the actual consensus at the time.—S Marshall T/C 11:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn one of the participants cited MOS:TVIMAGE, which says "Individual episode articles are less likely to have an infobox image, but if a promotional poster or image exists then it may be used", and actually lists one of these images as an example of acceptable usage. While interpretations of the NFCC are inherently subjective, here we have a guideline which explicitly interprets the NFCC as meaning that this type of usage is acceptable. It's therefore fair to say that the close isn't consistent with wider consensus on this point. Hut 8.5 12:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Decorative fair use images in violation of WP:NFCC#3a and/or WP:NFCC#8. Not seeing any policy-based reasons to keep. -FASTILY 07:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fastily: How exactly do you feel NFCC#3a and NFCC#8 are not followed with these posters? 3a is satisfied for all of these images, as they are the only non-free piece of content featured on their respective articles. As S Marshall noted above, NFCC 8 can be entirely subjective. I provide more of my thoughts in my comment above to BigrTex. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think BigrTex's response to you hits the nail on the head. If you build out the article(s) to explicitly discuss the images in question (which would be highly beneficial to readers/fans anyways), I would be more likely to support restoration. -FASTILY 21:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The articles do explicitly discuss the images in question. One of Us (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)#Marketing is a typical example. Usually in such cases the discussed image is put in the same section, not the infobox as was done with these; would that help convince you? —Cryptic 17:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The example you cite contains three sentences. Three sentences which only briefly describe a poster hardly constitutes the sort of in-depth critical commentary necessary to justify inclusion. So to answer your question, no, this example further cements my position. -FASTILY 05:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • The sentences that are there, are a lot more than many episode articles have to support their image use. I've made a comment below regarding this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per Hut 8.5, S Marshall, and Cryptic. A cover image, or in the absence of one, a prtom otional postyer for a work of media, any kind of media, clearly enhances the users understanding by clearly iden tifing the exact work being discussed. Specific commetn about the art should not be needed, and I do not read NFCC as requiring that in such a case. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For my curiosity, I wanted to look at episode articles from other series and to see what the image use is like on them and I found a few that stood out to me. First, on the FA Sardines (Inside No. 9), it also features a promotional poster to visually identify the episode, with the only sourced content about it in the caption. The FA Deep Throat (The X-Files episode), its screenshot image is used to visually support commentary about the shot's visual effects, discussed in the article.
Then I found these images. Homecoming (The Wire) uses a screenshot but has absolutely no commentary about it in the article (its file's purpose description is also not helpful in justifying its use in the article). I Am a Tree has an image caption that seemingly mentions about reviewer's thoughts on the moment depicted in the image, but that commentary isn't actually featured in the article (its file's purpose description states its to help identify the episode, which I'm sure it could, but again, the commentary isn't there to support its inclusion). And finally, The Battle (Star Trek: The Next Generation), which is a GA, has an image, per its file's purpose description, to show a ship and the Picard Maneuver "both of which are discussed in the article". However, neither of these are discussed in any critical commentary sense. The lead of the article talks about the ship's design, but that isn't source there nor in the body. Yes, outside the FA articles these were three random articles and files I found, but when comparing the posters under discussion here with these three, I have to feel the posters are closer to the ones used in the FA articles because the articles for these posters in question have commentary speaking directly to the designs of these posters and the NFCC was more than satisfied, especially compared to some of these other images on the site.
If these posters were just released and didn't have the commentary (actually I believe this is the case with the first linked poster for Secret Warriors and I mentioned above I would be ok if this one was not restored), then yes, I'd agree the deletions were correct. However, the commentary is there and by including the posters, I believe it would help the reader significantly better understand the article because they can visually connect what the commentary is saying about the poster to it. And in many cases, these posters cover many aspects of the episode in question (literally or thematically) which in my opinion is a better representation than a single screenshot from a 42 minute episode could capture about it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was "policy-based rationale" provided through the Manual of Style, the close reads like a WP:SUPERVOTE and the close did not reflect the discussion. Aspects (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I started out closing this, but eventually came to the conclusion that what I want to say is better said down here. Like many DRVs, this discussion is a mix of "Should the page(s) be deleted?" and "Was the XfD process carried out correctly?" The problem is that the volume of discussion here exceed that of the FfD by many fold, and it's impossible to fully tease apart the two halves of the mix. So, I think the best thing would be to back out FfD closes and hopefully a new discussion will attract better participation, now that it's gotten some visibility here at DRV. Given that all the FfD discussions were virtually identical, bundling them would make sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. The closing statements in the vein of "No policy-based rationale is provided for keeping the image" mischaracterized the discussions, in which reasonable arguments for the files' NFCC compliance were in fact made. "Contextual significance" is a matter of editorial judgment and, like notability, cannot be asserted or denied schematically in absolute terms, but must be individually discussed. Sandstein 21:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep - this doesn't strike me as complicated. Two keep !votes citing MOS:TVIMAGE which specifically says Individual episode articles are less likely to have an infobox image, but if a promotional poster or image exists then it may be used. is consensus to keep. MOS is a guideline and represents global consensus. If there are concerns about whether TV episode posters meet NFCC, for example whether the poster must be discussed specifically rather than just using it as an infobox image, that discussion should be had over at MOS:TVIMAGE. Under current global consensus as documented at MOS:TVIMAGE, episode posters may be used in the infobox, so there's no reason to delete these images. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this 2016 RFC (which mentioned NFCC) added the bit about episode posters to TVIMAGE, and the most-recent RFC about TVIMAGE (which also mentioned NFCC, though not about episode posters) closed January 2020. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 07:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That 2016 RFC seems to demonstrate mainly how little heed we should pay to MOS:TVIMAGE in this case. It was started and also closed by the same editor who is arguing so vociferously for inclusion of the images here, and had very little participation. If such a guideline were proposed and endorsed at WP:CENT, or among experienced users dealing with nonfree policy day in day out, then it might be different. But MOS:TV, much as it's no doubt does a good job of marshaling stylistic convention for our television coverage, is not a source of truth when it comes to this.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, there are those defects in the 2016 RFC, but four years is a long time, and TVIMAGE has been around longer than that. If it posed a legal threat, WMF Legal would have said something by now... after all, enwiki is one of the top sites in the world for TV episode recaps. "We would have been sued by now." If TVIMAGE didn't have consensus within the community, it would have come up in the last four years. "It would have been reverted by now." WP:SILENCE, "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident", and anyway, per S Marshall's explanation above, whether NFCC 8 prohibits episode posters from being used in an infobox is a debatable question. The way to challenge TVIMAGE is through a new RFC, not by supervoting delete at FFD - meaning, the closer was bound to follow the MOS:TVIMAGE guideline, which (in my view) provides the global consensus interpretation of how NFCC applies to episode posters, even if it is weak consensus, even if it's consensus by silence, it's still consensus the closer should follow. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 07:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please note that the 2016 discussion you linked to was simply to update wording of the MOS. You can see the previous wording in the "Current text" section versus what was ultimately changed in the "New, updated text" section. Policy points weren't change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Not really much room for doubt here, the policy was correctly applied. The Squirrel Conspiracy and AussieLegend rationales here explain why quite nicely. This is not just policy, but "policy with legal considerations". I can understand that this is a subjective judgement,a lot of fair use is, but this isn't really a borderline case. Episode promotional posters are clearly too tangential to the entity itself to be considered detrimental if they're omitted. As said above, a screenshot could be OK if critical commentary were included, but the poster isn't. Citing the MOS isn't particularly helpful here, as was pointed out in the discussions - a guideline, whose discussions may not be attended by such a wide and comprehensive group of people, cannot trump application of a policy with legal considerations. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've previously stated to other editors, critical commentary is included for these posters, which would justify a NFCC#8 inclusion. I have agreed with others that if this commentary did not exist for these posters, I would not be requesting this review. And in a comment above, I have pointed out how in a very small random search of images used in episode articles (mostly screenshots), there was virtually no commentary in their articles to support such images, where all the posters in question here, have been supported by commentary to satisfy NFCC guidelines. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep. I find it hard not to call this close a supervote. The nom was basing all its nominations on NFCC 8 - Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, yet this logic can be applied to every instance of a television series or season poster, which is why MOS:TVIMAGE exists to specially allow posters. If that guideline is wrong, then it should be changed, but ignoring it with a close stating that No policy-based rationale is provided for keeping the image is just false. The files in question are all posters, which as the nom states were discussed in the article. --Gonnym (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, no policy-based rationale was provided (MOS is only a guideline, and it doesn't override NFCC). Black Kite (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I'm not convinced that the current text of MOS:TVIMAGE reflects any sort of consensus on NFCC interpretation given the sparse attendance and procedural irregularities of the 2016 discussion as Amakuru pointed out above (and I don't see an RFC tag anywhere in the page history?) and the previous text says nothing about posters in episode articles. The closes reflect a reasonable application of NFCC#8. T. Canens (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Unless I'm missing something, there was no critical commentary about the posters which increased the viewer's knowledge of the episode, thus ensuring that they fail NFCC8. It would have course have been different had the article been about the posters. MOS:TVIMAGE appears to suggest that whilst a screenshot from the programme must comply with WP:NFCC, a poster does not have to - which is plainly false as every image needs to comply. Black Kite (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per User:Black Kite. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've begun a discussion about possible MOS:TVIMAGE issues at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#MOS:TVIMAGE conflicts with WP:NFCC --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Jamaal Bowman – The AfD result is endorsed but the facts have changed and the article has been recreated. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jamaal Bowman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In recent days, Jamaal Bowman has received prominent endorsements, e.g. by Senators Warren, Sanders, and national news coverage, e.g. in headlines by CBS, Politico, The New York Times, Fox News, CNN, ABC. He is surely notable and relevant. Porridge (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Closure of AfD appears to be in order. No objection if page history is moved to draft space for article development. —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Here are some sources (the first results on google news):

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/opinion/jamaal-bowman-engel.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/16/politics/elizabeth-warren-jamaal-bowman/index.html
https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2020/06/16/warren-endorses-jamaal-bowman-over-eliot-engel-in-show-of-progressive-support-1293191
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eliot-engel-jamaal-bowman-primary-election-new-york-16/
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-aoc-again-this-pro-israel-jewish-democrat-faces-the-fight-of-his-life-in-n-y-c-1.8921991
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-04/pelosi-backs-engel-after-ocasio-cortez-endorsement-of-challenger
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/13/black-candidates-us-politics-police-protests
Porridge (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - No error by closer. The appellant has then annoyed Deletion Review by providing a URL Dump, which means, "I am too busy and too important to format these sources into proper references." Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a little rough. He provided international coverage of the person. That's the kind of thing we like. Yes, better formatting would have been nice (with quotes and stuff) but he's right--this is way above the GNG. Now we apparently don't *use* the GNG for things like this, but there is a ton of coverage since the closure, and he's provided some of it. If this weren't a politician, he'd be way over the bar based on the sources provided based solely on the sources provided above. Hobit (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry if you have been annoyed by the number of URLs. I did not think that formatting would be necessary, as the purpose was not to create an article, the URLs were just meant to show how much coverage Jamaal Bowman has received in recent days. URL Dump says "I am too important and too busy to work these references into the form of footnotes in an article draft. You should do this for me." - I was not expecting anyone to reformat the URLs into proper footnotes. If the creation of an article is allowed, I would be happy to contribute with proper referencing. Porridge (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Nothing wrong with the close, and no reason to recreate. Candidates covered in the context of their election rarely receive lasting coverage if they don't win. I might spin that specific election into its own article, though. SportingFlyer T·C 04:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if some, or many, candidates fall into obscurity after an election, few receive as much high-profile coverage as this one. To quote from yesterday's article in Politico, "The clash between heavyweights like Clinton and Sanders has made New York’s 16th District race one of the most-watched primaries of the cycle — and one of the most telling." In terms of notability, this is clearly more than an average election candidate. Porridge (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few more international sources - I hope the formatting is ok this time:

  • Times of India, "The endorsement puts Clinton on the opposite side of a wave of progressives who are backing Engel’s leading challenger, Jamaal Bowman"
  • Times of Israel, "On Tuesday, Sanders gave his influential stamp of approval to Bowman, saying that the former Bronx public school principal would “fight to invest in public schools, end mass incarceration and address the housing crisis.”
  • La Politica, Argentina, "Con el apoyo de Bernie y Ocasio, el progresista Jamaal Bowman busca la curul del centrista veterano Eliot Engel en el Bronx."
  • Tacheles, Switzerland, "Bowman kommt als Direktor einer Mittelschule in der Bronx aus dem gleichen Beruf wie Engel. Der den 44-jährige Afroamerikaner wird von Bernie Sanders und Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unterstützt, die ihn als «neue Generation» in der Politik anpreist"
  • The Star, Canada, "Democratic primary challengers aim to be next Ocasio-Cortez"

Perhaps it would be helpful to see this not primarily as a US election issue, but as a question of what the international English-language wikipedia should cover? Porridge (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, this happens every two years whenever there's a US election cycle, and you don't really see it with election cycles from any other countries, primarily because of the way the US system works. All of these stories can be properly used in the article about the specific election, which needs to be developed anyways. They do not contribute to lasting notability, i.e. will Bowman be remembered ten years from now if he does not win the election, which is why the rule exists in the first place. SportingFlyer T·C 18:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. DRV is not AfD round 2. The interpretation of the discussion's consensus by the closer was quite obviously correct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to make a comment on our policies: the primary election for the race where he's a candidate is on 23 June. It appears to be one of the safest Democratic seats in the country. If he wins, he'll win the seat at the next election unless something major and noteworthy happens (this isn't speculation: Democratic candidates consistently receive 90%+ of the vote in this district which means he has a >99.9% chance of winning.) If he loses, he will have received campaign coverage but nothing else and would likely fail an AfD. I reckon we just restore this if he wins the election and leave it deleted if he doesn't, with no prejudice on recreation if other non-campaign sources get dredged up. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant endorse The discussion could not have been closed as keep. Over omming the WP:NPOL standard will take a strong case. However, the title is no0t salted and could be recreated. If it were, using all the sources presented in this discussion, I for one would vote KEEP at an AfD. I would favor restoring this to draft for those sources to be added. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A never-elected candidate being endorsed in primaries is very weak, is not good enough. Post-deletion, if you want to make a quick challenge, see advice at WP:THREE. I am less critical of the reference formating as with the number of them. Two or three is enough, if the first two or three are not good enough, then I think you are trying to bamboozle with reference bombing. Allow draftification of course. He might win. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is seriously daft on the part of presumably good-faith editors to disregard sources based on their formatting or their number. I say this having seen this same argument raised at AfC and elsewhere, and having read WP:URL Dump and WP:THREE which are thoroughly unconvincing despite apparently meeting with enough agreement that they are not as yet tagged for speedy deletion. The verifiability policy says "[a]ny exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources [...]" and notability for inclusion in Wikipedia is usually treated as an exceptional claim, even if the component claims of an article are not all exceptional. Pro-deletion comments objecting to the provision of multiple sources - formatted or not - go against the spirit of this policy and, self-evidently, result in editors driven away. Airbornemihir (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Airbornemihir, WP:THREE should be being read in the context of the properly run SNOW delete of the AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven’t read all the sources proffered in this DRV, but they all seem to be close perspective reporting, not independent of the subject, and promotional. The onus should be on the proponent to identify the best sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I've noted above, this is actually moot - by the time the week is up here at DRV, he will either be a few months away from being voted into office as being preselected for an exceptionally safe seat, or he will be a losing candidate. The sources presented aren't helpful for determining whether he will be notable enough for an article should he lose. I don't necessarily disagree with the argument that it's improper to disregard sources if there are a lot of them, but WP:THREE is actually exceptionally helpful for those of us not familiar with the topic, as pretty much all of the regulars here are good at figuring out notability of just about any topic - we just want to see what article proponents think the best sources are without having to pick through a heap of them. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isn’t this more so moot because the article is live, admin User:Czar having mainspaced the draft with reasonable rationale? This DVR is moot. It can be renominated at AfD. I recommend waiting a while. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't notice that. This never should have been restored. If he loses on the 23rd I'll AfD it. SportingFlyer T·C 00:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot. The closer accurately judged consensus, but the discussion omitted multiple sources that discussed his notability as an educator, both as a school founder and his advocacy against high-stakes testing. Between those and the snowballing national coverage of his campaign, I don't see the point of re-litigating this. If he loses on the 23rd, he'll still meet the GNG. (not watching, please {{ping}} if you'd like a reply) czar 00:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree completely - if you remove everything campaign-related from the article, he's not notable based on the available sources. It's not worth deleting now or arguing over because of how close the election is and considering there's an article which says he's in the lead, but I do plan to AfD it if he loses the upcoming election and I remember. SportingFlyer T·C 01:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for obvious reasons of consensus. Lightburst (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No error by the closer as no one argued for keep. --Enos733 (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Camila Loures – Overturn A7, list at AfD. Closing this as NC would probably be defensible, but I think there's enough doubt expressed as to the applicability of A7, plus the deleting admin offered to restore it. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Camila Loures (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted as A7, but claimed to have 11 million subscribers (the actual channel shows almost 12 million). According to WikiProject YouTube's statistics, cases like this are actually more often than not kept at AfD, and (assuming I'm interpreting this right), there seems to be a growing consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#YouTube_subscribers that cases like this should go to AfD (for the record, this subject also has many Google News hits). Adam9007 (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this request is so unsatisfactory. Why did you not seek to discuss the deletion with the deleting admin? Or have I missed it? A few minutes after you informed him of the DRV he said he would restore the article. There should have been no need for a DRV in the first place. Thincat (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did you not seek to discuss the deletion with the deleting admin? Or have I missed it? He and I have never seen see eye to eye, especially on deletion. Discussion would likely have gone nowhere, fast. I therefore saw no point in wasting either my time or his. A few minutes after you informed him of the DRV he said he would restore the article. Correction: he said he'd restore it if it's brought up to AfD standards, but the fact it's poorly sourced doesn't justify, even for a BLP, speedying it outside the specified criteria (otherwise why isn't BLPPROD a speedy criterion?) Adam9007 (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an article I would have speedied, but. When an article has only one source, it's primary, the only prose in the article that it verifies is "{{PAGENAME}}... is [a]... YouTuber", and that's enough to disqualify it from WP:BLPPROD, there's something wrong with the process. —Cryptic 14:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I suppose that many subscribers is a plausible assertion of significance, but this is a BLP with no third-party sources so it shouldn't go back to mainspace. In fact unless further citations are available it fails WP:V. I suggest we draftify it so the OP can work on it. Hut 8.5 06:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD. CSD:A7 does not apply in this instance as the assertion of over 10,000,000 YouTube followers is a plausible claim of notability or significance. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy I agree with Stifle, that's a plausible claim of significance. Hobit (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, a claim of a bunch of TwitFaceTubeGram subscribers is not a claim of significance, especially since those can be purchased. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that they have almost 12 million subs has been reported on in the media: 1, 2. Adam9007 (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 June 2020[edit]

  • Theresa Greenfield – There is substantial and well-argued support for the idea that we should have an article rather than a redirect here; but it falls short of a consensus to overturn.—S Marshall T/C 14:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Theresa Greenfield (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD was closed on May 31st by administrator Sandstein with the comments "The result was redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa#Democratic primary. Consensus to not keep. Unclear with respect to redirect, but the "delete" opinions do not seem to oppose one." Sandstein re-directed to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa. (I personally was not part of that AfD discussion but think Sandstein made an appropriate decision for that moment in time.)

Soon after Smith0124 re-started the article with the comments "It doesn’t seem that a consensus was reached on the discussion."[24]

Several edits later the AfD nom Muboshgu re-directed the article for unknown reasons and with no comment.[25]

On June 2nd Theresa Greenfield was elected the Democratic nominee in the 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa and since then there has been significant national coverage about her, not just "mentions." Examples of the significant coverage of this person since the AfD close are from USA Today, The Hill and Vox.[26][27][28] (EDIT: Two of these additional significant coverages occurred after the last DRV closed. I didn't know about that DRV.)

Due to the new significant coverage and now polls are showing Greenfield currently ahead in this race, I re-started the article, added the new significant coverage of this person and some content with the edit comments "Situation has changed dramatically since AfD closed with "Unclear with respect to redirect" outcome. Very significant national coverage about Greenfield has occurred after AfD. Some added to article."[29] I notified Sandstein.[30]

But Muboshgu reverted again with the comment "AfD closed two weeks ago, and her winning the nomination is not a big enough change".[31] Muboshgu has now protected the page with the comment "Repeatedly recreated despite redirect result at AfD".[32]

Not only has this person become the US Senate race Democratic nominee since the AfD close, but has received new significant coverage by multiple national outlets about her and is now ahead in the polls and has easily become notable by WP standards. I think the AfD occurring just before the primary election was ill-advised and now that the stature of this person has change significantly the article needs to be re-created.Oakshade (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Didn't know about the previous DRV. At the time of this post, two of the above (USA Today and The Hill coverage) and the below significant coverage (the Des Moines Register) of this person occurred after the last DRV. Also there is more Politico significant coverage about this person that wasn't even mentioned in the AfD or previous DRV.[33] The coverage will only continue to grow and if this page doesn't get re-created, there will be yet another DRV by yet a different editor and likely soon. Oakshade (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Previous DRV closed four days ago. —Cryptic 23:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And nothing has changed since then. She's still an unelected candidate for office. Her winning the nomination was expected and does not change anything. The AfD was explicit that the consensus was not to keep, with some question as to whether it would be best to delete or redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since then the above USA Today and The Hill significant coverage has occurred. Plus the Des Moines Register.[34] It would be willful ignorance to believe the significant coverage of this person won't continue and become bigger as the year goes on. If this DRV still doesn't allow re-creation then expect another DRV as the summer moves on, sooner than later most likely. (Didn't know about previous DRV.)Oakshade (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We literally just closed this as endorse. Furthermore, I voted to delete and I'd still vote to delete/redirect, all of the coverage relates directly to the campaign, and we can still cover her contextually on the election page as a WP:BLP1E. Losing candidates who weren't otherwise notable tend to stay non-notable, and yes, that's true even in the US. SportingFlyer T·C 00:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are significant new sources. For basically any topic at all, coverage in the USA Today and The Hill in the last few days would be enough to at least overcome a speedy deletion. That somehow *this* topic is so special that folks think that additional sources shouldn't matter is, just, odd. And yes, I clearly understand why people believe that, I just think it's wrong. Hobit (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus at the AfD was that we shouldn't have an article on her unless she wins the election or becomes notable for some reason other than running in the election. Coverage of her related to the election can be put in the article about the election. If she loses then she won't be seen as having lasting significance a few years from now. I suggest we alter the protection expiry to expire on election day though (the current date is several weeks later). If she wins then she will be unambiguously notable and the protection will be an impediment, if she loses then people will stop trying to write an article about her and the protection won't be necessary. Hut 8.5 20:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We most certainly can and do have articles on people who have not so far won an election but pass WP:GNG. There is no reason why this person needs to be singled out from having an article despite passing GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakshade (talk • contribs)
  • It is definitely usual practice not to have standalone articles about people whose only claim of significance is being an unelected candidate in a single election. There are exceptions but they aren't very common. More importantly here that was the consensus in the AfD. Hut 8.5 20:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passing WP:GNG and "claim of significance" are totally different. GNG makes no discrimination of how someone became notable, but if they're notable. At the time of AfD this person didn't pass GNG, but now an abundance GNG-passing coverage has become present. The coverage will only continue to grow. Oakshade (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you've now looked at the old DRV. While lacking any formal guidelines that I can see, there seems to be a local consensus that being a candidate for elected office is somehow a "single event" and so BLP1E can apply. I totally get it for someone running for city dog catcher (or city council in most cases) but running for one of the most covered US senate seats seems a bit much to me. Work/life is killing me right now, but if no one else gets to it, I should be able to organize an RfC on the issue in the next 2-3 weeks. Hobit (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of situations where we don't have a standalone article on someone who meets the GNG. She won't be seen as having any sort of lasting significance if she loses in November and never does anything noteworthy ever again. Notice how people never try to write articles on someone whose only claim of significance is running for the US Senate years ago and losing, it's only current candidates that people claim are notable. Hut 8.5 07:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an ignore-GNG situation. This is a major candidate for the US Senate, not as mentioned below dog catcher. And this person is ahead in the polls, not some placeholder candidate. Oakshade (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I diagree, people only notable for one event (WP:BLP1E / WP:ONEEVENT) is a classic situation where we don't have a standalone article on someone who passes the GNG. The subject's only notability derives from an election, we have an article on that election and she can be covered in it. The polls don't matter, we consider notability on the basis of the current state of affairs, not what we think might happen in the future. In any case the race is very close and could easily go either way. Hut 8.5 19:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:BLP1E/ONEVENT train has long left the station. The person passed GNG just for becoming a candidate. Then the AfD happened with some citing ONEVENT. After the AfD she had further GNG-passing coverage for winning the nomination election. No longer one event. Then she had even further GNG coverage for emerging as a major candidate. ONEVENT is meant for those who have a spurt of coverage for one event. There has already been multiple events garnering this person GNG-passing coverage and it’s only going to increase. This person is now notable per GNG and BLP1E/ONEVEVNT.Oakshade (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think you're missing the point here: every candidate will receive coverage, but not every candidate is notable. That's why the first AfD was unanimously endorsed, that's why the last DRV was endorsed, and there's nothing significantly new here, four days after the last one was closed, that would warrant creating an article. Everything can be covered properly on the election page, too, so it's not as if there's any harm: it just means she doesn't yet qualify for a standalone article. Also, winning a preselection isn't a "separate event" for the purposes of candidates. SportingFlyer T·C 23:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've missed the point. The significant GNG-passing USA Today and The Hill coverage occurred in the last four days after the last DRV. And the Politico coverage was totally missed in the AfD and first DRV. In July 2010 when the article for then-candidate Ron Johnson who was previously non-notable was created, there was not even a thought of AfD as that person constantly received national GNG-passing coverage and he was a major viable candidate running for a US Senate seat, equivalent to this person. This person has become notable on a national level for a series of events - way beyond "routine" and and that's only going to continue. Oakshade (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that the coverage you're citing isn't fundamentally different from the coverage considered in the AfD. The AfD decided that coverage of her in the context of the election wasn't enough, so you're coming back with more coverage of her in the context of the election. The same decision applies. And no, she won't necessarily continue to get non-routine coverage if she loses the election. WP:WHATABOUTX isn't considered a good argument either. Hut 8.5 07:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course the new coverage is fundamentally different from that cited in the AfD. The coverage at that time was considered in the AfD as only "mentions." Since then there has been significant national GNG-passing coverage about this person and as she's emerged as a major US Senate candidate, that is way beyond the scope of "routine" - WP:ROUTINE defines coverage as "announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism" which of course the coverage is not. There's no "must will election or ignore GNG" clause in GNG. Even if this person looses the general election in November, the person already became notable. Oakshade (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The three sources provided at the AFD are hardly "mentions". The first and third are better than any of the ones you've put forward, for all that you falsely claimed one of them was new coverage and hadn't been brought forward. —Cryptic 16:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage provided in the AfD were in fact considered just "mentions" as reason to eschew them.[35]. The further GNG-passing coverage has occurred after both the AfD and the first DRV, plus the earlier Politico piece that was missed in both. Oakshade (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We know that and that's the point. Since then there has been GNG-passing significant coverage of this person from national outlets of this major Senatorial candidate and that coverage will only continue to grow. This certainly won't be the last DRV if this isn't re-created.Oakshade (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and consider salting until after the November election. DRV is not a place to relitigate a properly closed AfD. --Enos733 (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When new GNG-passing sources emerge after a properly closed AfD, then DRV is the proper place to review the topic, especially if it is salted or protected which would prevent re-creation through standard editing. Oakshade (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn on the basis of the additional sources. That's enough reason for a new afd,, even when the earlier afd was properly closed DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. First, the subject continues to gather high-profile national coverage, including a prominent piece in the New York Times just yesterday. Second, much of the reasoning advanced in support of deletion is based on a misreading of the applicable guideline. NPOL states that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." That clearly does not establish a presumption of non-notability. There is no reasonable argument that Greenfield fails GNG requirements. It is wholly irrational, and contrary to Wikipedia's basic goals, to mechanically delete coverage of major party nominees for the US Senate, who all but universally receive extensive national coverage. It's a grotesque embarrassment when Wikipedia deletes such articles while preserving articles on people "notable for trivial self-promotional buffoonery like Kyle Craven. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Protests of 2019 – No consensus to overturn the "delete" closure, which therefore remains in force. I decline to relist the AfD because it was already relisted once and has received plenty of input relative to most other AfDs. Sandstein 21:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Protests of 2019 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

this page was deleted as WP:SYNTH. I feel this page was held to an unnecessarily and unduly strict interpretation of WP:Notability. I feel that retaining this entry is based upon the the same criteria for validity and WP:Notability as any other year-based article; e.g. we have 2019 in film, 2019 in science, 2019 in art, 2019 in aviation, etc. the only difference between Protests of 2019 and the other articles, is that Protests of 2019 is formatted in a narrative format, whereas the other year-based articles are formatted in purely a chronological, timeline-based format. I feel that this article is well-researched, is notable, and easily meets the standards of WP:Notable, as well as other aspects of five pillars of Wikipedia. I should also note that there was a significant number of votes in favor of "Keep" for this article. I feel this article should be retained here. Sm8900 (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you did not follow the requirement to discuss my close with me before raising a DRV? At the bare minimum its rude. Spartaz Humbug! 17:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I do not expand on my reasoning if a user chooses to bypass discussion and, per my unusual practise I am not offering my opinion on the close but there was 1 further consideration that I did not mention in my close that informed my close. That is, there appears to have been some vote stacking on the keep side. Not just the policy free votes but a cluster of keeps including 3 accounts that were inactive but came together to vote keep in roughly the same time. This includes 1 account whose only edit i 3 years was to keep this article. Spartaz Humbug! 17:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, if my vote is one of the votes that you are referring to, the reason for my attention to this is that WP:Contemporary History is an area of great personal interest and editing activity for me. I have originated several articles specifically for tracking various topics within contemporary history. I also created the category Category: Timelines by year. So my interest in this area is highly consistent and long-standing. so if my vote was one of the three votes referenced in your reply above, I would like to gently and tactfully suggest that my vote please be removed from any such general perceived or alleged grouping. I appreciate it. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no, it wasn't you. Spartaz Humbug! 17:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Spartaz, sorry if I was inattentive to your concerns in any way. it truly was not my intent to do so. this is my first time using this forum in any way, even though I have been here a number of years. I do appreciate the good-faith reply above by User:Spartaz. Even if we disagree, I am glad to have valid discussion here. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen the AfD because major contributor(s) were not notified.
This deletion discussion should be re-opened because the normal procedures were not followed: Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion: It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article. Please show evidence of me and other major contributors being notified. I fail to see where I was notified: User_talk:Boud. It is obvious from the contribution statistics and from the talk page that I am one of the main contributors (not the creator: the creator failed to justify the article; I looked for sources, and the evidence was in favour of the article's existence). Boud (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke. No response was given to my comment that these sources all considered this a unified phenomenon:

Clearly this is not original synthesis originating in Wikipedia. Shall we also delete Protests of 1968, since there seems to be little similarity in the protest demands there? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at those five articles, and the main thing they have in common is a similar fishing expedition. One common conclusion is that social media has changed the way that protests are organized around the world. But who didn't already know that? And several commented that flash points can be fairly minor these days. But is that really enough to group these events in this single year as a cohesive groups of events? For my own sake, I didn't think it even came close. These were all articles of the kind I generally avoid reading, but they seem from the outset to be too much begging the question. One article has a title that actually ends in a question mark (rarely a good sign). I didn't read too deeply, but where I actually found quotations from subject matter experts (other than the journalist's own navels) the quotes I found were the kind of bland quotations you often see from self-interested experts, based on standard academic selection bias: people who go into conflict studies are prone to see the world through a conflict lens. Anyway, I'm not expecting my comment here in this process to count for much, but I did want to push back on the idea that no-one is bothering to give that batch of links serious consideration. I looked, and I was not impressed. — MaxEnt 05:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there are 10 votes to keep and only six for delete. How is that consensus to delete? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you counting the "Keep or redirect" vote as a keep vote? In this case voting redirect is essentially voting delete, since the only viable redirect target is List of protests in the 21st century, which already exists and already includes all of the protests listed, so this vote appears to be essentially neutral. Additionally we should note that 3 of the votes appear to be the result of vote-stacking, which leaves us with 6:6. Finally: polling is no substitute for discussion. FOARP (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Looks like Spartaz properly weighed both the potential vote-stacking on the keep side and the lack of notability-based arguments on the keep side, good close. SportingFlyer T·C 04:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - (Full disclosure: I voted delete in this AFD, but also endorsed the previous AFD no-consensus close). Whilst there were more keep votes than delete ones, AFD is not a vote, instead the closer should weigh the quality of the arguments. Looking at the keep !votes that were accompanied by substantial arguments, you see different and contradictory arguments being made - some were contending that this was no different to a list and thus the WP:SYNTH point was misguided since they weren't arguing that the protests were linked by anything but the time in which they took place (though a list of protests in the 21st century already exists so this appears to be a duplication/WP:POVFORK), and others were saying that there was indeed a linked phenomenon covered by the article and shown in the references (though the delete voter's point was that this was actually a WP:SYNTH).
At once you can see that rather than there being a single unified keep !vote there were actually two separate and mutually exclusive ones (EDIT: you can even seen this above in Sm8900 and Keepcalmandchill's arguments - one says it is not a linked phenomenon but just a year-based article written in narrative form, the other that it was indeed a linked phenomenon as shown by the sources), neither of them with a strong rebuttal of the case for deletion based on WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:POVFORK and ultimately WP:N and WP:V. FOARP (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. AFD is not a vote-count, and the closing administrator accurately determined that the consensus based on quality of arguments favoured deletion. Good close. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- how refreshing to see an admin actually not let inclusionist votestacking determine an AfD. Reyk YO! 09:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet again AfD gives us a redlink in a plausible search term. It's like nobody in 2020 reads or understands our deletion rules any more. Another defective discussion which we need to correct by way of a disambiguation page or redirect; and also another needless AfD that shouldn't have been started in the first place. We might want to authorize sysops to summarily close and delist AfDs like this.—S Marshall T/C 11:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing done here is going to stop anyone redirecting this (and all other years of the 21st Century) to the most plausible thing that anyone would be searching for: List of protests in the 21st century FOARP (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although that's true, it's not quite the point. What's happened here is:
a) Someone has, quite correctly, identified that our current article is a synthesis;
b) They've ignored the deletion policy (at WP:ATD) and skipped straight to an AfD listing;
c) They've ignored WP:BEFORE;
d) A bunch of other people have voted without regard to policy. The thought processes were, either "It's useful, so keep!" or "It's a synthesis, so delete!", leading to a discussion that doesn't really have anything to do with the way the encyclopaedia is designed to work.
e) And now it's been closed as "delete".
Per policy, the only part that should have happened is (a). We expect experienced users to be able to identify a synthesis, and then to realize that the title shouldn't be a redlink, and go straight to redirect or disambiguate without touching AfD at all. Nobody did it.
Deletion review's role is to oversee the deletion process and correct errors where we find it. In this case we're not looking at a mistake by the closer, so much as a complete disregard of the deletion policy by all concerned. And this is becoming routine: even highly experienced users are normalizing and internalizing this behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 14:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've got sympathy for the idea that AFD should be for deletions only and merge/redirect convos kept to the talk page, not least because there's already too many articles being sent there rather than being dealt with on the talk page. At the same time the talk page seems to have been dominated by some very involved-seeming editors so I can see why the nom went to AFD to get neutral feedback, and in this case redirecting is tantamount to deletion because the WP:SYNTH material which made up the entirety of it was going to get wiped by it. Ultimately, though, the closing Admin can only make their close based on the arguments presented and there was no thoroughly-argued redirect argument - just one editor voting "Keep or redirect" and another (me) pointing out what the likely target would have been. Doing otherwise is basically the Admin casting a super-vote. But OK, I'd better lay off commenting here further and let others get a word in edgewise! FOARP (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's "supervoting" to identify who's applying the policy and who's just !voting on their basis of their personal locus on the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum. Closers do have discretion to give more weight to the one person who's applying the policy than to the dozen who aren't. I think Spartaz could have got to a redirect outcome from that discussion, although to be fair to him it's not exactly a prominent point in the AfD.
I also think there are better ways to attract uninvolved editors to a talk page than jumping to AfD.—S Marshall T/C 14:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I would like to respond to some of the points above. firstly, I am glad to hear this robust discussion taking place here. this open interchange is what Wikipedia is all about, and what enriches us as a community. ok, as far as my own personal editing philosophy, this is hardly due to some knee-jerk philosophy of inclusionism on my part. as noted above, I have a consistent, ongoing interest in strengthening the ways that we as a community can cover contemporary history in a meaningful way. I commend the contributors to this article, for providing a useful overview of the era that we are currently in.

By the way, one suggestion that I might make is that perhaps we might re-approach this topic, perhaps by creating an article that might take the full decade as its scope, rather than a single year. however, I do perceive a confluence of causes that produced the wave of protests that we are currently experiencing.

and by the way, IMO the correct years to hold up as comparison for levels of protest are not 2014 or 2015, as one commenter did at the AFD. it is a legitimate assertion, but I feel that it misses the mark. any year that is subsequent to the invasion of Iraq of 2003, and more importantly the Arab Spring of 2011, and the resulting worldwide upheaval and instability, will reflect a similar uptick in protests. I feel the proper comparison would be the years of the late 1990s, during which time there was indeed less worldwide protests and less political upheaval and ferment.

Based on that, I still feel that this article should be retained. However, of course I will defer to the community discussion on this topics, and to any valid consensus reached. I would welcome any comments, feedback, or constructive input on any of my points above. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

also, I would like to be given the full text of this article, to retain as a draft-only version, in my own user space. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Overturn - on the grounds that at least one of the main authors (me) was not alerted; Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion: It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. (I made a similar comment above; this one includes the keyword 'overturn' in bold.) Boud (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You already said that. There's no need to repeat yourself, and DRV closers are reasonable people who can read the full discussion instead of just counting bolded words.
      Lack of notification to a specific individual or individuals hasn't ever by itself been considered grounds to overturn a deletion discussion at DRV; the closest situation that is is if a page hadn't been tagged for AFD, or sometimes if there was no external notification at all for an auxiliary page like an image or template. If there's an argument you would have made that would have changed the course of the AFD had you only been aware of it, then make it here and we'll consider it. —Cryptic 21:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I repeated it here because my initial comment did not follow the standard Deletion_review format, and anything beyond minor editing in place could have been considered excessive.
      Had I been aware of the AfD, I would have made an effort to remove most of the more questionable additions to the article which pushed it away from being well-sourced to diverging into SYNTH. This could have motivated other editors too. Between WP:OWN versus deletion, taking the risk of being accused of WP:OWN would have been justified. I was reluctant for a long time to remove a lot of contributions by other authors, because of the risk of WP:OWN.
      I cannot check if there was a failure to notify other major editors, because I don't have access to the edit history.
      I've switched my !vote to relist, since I don't know in advance what the result would be after I edit. I, and all other non-admins looking at this discussion, have no access to the article in the state it was in at the time that the deletion discussion was taking place, and we have no access to the history, so getting into more specific arguments that would have changed the course of the AfD is impossible. Boud (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I've temporarily undeleted it. —Cryptic 22:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me just point out that the WP:SYNTH issue had been talked about at great length on the talk page, which was frequented by Boud, but nothing done (because there is nothing to be done, as the entire concept of the page is WP:SYNTH). Contrary to what was said on the talk page, WP:SYNTH was also the reason given in the FR Wiki AFD discussion ("c'est un travail inédit") for the corresponding FR Wiki page when that was deleted. Finally, the contradiction is very evident in the arguments being made above - Sm8900 starts out by saying this is just a year-based list-page (though we already have a list-page covering this period) and as such the WP:SYNTH arguments are wrong, but then later swings into saying that actually what was being covered by the page is a linked phenomenon starting with the Iraq War demonstrations in 2003. Either the first is true (in which case it's a WP:POVFORK) or the second is true (in which case its WP:SYNTH). FOARP (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fr.wiki's a separate place with its own rules and procedures, so decisions there don't have precedential force on en.wiki. I agree that there are inconsistencies in Sm8900's position. He's right to say that you could have Category:Protests in 2019 and you could therefore have a navigational list per WP:CLN -- but in normal DRV process, the place to make that argument is the AfD, not the DRV. I think that founders on the point that the AfD should never have taken place at all, though, making the navigational list argument admissible here.—S Marshall T/C 09:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously what happens on FR Wiki is not binding on EN Wiki, but it is persuasive in considering the reasonableness of the close made by the admin that others considering an equivalent article came to an equivalent conclusion. A category page would be a completely different topic to the page that was being considered, and nothing done here prevents one being started. FOARP (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • colleagues, I respect all your points, but imho, there is nothing wrong with my assertion that an article passes WP:Notability because it is year-based, and also because the events that it describes are related. it is kind of like saying that the Syrian Civil War and the migrant crisis of the European Union are related, partially because of a direct causal relationship, but also because the Syrian Civil War continues to occur at the same time as other massive currently ongoing upheavals and conflicts, such as in Libya, Iraq, Sudan, Kurdistan, Ethiopia/Eritrea, as well, all of which also contributed to huge migrant crisis in the EU.
the fact that events happen in the same year, does not therefore mean they have less causal relationship; clearly, very often it means they have more.' by the very same token, the massive populist backlash in Europe is very much due to the huge influx of migrants, leading to a huge political backlash in the form of renewed populism. and the resulting instability in the EU might very much be what led to the huge upheaval known as Brexit. see what I mean?
so by asserting the validity of this article as being firmly year-based, I was not trying to negate the additional importance of the actual causal relationship between all of these massive geopolitical events; quite the contrary, in my opinion, they are highly related. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fr.Wikipedia's decision was voting rather than !voting: Raison : Pour plus de deux tiers des avis exprimés, c'est un travail inédit - "for 2/3 of the opinions, it was WP:OR". That is not an argument of evidence for OR; it's a popularity count. That is why the en.Wikipedia does not consider fr.Wikipedia decisions as binding, and at least the summary in this particular case adds no useful arguments here.
@Cryptic: - thank you for the temporary undeletion. That makes the discussion a lot more concrete. @FOARP: wrote: Let me just point out that the WP:SYNTH issue had been talked about at great length on the talk page, which was frequented by Boud, but nothing done. On the contrary, I read the previous arguments, looked at the evidence, and did a huge amount of editing. The lead – for example in this version of 30 Dec 2019, but ignore Global Protest Wave of 2019 which was unsourced and not contributed by me – has mainstream media and academic sources claiming that the topic exists. I'll let uninvolved third parties look at the full edit history. If we look at the edit statistics, most of Democratic Backsliding's contributions were removed by me or others on the grounds of OR or SYNTH. Tsukide added a lot of content, and disagreed with my concerns that much of his/her additions were SYNTH. Since an edit war would have been unacceptable, and since there was a risk of me appearing to WP:OWN the article, it was up to uninvolved editors to help explain to Tsukide and/or remove his/her contributions. FOARP wrote: (because there is nothing to be done, as the entire concept of the page is WP:SYNTH) – see the lead of this version of 30 Dec 2019 for full references showing how the topic is defined by notable sources: academics and mainstream media. User_talk:Tsukide was apparently not notified of the AfD. Getting along to other major contributors: Azurevanilla ash contributed the Indonesia section. Was this justified by the sources as part of the "wave" of protests? I see no evidence on the talk page of anyone proposing on the talk page to delete the Indonesia section. In my 02:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC) comment on the talk page, I pointed to a Bloomberg link including Indonesia. I'm just one editor - a debate about whether that evidence is strong enough for Indonesia to be included, while avoiding SYNTH, would be possible if either the deletion decision is overturned, or the AfD relisted. Debates on inclusion/exclusion of any of the other countries/protests - sourced to the mainstream media and academic sources - would of course be able to be re-opened if the deletion decision were overturned or the AfD relisted. Overturning would be more likely to encourage editing based on the sources rather than relisting - it's difficult to be motivated to edit if the edits have a high risk of being "thrown away". On the other hand, in a relisting, we could restart a clean set of arguments for/against SYNTH and/or deletion, including major/active contributors (Keepcalmandchill removed a lot of SYNTH very recently - on 1 June 2020): @Tsukide, Azurevanilla ash, Keepcalmandchill, Thepharoah17, Melvindillinger, Lakshmisreekanth, Parashakti M., Johnleemk, Gianluigi02, Pali Upadhyay, and Worthfulrebel:. Having a fresh discussion, with the increased likelihood of participation of the most obvious of those interested according to the edit history and talk page, would make it possible to have a proper AfD procedure. Boud (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you're doing here is WP:CANVASSING - pinging a bunch of users you think share your opinion to back you up. The reason I didn't notify the 'main editors' when creating the AfD (which is not something you must do) was twofold: a notice was put at the top of the article and in talk, which is well-frequented by those involved and has seen endless discussions about deletion, plus the fact that it is blatantly obvious the main editors all want to keep the article and won't listen to any other arguments. To have brought them in first would have been to facilitate a biased AfD discussion that didn't look at policy. Lots and lots of editors found the AfD naturally, as nobody was informed, so if none of the 'main editors' managed to find it, we must assume they can't be that interested in the article overall. Kingsif (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I did was what is requested here: Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion: It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Looking at your suggestion about canvassing: Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification:
  • scale - I looked through the edit history for those who did the most significant edits, and I did this in a single line, without trying to work out who would oppose or support deletion;
  • message - I wrote restart a clean set of arguments for/against SYNTH and/or deletion - which seems to me neutral language;
  • audience/transparency - the ping was done here, in full view of the main active discussion - so it's highly transparent.
  • Kinsgif - you wrote: the main editors all want to keep the article and won't listen to any other arguments - please WP:AGF. If you look at Talk:Protests_of_2019, I do not see anyone apart from me trying to explain SYNTH in specific cases of major edits by other editors, in particular Tsukide. Trying to see things from Tsukide's point of view, I can imagine him/her being unwilling to accept arguments that appeared to be from just one person (me). (I excluded notifying Democratic Backsliding, even though s/he is the original creator, on the grounds that s/he persistently reacted very little to discussion and seemed to have great difficulties with general Wikipedia policies including SYNTH, OR, WP:RELTIME, WP:RS and WP:WEASEL.) More specifically, there were not any other arguments Talk:Protests_of_2019 on for the other editors to listen about their edits in relation to external sources overviewing the claimed protest wave, so I don't see how we can assume that they are irrational. Boud (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because people have added content does not mean that they are unable to understand the Wikipedia policy on WP:SYNTH. Boud (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. (Disclosure: Involved in the first AFD). The vote count is not a consideration. In fact, similar deletion arguments had been raised and not properly refuted in the first AFD too—which ironically had a higher vote count for deletion (!) but a horrible and inaccurate closing statement by another closer (with no reference to the arguments)—but proper weight was given to the arguments this time (which is what I requested for the first AFD, but there was no interest for it then). --Cold Season (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I think the only other credible outcome would have been the redirect that was suggested (which I feel to be unnecessary but not at all objectionable if other people think that it is helpful). Nobody successfully refuted the basic point that there was absolutely no evidence of any academic consensus for such a topic existing and that the supporting material was all contemporary news coverage of exactly the sort that could have occurred in almost any year of recent decades. A lot of potential sources were offered but they completely failed to convincingly substantiate the existence of the topic. (One didn't even have the word "protest" in it!) If Reliable Sources are actually talking about 2019 as a distinctive year of global protests in a few years time then we can revisit this decision but, given how 2020 has already massively overtaken 2019 in this respect with slightly more than half the year still to go, this seems very unlikely to be the case and we should not act on this assumption. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to keep The closer's statement that The keep arguments have not presented a broadly policy based argument that debunks the synth argument. was simply not correct. The SYNTH issue was addressed in a policy-based way by -Azurevanilla ash, Keepcalmandchill, and Sm8900. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would add that while it is not currently required to notify either the creator or major contributors to an article of an AfD, it is a best practice to do so, and intentionally not notifying them because the nominator expects them to favor keeping the article is a form of reverse canvassing, and just as improper as the more usual sort of canvassing. Perhaps such notifications should be made mandatory, or a bot created to make them automatically. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, which I think was the actual situation at the afd . DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I see no consensus to delete, and differing reasonable views over the application of SYNTH should be resolved by consensus rather than administrative fiat. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 June 2020[edit]

Hello. Why was GILDA PIANELLI erased or deleted? I didn't do it and its a page that has been on Wikipedia for YEARS...please advise. I don't know who did it.

I've restored the article for you. See Gilda Pianelli. PhilKnight (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13 June 2020[edit]

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

Two editors in favor of deletion and one in favor of keeping. Buidhe co-signed my rationale that the given sources do not establish notability (i.e. churnalism does not meet the bar of significant coverage) and Atlantic306 asserted that they do. I provided additional evidence of churnalism at User talk:Spartaz/Archive24#More info on decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild of Music Supervisors Awards but the essence of the argument is all there in the AFD. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus I don't see an argument there for either keeping or deleting, but rather a discussion with a lack of consensus. While overturning a keep to a no consensus basically splits a hair, I'm nevertheless not voting to endorse this to give those wanting to keep it notice there may be a little bit of work to do on the article to make sure it's notable, and to those wanting to delete it that they can wait a couple months and then renominate if no work has been done on the article, and they think it still stands to be deleted. I for one do think there's a difference between keep and no consensus even though the result is the same, and in no way do I support overturning this to a delete. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you support a relisting? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure a relisting would help, plus a quick search of the topic shows, in my mind, that it's clearly notable, with each awards show receiving significant coverage from the likes of Variety, Billboard, Hollywood Reporter, and the like, so relisting's unlikely to give you the outcome you're seeking. SportingFlyer T·C 16:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not worth making an issue between Keep and No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, the challenges to the lone keep argument were at least significant enough that they should have been evaluated further by editors who hadn't yet participated. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Robert McClenon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus or relist. I don't think the discussion can be described as having any consensus to keep, whether or not there's consensus to delete. Hence: no consensus, not keep. The discussion is already open, an "endorse" isn't going to make less of an issue. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist- This is a problematic outcome. The sources do not provide the kind of information that an encyclopedic article would need to cover, such as who is behind the award. I don't think we should endorse a keep outcome to a clearly inconclusive AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing a keep consensus in that discussion either, but it had already been relisted once, and AfD participation is so very low nowadays that it's disproportionately expensive in volunteer time to keep relisting the same discussions. We need our AfD volunteers to be considering the new cases, and that's why it's better for these things to be closed after one relist or preferably none. I'd have gone with no consensus which is of course indistinguishable from a keep outcome in practice.—S Marshall T/C 09:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have gone for a no-consensus, but that doesn't change anything materially. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, and give a chance for a consensus to (maybe) develop (and usually the norm is 2 relists anyway). Gotta say, a very odd closure that was not leaning to keep in any way. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Had this been closed as NC, I probably would have gritted my teeth and endorsed. But, I really hate to see decisions made with so little discussion, and I'm hard pressed to see how this works out to keep. I'm hoping that the added exposure this got on DRV will attract more of our brightest and best minds to join the discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Laurence Powell – Endorse. There's a minority opinion by S Marshall which I won't officially include in the consensus close, but mentioning it so people know it exists. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Laurence Powell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think the closing should have been to re-list or no consensus.

  • Rationale for closing it was, "The CRIME /IE arguments trump GNG ones." One, I don't think there is any thought out reason why one policy reason should outweigh another reason. To me, this was a notable enough event that the WP:1E statement of "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate" should apply. To me, it makes little sense to have an article about John Hinckley Jr. and not about Powell. Both are extremely significant events. In the case of Powell, the coverage is substantial on him from all types of sources. When I brought up the example to the closer, he stated that "dunno. Perhaps the person who tried to kill a president has more enduring notability then a policeman who murdered a black.person. There are far more of the latter than the former." [36] That response negates the colossal importance of the Rodney King Riots that resulted from Powell's actions. The event was exceptionally historically notable, and he, as a significant player in an extremely historical event, needs an article.
The article is remarkably similar to Stacey Koon
  • While this is not a vote; there were 2 keep votes and 2 delete. The vote totals indicate that there is no consensus here. Casprings (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "While this is not a vote, [argument based on this being a vote]." — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. First off, even if we're headcounting, remember that the nomination, unless explicitly stated otherwise, is also an argument to delete. In this case, it clearly is. That would make 3 deletes, 1 merge, 2 keeps. When BLP concerns are raised, which was the case here, a closer can decide to close a discussion which may otherwise have fallen "no consensus" as delete. The closer's interpretation of the discussion was within reasonable discretion. The rest of the nomination makes little sense; we do not decide what "needs" an article, we decide if an article does or does not fall within our policies and guidelines. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse 4 editors favored something other than keeping the article. Good close. Lightburst (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The AfD nomination was made at an unfortunately sensitive time and it is good that the discussion remained calm. WP:BLP1E is a policy while WP:GNG and WP:CRIME are guidelines. It is sometimes said, with some justification, that policies "trump" guidelines. Guidelines explicitly allow for "occasional exceptions" and "common sense" and even policies only need to be followed "normally". WP:CRIME explicitly includes the word "normally" and its stipulations are not absolute. WP:BLP1E, which was referred to by those suggesting delete and implied by the closing rationale, is to be distinguished from the notability guideline WP:1E (short for WP:BIO1E) so an argument on grounds of WP:BLP1E is not fully countered by relying on WP:BIO1E. At AfD Rhododendrites helpfully referred to the difference. Delete was a close well within discretion, in my view, and relist would have been acceptable. Redirect should have been the preferred close (though it might have been slightly controversial). Thincat (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accurate close of a defective discussion. AfD participants should have considered the possibility of redirecting to Rodney King#1991 police assault in Los Angeles, but failed to do so. Defective discussions are errors in the deletion process, and it's DRV's role to correct them. The least process-intensive solution, and therefore the one that's least expensive in volunteer time, would be a straight overturn to redirect; but if the DRV closer is squeamish about that, they could "endorse" and then note that there's nothing to stop anyone from redirecting as a separate and subsequent editorial action.—S Marshall T/C 11:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- consensus was clearly against having this as an article. That shouldn't be a barrier to making a redirect to Rodney King#1991 police assault in Los Angeles. In fact, I'm going to do so now. Reyk YO! 15:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Just because someone passes WP:GNG doesn't mean they're guaranteed an article. One situation where that's the case is WP:BLP1E, which was properly identified by the voters and the closer. There's no reason why he can't be adequately covered in the merged article, though - just means no on a standalone article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - A valid closure. No error by closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closure is within the realms of reasonableness and I would not disturb it. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 June 2020[edit]

11 June 2020[edit]

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

hice las correciones neccesarios para mejorla. Tengo citas con publicaciones con credibilidad, El nuevo herald, entrevistas con la artista, y en el NY times. La pagina necesita ayuda no merece eliminacion. La pagina esta en un estado de construcion. Necesita esperar que colabora mas gente. There is a corresponding page in english that is being worked and developed. Corazon de Gardenias (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 June 2020[edit]

  • Thomas Demery – The consensus is that Demery is, under our policy, a public figure and thus there is consensus to overturn the result of the AfD in favor of keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Thomas Demery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD was closed, with a decision to Delete, by eminent admin Spartaz who invoked the part of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE that states "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." However, the subject of the deleted article is most certainly a public figure, having being a member of the Ronald Reagan cabinet as Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). He was also far from unknown during his tenure and beyond, as the many sources extant in the article and presented during the AfD show. This merits a second look. -The Gnome (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • How many people can tell me the name of the current assistant secretary of HHS without looking it up and those of their immediate 3 predecessors? Thought not! Fact is, this isn't an inherently notable.role or there would be a list of them so notability of someone in this office only comes from their own actions or misbehaviour. There is established principle that we do not have articles about people that are only about their crimes or misbehaviour and instead document the crime or scandal. My close reflecting policy and that practise is entirely in accordance with policy and well within my discretion as closing admin. I do thank you for the description eminent though. Its been a while since anyone said anything nice to me. :-).. Or maybe it was sarcasm, I don't always pick that up. As usual I express no opinion on the merits of my close but thought this one would benefit from a longer explanation than I usually offer. For clarity I based my close purely on the arguments of the afd. Spartaz Humbug! 23:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I obviously participated in the discussion, but I don't think there's anything unreasonable with the close - the majority of voters looked at this and thought he was non-notable, he fails relevant WP:SNGs which means nothing but does lend itself to the WP:NPF argument, and the argument that he's not a WP:BLP1E is weak when you tear into it. Basically, this is probably either a delete or a no consensus on the merits, but the weight of the circumstances means WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is applicable and a no consensus, default to delete is a valid and proper conclusion. SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I generally find Spartaz's closes accurate, but this one is just dead wrong:
    • First, there really was a consensus to keep. While the raw vote count was closely divided, the keep !votes were based on specific review of sources, while most of the delete !votes were cursory and showed little familiarity with the sources. And there was no meaningful attempt to refute the keep analysis.
    • Second, Demery simply doesn't qualify for BLPREQUESTDELETE. That policy provision applies only to "relatively unknown, non-public figures", and Demery meets neither of those criteria. He was a top policymaking official in a US Cabinet department, subject to Senate confirmation, making him a public figure. His activities were widely covered in prominent national news media, with front-page coverage in the NYTimes and elsewhere; he cannot accurately be called "relatively unknown". Demery was actually the subject of a full-length profile article in the Times. "Rise and Fall of Key Player at H.U.D." BLPREQUESTDELETE is not intended, and should not be used, to allow self-admitted, corrupt, high-ranking public officials. And Demery is still involved in the same sort of fundraising activities which one of the associated scandals centered on.
    • "How many people can tell me the name of the current assistant secretary of HHS without looking it up and those of their immediate 3 predecessors?" is the wrong question to ask, for more important reasons than that Demery was an official of HUD, not HHS. How many people can tell me the name of the current Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff without looking it up and those of their immediate 3 predecessors? That someone is not a recognized popular culture figure is hardly a justification for an encyclopedia's failure to cover them. Wikipedia often does a piss-poor job of covering serious subjects related to business and politics, and it is absurd, in terms of our encyclopedic purpose, to elevate all things Kardashian or promoted by the WWE over serious matters of business and politics.
    • To say that a high-ranking policymaking official of a US Cabinet department is not a "public figure" despite sustained coverage over several in major American news media stands logic and meaning on its head. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the deletion process appears to have been correctly followed in this instance. I do not find an explicit consensus to keep in the discussion, and the process states that in this instance, no consensus goes to a delete. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Stifle. In AfD discussions, a case of "no consensus" results in a Keep. You can verify this by looking up any number of past AfD discussions. (On a side note, "Endorse" could be a bit confusing since we are responding to a proposal. How about "Disagree"?) Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can skip the condescension thanks, I’ve been around a while. The relevant consideration here is WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. So yes, I’ m endorsing. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Stifle, if my remark appeared "condescending," which was certainly not my intention. I only tried to have your position clarified, i.e. whether you agree or disagree with my proposal. Not change your input in any way! I thought "endorse" was unclear after reading the rest of your comment. As to the part about "no consensus" in AfD discussions, I will agree that we still disagree: The text reads Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete, with italics in the original. But this is not even about a "relatively unknown, non-public figure"; it's about an Assistant Secretary in the Reagan government! Anyway, take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn pretty much per HW who I think I agree with in nearly all particulars. I'd have said there was a consensus to keep, but NC is within discretion. Applying WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to someone with a high-ranking government job at the time (I believe he had a higher Order of Precedence than a 4-star active general) can't be right as they can't really be "a non-public figure". Plus he was massively in the news (NYT article just on him) and he gave interviews to the press. That's generally over the bar for "public". I just think empathy may have overcome our policies here. Admirable, but not correct in my reading of things. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've realized I can't make as strong as an argument as I thought I could for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE not applying. I still feel we should have the article and would strongly !vote that way at AfD. But I can't say the closer erred based on my reading of WP:LPI. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To distil the question, it's really whether being the Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Housing would automatically make you a public figure. Considering we don't have a list of people in this position, I can't find a list of people in this position, only one of these people is currently blue-linked, and Demery only appeared about 150 times in newspapers between 1987 and 1988 before the scandal broke (11 times less than the cabinet member for the role, and all just quotations, very little sigcov), I don't think empathy necessarily overcame policies here (it certainly did not with me.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frustratingly, I just lost a paragraph to an edit conflict. Medium-story short, I tried to form an argument based on WP:LPI and couldn't make as solid one as I'd like. Especially given the last part (Profile change over time, which I disagree with, but it's where we are). So while I still think we should have is article, and I think it's a stretch to use BLPREQUESTDELETE for someone in such a significant public role (what more than a thousand people reported to him I'd guess?), it's not so crystal clear that I can say it was done in error. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worry not, Hobit. The article's subject was quite notable on his own right during his tenure in the Reagan cabinet. And notability, once achieved, never fades away, per Wikipedia. The only thing we essentially discuss is whether or not to grant the subject (who is "old" and "ill" in the words of his legal representative) the right to disappear from public view. But this can only be granted to persons of low public profile; not United States Assistant Secretaries. -The Gnome (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @The Gnome: Take a look at WP:LPI, specifically at the end (Profile change over time) which seems to indicate that just because he *was* a public figure doesn't mean he is now. Hobit (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text in Profile change over time is about the fact that, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the status of a person's profile, i.e. whether they are "high profile" or "low profile", changes over time, which is practically a tautology: No person has had the same "profile" status throughout History! But a person who once was a "high profile" individual, again as far as Wikipedia is concerned, does not lose in notability on account of his "high profile" time having passed. Even Alexander the Great or Tamurlane most certainly are not as "high profile" as they were in their time!
More importantly, the text is explanatory to the policy about people known for one event. Which Demery is not as demonstrated by sources. His involvement in the HUD scandal was not the only case he got famous (or infamous). -The Gnome (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome: No argument that he's notable. And I'd say fairly notable. But BLPREQUESTDELETE cares about "low profile" and given we agree he's low profile now, I think BLPREQUESTDELETE could be viewed as applying. I think that's dumb, but not so dumb I can claim the closer was wrong. Hobit (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this really a low profile individual, though? The matter's not obvious to me and I've found it a lot harder than either the closer or the DRV nominator seem to have done. I do think it's better to err on the delete side in these cases, so I suppose I belong over there in the "endorse" camp, but I wouldn't strongly object to a relisting.—S Marshall T/C 00:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To put forward a hypothetical, can someone be a high profile individual if it's not obvious whether they're a high profile individual? SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You see, to me he's neither high-profile nor low-profile. He's a bloke who's risen to what I would call pretty high office -- he's not really the kind of ordinary-bystander-who-inadvertently-got-caught-up-in-something-big that they had in mind when they wrote WP:LPI, but equally he's not in an automatically-notable office. I'm really struggling to decide where he fits on that spectrum.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's sort of what I was getting at with my hypothetical. US defamation law splits the difference by using something called a limited purpose public figure, a category I think he falls into if we're discussing him in regards to the scandal. He's otherwise not high-profile. Since he's not otherwise notable (or a public figure) apart from the scandal, and we can and do cover the important information reliably elsewhere, I don't consider this unreasonable in the slightest. SportingFlyer T·C 01:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Cabinet level official and part of an important scandal, as noted by the keep votes. While the keep and delete votes were close, the keep votes were closely related to policy.Casprings (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since when have assistant secretaries been cabinet level appointees? Surely they are 2 rungs below the top seat. Spartaz Humbug! 22:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Senate confirmed and major figure in a huge scandal. He is notable. Likely just doesn't want a page because of the second part. That said, if he is clearly notable, which he is, he should have a page.Casprings (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist, as someone who voted to Keep, while "Delete" !Voters had a weak numerical superiority, there was a swing towards Keep after the first relist and after the arguments to Keep were presented, and by swing, from the 1st of June to the close the tally was 5-1 in favour of Keeping the article. With such a clear swing, this should be relisted so a consensus can actually develop. Also, 6-5 in favour of deletion with one ambigous "Merge" vote is hardly consensus to delete. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I voted to accept request in the discussion, largely because of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which gives the presumption of delete to people who request it and are relatively unknown. Unlike a normal AFD, I think that the presumption is that the keep votes are required to prove their case. --Enos733 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I participated in the discussion. I still think the subject is a limited public figure as described by SportingFlyer. Normally, I would have voted to keep, but I believe WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is an appropriate request in this case. --Enos733 (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A "limited public figutr" is a type of public figure, not a non-public figure as BLPREQUESTDELETE requires. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There have been a few claims that Demery became known only for accepting a gratuity and obstructing justice. But this is not true. Demery was an active participant in the efforts of the Reagan State Department to intervene in the Mozambican Civil War and boost the fortunes of the most anti-communist group (at least nominally) among the combattants, Renamo. Demery, a born again Christian himself, oversaw the diversion of almost $300,00 to Renamo through the back channels of local evangelical organisations. He also lobbied televangelist Pat Robertson for a donation to the same cause, which came to about $25,000.[1] The various misappropriations of Demery-led HUD's funds were discovered by independent auditors only after Reagan left office. The Demery tenure became quite infamous at the time, though a lot of sources are off line. -The Gnome (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As was noted in the AfD, that's the same scandal he fails WP:BLP1E on, and that book doesn't mention anything about him apart from the scandal. SportingFlyer T·C 18:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is utter, absolute nonsense. Demery was involved in multiple. discrete controversies, not all at HUD. One (for which he was indicted and eventually guilty in) involved trading a govt contract for favorable terms on a personal mortgage -- bribery, more or less. Another involved pressuring agency contractors to provide financial support to RENAMO. A third involved participating in a coverup, including proving false information to Congress, of illegal steering of contracts to political supporters of the Reagan administration. Yet a fourth, a decade after he left HUD, was his major role in Pat Robertson's blood diamonds business. There's no way we're in BLP1E territory, especially when coverage of his legitimate political activities is factored in. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Newspapers.com search for "Thomas Demery" "Zaire" between 1993 and now brings up only the article you presented at AfD, in which he is mentioned late and towards the end of the article. "Demery" "Renamo" brings up 13 hits. That's an undercount because some of the stories were wire stories. SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SportingFlyer, the use of funds available in the HUD coffers to assist the Renamo nationalist rebel organization in Mozambique is most definitely not the same thing as lying to Congress or accepting a $100,000 bribe from a developer. All may have happened during our subject's tenure at HUD but this does not make them "the same thing"! Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and reclose by somebody else. In my view, a very senior official in a government department is a public figure, and not a "relatively unknown, non-public figure" to which BLPREQUESTDELETE could apply. The AfD should therefore be reclosed with this in mind. I do not express a view about what the correct closure would be without taking BLPREQUESTDELETE into account. Sandstein 07:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR Overturn. I don't know if the close represents the discussion or not, but the idea that we're calling an assistant cabinet secretary a "non-public figure" is absurd. Especially when we compare this to something like WP:NFOOTY which says if you stepped onto the field in one game, you're notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I am persuaded by User:Stifle's arguments: this is a relatively high-level government official (i.e. he doesn't sort the paper clips), so may now not want a page here. Unfortunately, GNG-1EBLP=/=BLPREQUESTDELETE. Whether through choice or otherwise, he's notable in Wikipedia terms. ——Serial # 10:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, neither editors being able to name other topics personally (WP:OR) or that we have/haven't got lists of them (WP:OSE) are particularly strong arguments. In fact, they're very poor. ——Serial # 10:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Not a non-public figure, BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn – there were at least 7 decent sources mentioned in the AfD, yet the closer concluded that the subject was "relatively unknown". The AfD discussion should at the very least be reopened to discuss whether those sources are sufficient to establish notability. – bradv🍁 03:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Maier, Karl; Penglase, Ben (1992). Africa Watch Committee (ed.). Conspicuous Destruction: War, Famine and the Reform Process in Mozambique. Human Rights Watch. p. 193. ISBN 978-0300056181.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Rona De Ricci – The AfD closure that led to the article's deletion is endorsed, but editors note that it does not prevent a recreation of the article in an improved form.

To the extent editors also discuss the U5 speedy deletion of the userspace draft at User:Rootview/sandbox, they support its restoration. To that end, I provide the deleted text by Rootview in its entirety here:

"Rona De Ricci (born in 1965) is an American-Italian film actress. She starred in the leading female role in The Pit and the Pendulum (1991), along with Lance Henriksen, directed by Stuart Gordon. She also starred in The Penitent (1988) along with Raul Julia and Armand Assante. Reference: ^ Tebbutt, John (December 24, 2009). ”Who's that girl? Gorgeous, talented actresses with ridiculously short resume”"

Sandstein 07:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also User:Rootview/sandbox. I have looked up the deletion thread and found that it merits a challenge, contest and hopefully the reinstating of either my entry or the one from 2015 of which I only have a recollection of and would like a copy of it. Please direct me to the right place to get it.

I copied and pasted the bit about the base to which the original article got deleted: • "Seems like a pretty obvious Keep. ...Just kidding. Delete - so non-notable that I don't even know the movies. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk)(contributions) 20:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)"

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rona De Ricci.

1. The previous bit records editor Wgolf (see link) to either mock or question: “Actress who has an amazing 2 roles and has not been in anything since”. This seems to be the base to his imitative to delete the article (2015). I challenge the implication that imposes a continuous (future) work as criteria to value previous work. I could list people that have produced one public work and stopped (reasons abound), and yet their mention is justified, including in Wikipedia. However, I will pick one to simplify the example: author J.D. Salinger.

The editor, New Age Retro Hippie, assumes that if he (even!) doesn’t know the movie than it’s non-notable. How closed minded and ignorant. Will information and knowledge be limited to whether one person knows of a certain fact, opinion, concept etc. to be open to all or not?

2. Her performances in those films produced an interest and positive reviews, notably an article about her and another actress, which was included as a reference in both the original article (not mine) in 2015 and mine. Please see the entries.

3. Finally, I would like to ask this: if both films merited a Wikipedia entry and are built on the cast's work, why the actor doesn't merit an entry? Why the actress in the female starring role doesn't? After all, she is what made that film (along with the other actors, etc.) 'notable". How come the parts don't make up the sum?

I uploaded a JPG image of the actress along with the entry yesterday (June 8th, 2020). I have the copyright, and it is of professional quality. The entry by itself is short and simple (as recommended) and consists only of information. Thanks for your consideration, Rootview Rootview (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse if the filing editor is alleging an error by the closer. This filing is lengthy but doesn't seem to be on any particular point. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Re-Creation if the filing editor is stating that the actress has had additional roles in the past five years and is now notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rootview: Don't worry too much about the tone of the AfD, that can happen sometimes when the discussion is unanimous, light, and likely clear. What you should worry about is our notability guideline for actors, which you can read at WP:NACTOR. Based on a quick search, de Ricci likely does not qualify for that guideline, as she has not been in only a few films. However, she may qualify for WP:GNG, our general notability guideline which supersedes pretty much everything else on the site, which means that secondary, reliable sources have discussed her specifically. Just being discussed as being the main actress in a film would not be enough to satisfy this - we need enough sources on her to write a decent encyclopaedia article, even if it's a stub. Even if de Ricci passes the WP:NACTOR guideline, you still need enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Also, for Wikipedia's purposes, the film's notability does not come from its actors, but from the fact reliable secondary sources have taken note of it. Unfortunately based on my search I don't support overturning this as I don't think she passes WP:GNG, but I'd support allowing you to try and rewrite the article to get it past WP:GNG if you think it can, including restoring the draft to your sandbox. SportingFlyer T·C 03:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV not necessary. AFD is from over five years ago, article is not salted. Any editor may recreate the article if they can establish that the subject now meets the notability criteria. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion of sandbox article, allow re-creation of mainspace article if new evidence of notability exists. Since the AfD was five years ago, I initially had typed "the article may be re-created if notability has increased, so DRV is not necessary, per Stifle." However, since the DRV also includes a sandbox draft of an article which was deleted just a few days ago by Fastily, and Rootview's request for restoration or a copy was rejected by Orangemike here, it looks like Rootview needs to be here at DRV after all. I don't read the WP:REFUND request as having asked to immediately restore the article to mainspace, just to provide a copy for Rootview to work with, and I don't see why allowing that in Rootview's NOINDEX'd sandbox should be a problem. To be clear, however, while I think Rootview is entitled to try to enhance this article for another run at mainspace, the effort is worthwhile and likely to succeed only if there is more evidence of notability than we've seen so far, for the reasons SportingFlyer has explained. (My mentions of specific admins here are notifications, not criticism.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • 1 Pavilion – Nominator blocked as a promotion-only account with nobody else wanting to overturn. DRV notes that a technical breach of process has occurred here, and corrects this by reclassifying the speedy deletion of User:1 Pavilion/sandbox from U5 to G11.—S Marshall T/C 12:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I'm no doing advertising or violates any copyrights, i'm just trying to write the article for the company. 1 Pavilion (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that you are referring to Draft:Pavilion Damansara Heights, in which case this is the wrong venue to contest the speedy deletion tag. I'll copy your reason to Draft talk:Pavilion Damansara Heights which is where it goes. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Patruni Chidananda Sastry – Unsalt draft. Given that the mainspace title protection has already expired, it seems silly that the draft should still be protected, so I'll unsalt that. But, to be clear, any new draft will need to pass the appropriate notability guidelines (which look to be web notability and/or organizational notability) before it can move into mainspace. I assume we've got enough people who have these titles on their watchlist that any attempt to bypass WP:AfC will be noticed. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS, @Deepfriedokra: so they're aware I'm undoing their protection. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Patruni Chidananda Sastry (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

this is a page for LBGT queer activist from india and as a part of pride month we need more visibility of their work. i belive the notability should match, please do check and if notablity is in place, kindly remove the lock and allow article creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmayya (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary for sources showing notability to be offered by the person asking for a review, rather than asking others to check. Please note that we do not go in for advertising here, so "we need more visibility of their work" is not a valid reason for us to have an article. You need to show that their work has already had visibility elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 June 2020[edit]

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

Does not make sense to me that we can't have this user cat, but still have Template:User lazy and Template:User count. Going by the logic used in previous CFD, surely almost every subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy should be deleted, as being "Not helpful to encyclopedia building, category serves no purpose". Whilst this is a tempting POINT to make, it also seems (to me at least) a very stupid one. WT79 (Speak to me | account info) 16:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was going to comment on this, but couldn't be bothered. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse You are arguing that the outcome of the decision was wrong (or, in other words, the !voters were incorrect), rather than that the closer interpreted consensus incorrectly. This is therefore not within scope of DRV. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's from 2008. Recreate it if you want to and there isn't some on-point policy/guideline that says it shouldn't exist. Might end up back at CfD, but there you go. Hobit (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It's too late to contest a deletion from 2008. Recreate it if you think a consensus would support it now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Hadith of Ghazwa-e-Hind (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

i see anchors talking on it on india/pakistan news. i want to add content Kabristan1 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Cryptic: Do you know why the DRV not match the XfD title? Please excuse the question, I'm a bit tired. SportingFlyer T·C 05:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan – Speedy deletion endorsed, but recreation permitted. Consensus is that the speedy deletion was correct on account of various severe content and socking problems, but that as per the AfD, a neutral article written by editors in good standing could be had under this title. I am therefore changing the page protection from full to semi to allow such editing to take place (e.g. based on the draft that is now available). If recreated, the article can still be made subject to a new AfD. Sandstein 09:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article deleted as attack page by Bishonen with whom I had discussion about the deletion. Bishonen admitted having missed the fact that this article went through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan where it was almost WP:SNOW Keep, but has refused to restore the article claiming that it had been edited by a number of socks but AFAIK this article involved enough contributions by editors who weren't blocked for sockpuppetry any recently. Tessaracter (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. From my own recollection, this article was a complete mess. I don't see how restoring it would benefit the encyclopedia. But starting it over again as a draft might be a worthwhile compromise if serious intent on bringing it up to standards arises. El_C 13:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I explained my position rather better on my page than Tessaracter gives me credit for above, please see [37]. Bishonen | tålk 13:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • AFAIK, a single admin is not allowed to override community consensus to keep the article. The correct procedure to override an AfD is WP:RENOM. Tessaracter (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The article should have been deleted as a WP:G5 violation, long before it got to AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Re the comments below from Sitush, I have read the deleted article, and I confirm that in my view it is indeed very much of that nature. So very much a G10 too, I'd say. And if it hasn't gone exactly according to protocol, I think this is an example of what IAR is for. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with the caveats from El_C above --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse almost all of the edits to the page were by 9 sockpuppets of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jishnusavith. In total 12 sockpuppets edited the page. It should not be restored, although that does not mean that it could not be recreated. The article was originally created by a Jishnusavith sock and deleted, then recreated by the same sockmaster. Almost all of its content has been added by sockpuppets, some copied from another now deleted article created by a Jishnusavith sock. Since the last sock only about 1000 bytes have been added. @El C: I don't object to starting it over as a draft but I will put it under ECP if that is done, given the problems in the past. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Community consensus at AfD > single admin CSD. The original WP:G10 "attack page" rationale was way off: a page detailing human rights violations of underaged girls being kidnapped and forcibly converted was an attack on... the Glorius State of Pakistan? Yikes. Meanwhile WP:G5 isn't as pressing, and anyone can remove these tags. The community can vote to keep sock articles. This was done for Sagecandor's contested G5 articles, for example. In any scenario, this needs to be de-salted as a valid topic. --Pudeo (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you do not understand why such an article, written insensitively, would be an attack page then I think you need to educate yourself about Hindutva, a philosophy which the current government of India supports & which is as dangerous, if less publicised, as the radical jihadism that is better known to people in Europe & N America. The "fake news" coming out of OpIndia & similar sources is inflaming a popular sentiment that, if the world is not careful, will lead to genocide & tet another war between two countries both of which now have nuclear capability and excitable, often ill-educated populations. I haven't seen the article but even those supporting it at AfD seemed to acknowledge it had major problems. Since it appears that those have not been fixed in the interim, IAR seems ok to me and G5 should have happened anyway. Few of the people commenting at that AfD seemed to understand anything about the subject, rather like you. This is where the emotions of the ill-informed liberal West completely screws up our mission. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, absolutely. First, this is essentially a G5. Second, a reasonable article could be written about this topic, but the one that was deleted wasn't it; it was full of egregious original research and POV nonsense; the lead image caption is a perfect example (quoting for non-admins: "Dargah pir sarhandi, a frequent crime scene of forced conversion and marriage of kidnapped underage Hindu girls."). Needless to say, when you dig into the sources, most of the exceptional claims do not check out, and require either outright removal or qualification. The spirit of G10 is absolutely applicable here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Although the AfD in February rejected the argument that the article breached WP:Advocacy, the participants were unaware of the extent of the sockpuppetry involved. The AfD was silent on the issues of deletion on the grounds of G5 "Creations by banned or blocked users" and of G10 "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose" and therefore cannot be used to overturn a deletion based on either of those grounds. I believe both G5 and G10 apply to the page and it should not be restored in its current form. --RexxS (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn WP:CSD is really quite clear. If you are going to speedy something that survived a deletion discussion, it can't be done for G10. It can be done for G5 but is "subject to the strict condition that the AfD participants were unaware that the article would have met the criterion and/or that the article creator's blocked or banned status was not known to the participants of the AfD discussion." In general "in the event of a dispute, start a new deletion discussion". You can't delete this as at attack page. You *maybe* can delete it as a G5, but it would need to be clear that "this page was created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others.". That seems unlikely. So yeah, bad speedy. Admin tools should not be used to short circuit a discussion. Hobit (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It took a while to unravel this, but yeah, G5 would be legit. The article was created on 2019-11-20 by Minicoyamini, a sock of Jishnusavith, who was orignally blocked on 2019-06-19. Looking over the history, I see various other non-sock editors, but they're all just doing routine maintenance. I agree with Doug Weller above; a legitimate user should be allowed to create a neutral article at this title, but some sort of protection will almost certainly be required. I don't know if I'd go with WP:ECP from the get-go, but I'd certainly be watching carefully and have my finger on the trigger. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. While I'm not a big "delete it all if it was created by a sock/banned user" etc., the G5 is valid. However, for me a bigger point is WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT. — Ched (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid G5 deletion per the above comments. The G10 was incorrect based on the AfD. Feel free to recreate. SportingFlyer T·C 05:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G5, IAR. Maybe no G10, but the AfD was still wrong since WP:DELREASON#3 is absolutely a thing, so Kautilya3 is absolutely not correct, WP:TDLI is not a valid keep rationale and Notability has nothing to do with the deletion rationale... and I may have just convinced myself that the AfD should have been closed as no consensus. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. An article which has survived AFD is exempt from speedy deletion under G10, and enough non-banned users have contributed to rule out G5. Deletion process has not been followed. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we should host an attack page for another week? Out of interest, how many of the unbanned editors made substantive edits? How different is it to the version that was submitted to AfD and which even then people acknowledged had real problems? SOFIXIT, sure, but seemingly no-one did. Enough is enough: blow it up and start again. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate with different content, per WP:TNT. The article is not inherently an attack – it should be covered on Wikipedia if it is a notable subject. Either the original article was completely wrong, and the subject is entirely non-notable, or it was a sensible subject, just the article was badly written. I haven't seen the article myself, and thus checked the reliability of its sources to prove its notability, but it sound to me like it was just badly written. Thus the subject still deserves an article, just a new one, written better with better sources. WT79 (Speak to me | account info) 10:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV's role is to see the deletion procedure is correctly followed, but in cases like this there's room for some creativity in how we do so. Restore it to draft and then MFD the draft, transcluding this DRV so people aren't required to repeat themselves, and we'll end up with a procedurally sound deletion without having an attack page in the mainspace for a week.—S Marshall T/C 09:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there is a general agreement here that the article can be recreated, I went ahead and created the article on Draft:Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan without looking at the earlier version of the article. I would say we can move this draft space to article space and close this DRV now. Tessaracter (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (I moved this comment from the section above, where it had been placed erroneously. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 June 2020[edit]

  • Former Presidents of Cambridge University Liberal Club and Chairs of Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats – No consensus. Opinions are divided between those who would endorse the unanimous "delete" outcome of the AfD, and those who would relist it because they think the AfD's outcome was wrong. Because of a lack of consensus to overturn the closure, it remains in force by default. In a "no consensus" situation at DRV, as the closer I could relist the AfD. I decline to do here so because a principle of DRV is that it is a forum to review procedural errors, not a second round of AfD. In my view, therefore, AfDs should not be relisted merely because DRV editors disagree with the outcome. Sandstein 15:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Former Presidents of Cambridge University Liberal Club and Chairs of Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Requesting review per comments on my talk page. Some editors have asserted that the topic might actually meet WP:LISTPEOPLE. I am not so sure what the correct interpretation is of that guidance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse the original AfD as its nom. I have read through the discussion on your talk page, and whilst I understand where the users are coming from, the argument that they are making is (in my view) not founded in policy. The societies seem to be notable; the specific position of Presidents of the societies is quite clearly and patently not. Some people having gone on to be notable after being a President of one of the societies does not make the role itself notable, per WP:INHERITED. Nothing against it being mentioned on the pages of those who are notable, but an indiscriminate list of notable and non-notable figures is certainly not on - and I don't believe there should be a standalone list at all. Perhaps a category for those who are truly notable, Category:Former presidents of xyz? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deletion process has been properly followed. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Although I do think WP:INHERITED is important to consider, I still believe these lists have encyclopedic value. Often articles may refer to the President in term X without clarifying which president it was. In order to piece events mentioned elsewhere together, it is crucial to know who was president when. Especially because some Presidents may indeed have extensive primary sources on them - such as Channel 4's Young Bright and on the Right, which mentions many presidents by reference to their terms - without themselves passing notability.HackContrib (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC) — HackContrib (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I haven't made many edits before, so my recommendation shouldn't be taken too exactly. I do believe that this content is worth having on the platform, and both has more references, and more sources, than those involved in the original deletion review may have been aware. HackContrib (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I'm fine with a relist. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist and ping all of the participants, since it's been over a month since the AfD was closed at this point. Deletion procedure was properly followed and I think relisting would be the best option to allow a counter-argument to be made as opposed to an IAR restore - at least six people agreed this fails WP:LISTPEOPLE, and I don't think we can overturn that clear of a consensus because a seed of doubt have been planted. (If the argument had been made and rejected at the AfD, I'd be a clear endorse.) SportingFlyer T·C 14:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I reckon that given the importance of Oxbridge in British politics, and the sheer number of prominent of British politicians who have had their start in these societies, that these lists meet the criteria of notable offices and should be kept, either as seperate pages, or for the lists to be added to the main pages of these societies. While it is true that many of the more recent individuals are not notable enough for an individual wikipedia page, that is to be expected given that they will have been recent university graduates. In the last several general elections in the UK there have been multiple people on each of these lists who have been elected MPs, and these lists are a valuable resource for the background of these newly elected MPs, and will likely continue to be so for the forseeable future. I am not familiar with the arcana of wikipedia's rule, but it does seem that this is a list of officeholders in a society of some historic and present importance, and is useful to people looking at British politics, and thus improves the site.Daniel.villar7 (talk) 8 June 2020 17:41 (GMT)
    Which one of the five deletion review criteria do you think this falls under? I can't see any "significant new information" that's come to light here, it's clear that the consensus was interpreted correctly, and as far as I can tell, there were no substantial procedural errors. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said I’m not familiar with the specific rules and regulations here, but I would note that in the original deletion there was no voice in opposition to deletion. As such the arguments that I and others have presented against deletion have not been dealt with. As I said, I think that the list itself is worth having on Wikipedia, either as a stand alone page or as a list in the main article of the respective societies, as a historical source for those interested in the careers of quite a few British politicians. Daniel.villar7 (talk) 8 June 2020 20:27 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.248.140 (talk)
  • Endorse. This was a proper WP:CLOSE and snow delete. If there is some new reason that someone finds to show that there is a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS or the subject is notable - someone can recreate the article. It is not salted so I assume the injured party can get a copy in their sandbox? Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there seem to be a higher than usual number of people not experienced with WP deletion policy !voting here, let me outline what the options are here. Nothing in the deleted article is lost: it can, for a period of up to six months without activity, be put into draftspace and worked into something less likely to fail an AfD. As User:Daniel.villar7 notes, achieving the presidency of an Oxbridge political party club in itself means the office holder will have weight if they continure to be active in their party. That said, I guess that convincing AfD regulars of this case will not be easy, and editors who take up this task should steel themselves against a 2nd failure. As an alternative, draftifying, converting the list into something machine readable and importing to Wikidata is a way around: there the criterion is that each datum is reliably sourced; notability will not be an issue. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion review is not a place to relitigate the notability of a list. The close was proper and the page(s) were not salted. If someone wants to recreate the article, they are able. --Enos733 (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a quick question then, since I am unfamiliar with the rules. Does your comment mean that it would theoretically be permissible for someone to recreate a deleted article without going through a formal process? I assumed that that sort of thing just was not on. Daniel.villar7 (talk) 10 June 2020 12:03 (GMT)
@Daniel.villar7:, yes, the general rule is that if the issues that led to a page being deleted are no longer true, anybody can write a new article about the same subject/title. This often means a page was deleted for WP:TOOSOON and there is now sufficient coverage of the topic to pass WP:N. Sometimes it means a page was deleted for WP:COPYVIO problems, and a clean rewrite fixes that. Sometimes pages get deleted because they fail WP:NPOV or WP:ATTACK, or they're just plain terribly written. In theory, the fix to those should be to trim it back to a stub, but sometimes people decide it makes more sense to delete it entirely, often with a note in the AfD closing statement encouraging somebody to try again from scratch, i.e. WP:TNT. Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages doesn't have any official weight (since it's a failed proposal), but reading over it, I really don't see anything that doesn't make sense, so I'd suggest you read that and use it as a guide. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS, on the other hand, see WP:G4. Just grabbing a copy of the old article from a mirror and plopping it back down without fixing the problems isn't going to get you very far. It's a two-edged sword. Yes, you can recreate the article, but at the same time you're obligated to fix the problems. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith:, so for instance in this case, would it be acceptable to recreate the information, if not the specific pages, by placing the list of presidents in the main pages for these societies? Because it seems like the issue is that the list isn't considered notable enough for a stand alone page by some editors, rather than the information being wholly not notable. Daniel.villar7 (talk) 11 June 2020 23:18 (GMT)
Unfortunately, I don't have a clear and authoritative answer to give you. What I wrote above was somewhat in the abstract. In this specific concrete instance. it's not so clear. The key thing is to resolve the problem(s) found at the AfD. In this case, one of the assertions made in the AfD was that this fails WP:V. One of our fundamental rules is that everything has to be verifiable by reference to a reliable source. I only see one reference in the deleted article, and that's to https://keynessociety.wordpress.com/who-ran-the-society/presidents-and-chairs/, which doesn't look reliable to me. It's somebody's blog. It even starts off with, "All known office-holders are listed – if you can fill in the gaps, please contact the society." That's not going to fly, and it's not going to make any difference if it's a stand-alone list or embedded in another article. So, I would start by researching good sources. Once you've got good sources, my recommendation is to write a new draft (either in draft space, or in your own sandbox), an ping the people who participated in the AfD to see if they agree that with these new sources, your draft looks usable. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the question is verifiability, as HackContrib has said, there are the society papers of most of these in their respective university libraries which have term cards which list presidents; would that be n acceptable source, given that they are physical sources in a library that have not been digitised. For the more recent presidents of these societies there are digitised termcards which list presidents as well.Daniel.villar7 (talk) 12 June 2020 17:01 (GMT)
  • Endorse and relist - Although the AfD was adequately attended and correctly closed, this has been a lengthy and substantive DRV and the issue of notability is not straightforward. It would be best for the matter to be discussed properly at AfD with a broader set of participants. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where you can have a category, you can have a list; that's longstanding consensus at WP:CLN. Clearly, you could have a category. This is very arguably a case where DRV can intervene to correct the error by way of a straight overturn. A fresh AfD for process' sake seems utterly needless.—S Marshall T/C 10:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @S Marshall: That same page notes "At the same time, there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia". At the moment, that is the consensus here - as reached at the AfD. I strongly oppose it being overturned straight away by a deletion review. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Personally I find this case rather reminiscent of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 24, where we did directly overturn a deletion of an Oxbridge-related category because the XfD was just plain wrong, but DRV's fundamental role is to see that the process is correctly followed, so if you want the process to be followed, I can hardly argue!—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth noting that, in that discussion, these were the highest possible honours for Cambridge undergraduates in mathematics - whereas what we're talking about here is just a society president! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 June 2020[edit]

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

The WooPlus page was deleted with a speedy deletion, because it was largely the same as the previous page that got deleted after an AfD. I think that the users in the discussion did not correctly consider the WP:GNG guideline. The page I created contained multiple independent reliable sources that have significant coverage. Throwawiki (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • A couple of questions. #1 do you have anything at all to do with WooPlus? If so, it would be good to declare a COI. #2 You seem to think that the GNG justifies this article. Could you list the three best sources for WooPlus? Hobit (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom seems to be referring to two different things here, both TonyBallioni's G4 and the actual AfD. There was nothing wrong with the AfD and that's not going to be overturned, as even though attendance was on the lighter side you've got experienced voters discussing potential speedy criteria. I cannot speak for the WP:G4 since I cannot compare the deleted versions. SportingFlyer T·C 00:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the original AFD, if that is an issue. Allow Draft to deal with the G4, but with the understanding that the reviewer might request to SALT. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no failures to follow the deletion process here. Endorse both deletions. This does not prohibit starting a draft, based (or not) on the deleted article. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The correct procedure has been followed by the XfD closer. Lightburst (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a note, I've blocked them as a sock. I found the page through SPI and deleted it there and was holding off on the block until after I'd talked to colleagues. It isn't G5, but thought people here might care. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, nominator has been indefinitely blocked as an abusive sock and all other recommendations are to endorse. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 June 2020[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tropical cyclones in 2010 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Improper close as Speedy Keep without a Speedy Keep rationale, request AFD to run for seven days Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Improper speedy keep close. Requesting Overturn of Speedy Keep, to allow AFD to run for seven days. Close was by non-administrator who had demonstrated in advance that they had a view, and therefore were entitled to !vote but were involved and should not have closed. See this post on my talk page before I nominated the article in question for AFD: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=960867031&oldid=960618059&diffmode=source[reply] 

Please see Tropical cyclones in 2004, Tropical cyclones in 2010, Tropical cyclones in 2012, Tropical cyclones in 2014. The article you declined is EXACTLY THE SAME. 🐔 Chicdat

There is an ongoing content dispute about what levels of detail to have articles about tropical cyclones at. I had declined Draft:Tropical cyclones in 2011. Tropical cyclones are covered by basin and year (e.g., Atlantic hurricanes in 2019), by individual storm if notable, and in an overall article covering a period of centuries. The response to my decline was the post to my talk page. I left alone the year articles that were complete, but tagged the subject article for a deletion discussion.

As stated, request that the Speedy Keep be overturned and the AFD allowed to run. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - By the way, if an uninvolved administrator thinks that I am wrong on the substance and that a snow closure is in order, I will accept that even if I don't like it. But in this case I think that process has been mishandled. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Clear WP:BADNAC and an improper speedy. (That being said, I can't see this being deleted after a week, as the topic itself is proper.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as non-administrator/senior editor of WPTC - Robert McClenon While I feel that Chicdat was in the wrong for closing the deletion discussion prematurely, I feel that your reasoning for opening the AFD may have been pointy. DjSolar27 decided for whatever reason to originally create the article in mainspace back on December 6, 2019, but this article was quickly moved to draft space by Cassiopeia as it was under sourced and would be better incubated in draft space. It seems that this draft had a little bit of work done to it in March, but was largely forgotten about until recently when DjSolar27 decided to submit for potential movement to main space after only doing a little bit of work to it. You fairly decided to decline this submission as it "appeared to be at a different level of detail than Wikipedia normally uses for articles on tropical cyclones as we have articles by year/basin." Chicdat then came along and decided to submit the draft for a review on June 4, without editing it further, before Eumat114 invited JavaHurricane to try and addresses your concerns. However, it appears that before Java could respond you declined the submission and opened a discussion on the talk page. Java subsequently pointed out to you that we had other yearly tropical cyclone lists but endorsed the declinement (as do I), as he didn't think the article was well developed enough. It seems that Chicdat didn't agree with your declinement and was upset about this, who as noted above pointed out that it was exactly the same sort of article. However, the capital letters at the end makes it seem like they were shouting at you and probably wound you up. Hurricanehink and Hurricane Noah as senior editors of WPTC also commented on the draft page and endorsed your declination. You then decided to nominate 2010 for deletion, thinking that WPTC doesn't want the article, that we are not working on the lists even though 2020 is as up to date as it can be. However, after three editors (including one independent from WPTC) had decided to keep the article, Chicdat wrongly decided to close the AFD.Jason Rees (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - clearly WP:BADNAC; while I do think the article will stay, the close was obviously improper. Relist for procedure. JavaHurricane 06:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see where the closer is coming from, the nomination is mostly focused on the fact that the article is incomplete, which isn't a valid reason for deletion. The rest of the comments are talking about a wider complaint about this type of article, rather than this one in particular. I think the best way to resolve that would be a general discussion about these articles as a group rather than nominating individual articles for deletion. Category:Tropical cyclones by year has a number of them, some of which are complete. Hut 8.5 09:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If this is relisted it will only be a keep. We do not delete articles based on the fact that they may need cleanup or require work. At present there is no disputing the notability of the subject. Additionally any editor can AfD the article again. Was it a WP:BADNAC if it saved us valuable editor time getting to the only possible result? Perhaps. So I will WP:IAR. Lightburst (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion argument at AfD was basically WP:NUKE. And that can have some merit in extreme cases. If the article is just *wrong* we shouldn't have it in mainspace. In this case, I think AfD was the wrong call. But I also think a speedy keep NAC at that point wasn't even a little bit in the cards. Especially if the editor was involved. WP:PI and all that. If I were !voting at AfD, I'd have gone with "move to draft", so I think there is some value in continuing the discussion beyond just process. Articles don't need to be complete when they hit mainspace, but there should at least be a hint that when it lists no such storms for February as to the fact that isn't correct. So Overturn speedy and (re)list. Hobit (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See WP:IMPERFECT Lightburst (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm a big fan of that (see the story about sandcastles on my user page). But being *wrong* is a problem. And this appears to indicate that there were no such storms in Feb., etc. That's a problem. I like seeing stubs and small articles develop over time. But they can't be wrong. And fixing this one is non-trivial. I'd argue it belongs in draft space. Or, at the least, needs a big notice on the top saying it's under development and currently wrong. But I'd prefer draft space until it's not wrong. But that's a reasonable discussion for AfD, not DRV. Hobit (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In line with WP:DPR#NAC, I am voiding the non-admin closure and relisting the AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Dylan Chiazor – Restore. It's unclear what the articles you've posted here is referring to but there's general agreement that we should allow the title to return, although people are haggling over the details. I went with the simplest thing and undeleted Dylan Chiazor. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dylan Chiazor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was originally deleted on the grounds that is did not meet WP:NFOOTY since the player had not made his competitive debut. However, this has now changed since he played for De Graafschap in a KNVB Cup match against Vitesse, therefore satisfying WP:NFOOTY as he has appeared in a competitive match between two teams form fully professional leagues. Therefore, Dylan Chiazor is now considered notable and the article should be restored. SFletcher06 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SFletcher06: You can just go ahead and recreate the articles you've posted here since the reason for deletion no longer applies, you don't need a formal DRV unless the articles have been salted for some reason? SportingFlyer T·C 23:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Apologies - I'm not very familiar with DRV. I suppose this probably falls under the last point on when a DRV should not be used upon re-reading it. SFletcher06 (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit Draftification - This is Deletion Review Reason 3 by a filer who believes that reason 3 is a reason for Deletion Review. If it isn't a reason for Deletion Review, change the list of reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (the deleting admin) Article was not salted, so this can just be undeleted or recreated if it meets NFOOTY; I don't have any objection. I would weakly object to draftification for the reasons mentioned at User:Paul_012/Drafts are broken, but it's a matter of personal preference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close was fine, but now we should Restore. I'm not sure why, User:SportingFlyer we'd want to encourage the page to be rebuilt from scratch, rather than just using the existing deleted page. That sounds like more work than necessary. Nfitz (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jonathan Vergara Berrio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Like with Dylan Chiazor, it was deleted on the grounds that it failed WP:NFOOTY. This article now meets WP:NFOOTY since he has made an Eerste Divisie appearance for De Graafschap, and the Eerste Divisie is a fully professional league, meaning the article now meets the notability guidelines. [38] SFletcher06 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Permit Draftification - This is Deletion Review Reason 3 by a filer who believes that reason 3 is a reason for Deletion Review. If it isn't a reason for Deletion Review, change the list of reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (the deleting admin) As with above, the article was not salted, so this can just be undeleted or recreated if it meets NFOOTY; I don't have any objection. I would weakly object to draftification for the reasons mentioned at User:Paul_012/Drafts are broken, but it's a matter of personal preference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close was fine, but now we should Restore. Might be best to request these directly to the closing Admin, or at WP:Refund. Nfitz (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy with the venue and as the nominator has demonstrated the notability guidelines are clearly met, permit restoration. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's a 21 year old who's played like half an hour of professional football. Once again Wikipedia's amazingly low bar for notability of athletes sticks in my craw. He's way short of a GNG pass.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: - you seem to be opposing restoration on the grounds that you disagree with the notability guidelines. Coverage of the player is a bit weak, but this is a nice, reliable secondary source and there is concencus at WikiProject Football that players at the start of their careers should be given more leeway. SFletcher06 (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My longstanding position has been that specific notability guidelines ("SNGs") shouldn't and can't trump the General Notability Guideline ("GNG"). I'm not surprised to hear that WikiProject Football has reached consensus that articles within the scope of WikiProject Football should be allowed more leeway -- they've certainly done that before -- but with the greatest of respect it's not their decision. Discussions like this one that's currently taking place on WT:N demonstrate what the mood music is among the rest of the community and I would welcome your participation there.
    Let me give you some examples to illustrate exactly how crazily out of whack NFOOTY is with what the rest of the encyclopaedia does. Category:English physicists has 285 entries; Category:English footballers has 21,875 entries.Category:English chemists has 286 entries; Category:Footballers from County Durham, by itself, has 385. And it's not just football, either. The amount of effort and accomplishment you need to be a notable athlete is insanely lower than in any other field of human endeavour. I'm British, and my country is far more notable for its scientific, cultural and naval achievements than its sporting ones. Why have we got 1,240 pages in Category:Olympic athletes of Great Britain and only 79 pages in Category:English admirals? WikiProject Military History doesn't seem less active than WikiProject Football. The difference is how ludicrously permissive NSPORTS is.—S Marshall T/C 12:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 June 2020[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bitcoin Suisse AG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Brandnewz (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd deletion happened on similar reasons as 1st soft deletion - one argument was that the article “appears to be mainly WP:PROMO and does not seem to meet WP:GNG, because it doesn't look like there are multiple references that are independent, significant, reliable and secondary at the same time”.

Facts why this should be reconsidered: For the purposes of this article, the definition of “independent, significant, reliable and secondary references” tends, in my opinion, to be subjectively determined – because although there is a lack of serious, high-profile news agencies and scientific publications in the crypto-currency space (since the crypto-currency market is still relatively young) you can conclude after some research that there is a very high demand in crypto and putting all crypto related articles in relation to each other, you will find that specialized news agencies dominate the majority of coverage of industry-specific news.

As mentioned by “mphorigin” this does not necessarily imply a reporting that does not adhere to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". All outlets reporting are independent and Bitcoin Suisse received significant coverage over the years in news outlets such as Bloomberg, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Bilanz, Finanz und Wirtschaft, Forbes, etc.. (public) which in my opinion are high-profile news agencies.

“Article can be kept if notability can be proved, but at this point I'm not convinced.” – some examples here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-29/swiss-ski-resort-zermatt-now-accepts-bitcoin-to-pay-taxes https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2020/01/17/the-bull-case-for-bitcoin-in-2020/#78c226f93878

Regarding the argument, that there are many WP:SPA accounts. As stated on the respective page, the risk here is that these users’ goals are to promote the company. Open to discuss on promotionally written parts if those can be outlined – however, if the content is written objectively and “a straightforward, just-the-facts style” (Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia), this should not keep the community from accepting it. Everyone is free to decide which article(s) they can contribute to according to Wikipedia.

On argument "WP:ROUTINE": I see that point, should be adjusted.

On the argument "The article's been here years; it's an eternal WP:TOOSOON" : the company exists since almost 7 years, (confirmed by the Swiss commercial register). Bitcoin Suisse belongs to the biggest companies (by employees & revenue) of the canton of Zug. Further, it belongs to the first companies of the so called "Crypto Valley" (which is also explained on the wiki page "Zug"). It shapes the national political debate on distributed ledger technologies as part of the former working group of the Federal Council, and founding member of the Swiss Blockchain Federation. This is publicly known - and therefore I consider Bitcoin Suisse as of high public interest.

Brandnewz (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse no other way that AfD could be closed. If you want the article restored then I suggest you pick out a small number of sources which you think pass the criteria at WP:CORP. The two you've linked to here don't quality, the first is a short passing mention and the second is a rewrite of an interview with the company CEO. A user with an admitted conflict of interest editing on a topic which attracts a lot of promotional content from single purpose accounts is not likely to be given the benefit of the doubt. Hut 8.5 12:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There's already a draft at AfC. If there's content in the original article worth merging, it can probably be histmerged. As for restoring the page, if we actually do that, it would just be deleted again at AfD. If the draft is moved to mainspace before an AfC reviewer judges it ready, it would just be deleted again at AfD. The fundamental issue is notability, and WP:NCORP leaves us no wiggle room at all. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A clear AfD result, this isn't the place to relitigate that. There was no error with the close. Since there's a draft at AfC, you're better off getting that past the threshold with actual reliable sources. SportingFlyer T·C 06:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Pretty straightforward case. Guy (help!) 22:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I still don't see how subject passes WP:NCORP. Deletion seems more of a valid option. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - It appears that the appellant is appealing that the closer looked at the AFD rather than casting a supervote. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Indian WhatsApp lynchings – Relist. This is one of those confounding AfDs where the closer has to intuit if merge really means, keep, but not as a stand-alone title, or, delete, but maybe some of this can be salvaged somewhere. Those rarely make for satisfying decisions. Making things more complicated is that there's no clear consensus here as to whether the AfD should be relisted. It would certainly be defensible to close this DRV as endorse, but I'm not going to do that. Decisions like this should be made at AfD, so throwing it back there makes sense. I'm also giving a lot of weight to the AfD closer's comment that had they been asked, they would have relisted it themselves. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Indian WhatsApp lynchings (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Note: I participated in the AfD, in which I supported keeping the article. My username was User:CJK09 at the time before a very recent username change.

Closed as "delete" with no rationale provided by closer. Vote count: 7 keep, 4 merge, 7 delete (incl. nom), 1 "delete or merge" --> 7 keep, 4.5 merge, 7.5 delete. Keeping in mind that "merge" is not a form of "delete", since the history and much of the content is preserved, such a tally would normally indicate a "no consensus" closure unless the arguments for one of the outcomes are sufficiently strong.

Now, looking more closely at the discussion, 6 of the delete rationales (incl. nom) are based on notability either in full or in part. Only two of these 6 provide rationales for this. The first is the nominator (Tessaracter), who says that Majority of the incidents are easily non-notable and fails WP:LISTN. The second, from Azuredivay, is basically a form of WP:OSDE.

The first three keep rationales (disclosure: including mine) point out various examples of international coverage of the phenomenon as a whole from highly esteemed reliable sources. Because the phenomenon as a whole is notable, it doesn't matter whether the individual incidents are notable, since notability of a list is based on the list topic as a whole, not on the individual list entries. Thus the nominator's invocation of LISTN is not correct. The nominator and a few of the delete and merge rationales cite either or both of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In my keep rationale I provided detailed reasoning of why neither of those applied to the article. Aside from one assertion without explanation in response to my reasoning, none of these provided reasoning for why these parts of WP:NOT apply to the article.

For a discussion with this vote tally to be closed as delete, it has to be clear that the rationales for deletion are stronger than the rationales for keeping. I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion from looking at this AfD discussion. For me there two reasonable interpretations, generously speaking: (1) the keep rationales are stronger than the delete rationales, in which case the discussion should have been closed as keep; and (2) the keep and delete rationales are equally strong, in which case the discussion should have been closed as no consensus. CactusJack (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings: @Tesseracter, Drat8sub, Toughpigs, Yoonadue, Aman.kumar.goel, Desmay, Vanamonde93, Azuredivay, Capankajsmilyo, Hatchens, Yogesh Khandke, Rsrikanth05, D4iNa4, M4DU7, Superastig, Zindagi713, Accesscrawl, and Adondai: CactusJack (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping (typo in previous edit): @Tessaracter: CactusJack (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse When the OP commented on the AfD, it indeed looked attractive as a dumping ground for all homicide-related incidents whether they had anything to do with "WhatsApp" or not, that didn't mattered. I voted for a "merge" but I am happy with deletion because this is all a part of Fake news in India which already covers enough details about WhatsApp. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and using this site as a platform to smear a popular cross messaging app is indeed violation of WP:NOT. --Yoonadue (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral point of view doesn't mean neutral content.It does not mean that we avoid covering things that negatively reflect on an app, country, or whatever else. It means that we don't inject bias into our coverage. "Reality is not neutral, balanced, or unbiased, and content must mirror it." The Keep rationales in the deletion discussion thoroughly refuted the nominator's claim that the article violated WP:NOT. The Delete rationales offered no evidence or explanation for why the article violates WP:NOT. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 23:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No new arguments to reconsider, except perhaps what I could summarise by raising the red flag wp:NOTDEM, also can’t suppress “weasel” as a response to “esteemed”. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Already mentioned...first, simply the policies raised by the nominator WP:NOTNEWS/WP:LISTN/WP:IINFO is nowhere true, as the topic is covered in very esteemed news articles, the lists are well mentioned in the discussion starting from BBC, NYT, Gaurdian and the many more including local sources. Secondly, the admin who closed the discussion did not produce any clarification for the closure as delete. Further, I've tried to know the reason of his closure as delete at his talk page, but there was no reply, who is very much active at his talk page. And simply when the article does not violate any policy/guidelines for which it needs to be deleted, I think it should be relisted for further discussion. Its utterly bizzare when when most of the delete vote could not produce any firm rationale to support the nom. Drat8sub (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, at the very least. Spartaz, I don't think you've looked into the substance of the arguments here; the "doesn't meet GNG" argument was debunked thoroughly, and assigning those !votes equal weight isn't appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Relist I did not understand how a discussion in which around two thirds of the responses indicated a desired to retain the article’s content in at least some form could simply be deleted. The article deals with a specific period of time during which there was a number of Whatsapp related killings throughout India. This received worldwide media coverage. It is legitimate for this to be the subject of its own article. The real discussion should be around how to improve the article — not simply delete it.Adondai (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Yoonadue. The delete votes definitely had more merit in that discussion. WP:NOTAVOTE applies. M4DU7 (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No idea about the subject. Not able to take a stand. However, thank you CactusJack for the tag. - Hatchens (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I probably would have closed this as a no consensus for deletion, but given the DRV I'm happy with a relist. I also want to note so far the only user not involved with the AfD above is Vanamonde - I know whoever closes this will do a good job, but this is more to remind everyone it's not helpful to vote the same way at a DRV as you did in the AfD (assuming anyone reads what I write.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. He commented on the AfD. --Yoonadue (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I definitely did a find for each user, may have typo'd that user's name. I still am fine with a relist. SportingFlyer T·C 16:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse After I had commented on the AfD, people were more supportive of deleting than keeping the article. WP:NOT applied because like Yoonadue said that Wikipedia must not be used as a platform to depict WhatsApp as a deadly app when none of the company officials played any role in the non-notable murders. Reliable sources are frequently covering things which are forbidden by WP:NOT. Nothing is lost since article's is just a subset of Fake news in India. Azuredivay (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, we write for neutral point of view, not neutral content. If reliable sources cover an issue that reflects badly on a topic, then we cover that topic. "WhatsApp has played a role in a number of lynchings in India" is not POV. "WhatsApp is aiding and abetting murder in India" breaches NPOV. There's an important difference there. And we have plenty of articles on subsets of other topics. For example, despite the existence of History of the United States as an article, we also have 13 individual articles covering specific time periods in more detail. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we don't have to worry about running out of space. Furthermore, the article on fake news in India contains only two sentences of prose about WhatsApp murders. That is not enough for a topic that's received a massive amount of international coverage on the phenomenon as a whole, as I've repeatedly demonstrated. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 20:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A reminder we're not here to relitigate the AfD, but to determine whether the closer made the correct decision. This DRV is a mess so far, hopefully we can get more participation from users who weren't involved in the discussion, or to just close this early and relist per Spartaz. SportingFlyer T·C 01:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist There was no consensus to delete in that discussion. I'm not seeing an obvious reason that deletion was the write outcome. Hobit (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per my rationale at the original AfD. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a meaningless comment to make at DRV, because this discussion is about assessment of consensus, not notability as such. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jee, thanks a lot for your feedback, but I stick to my statement. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'd personally have evaluated that discussion as "no consensus", and I'm not at all clear how we get to "delete".—S Marshall T/C 12:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There is no argument against the fact that the article violated WP:NOT and is unencyclopedic in nature. Clearly the agreement was that there is no need to create article about a factor which was not directly involved in any of the very few murders. Tessaracter (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 June 2020[edit]

  • Derek Chauvin – Relist at AfD. No reason for this to languish 7 days at DRV when most of the relevant arguments to be made are about substance rather than procedure. This version is significantly different from the deleted version so G4 does not apply, and the title is a plausible search term so A10 does not apply. (Regardless of whether the content here is actually duplicative of the main article, A10 does not say that duplicative content located at a plausible search term should be speedily redirected, only that redirecting is a possible option. When it is challenged, further discussion is the right answer.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Derek Chauvin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article, which consisted of a very short BLP violation, was speedily deleted. I then created the Derek Chauvin article, which was much better written and sourced. However, it was reverted to a redirect and hard protected. I want to suggest the reinstation of the content version linked to above. Let me discuss the rationale for speedily deleting the article here, in light of the event:

  • WP:A10: The new article significantly expands on the text about Chauvin in the article about the killing, including background information, information about his arrest, charges and detainment status, and his marriage.
  • WP:BLP1E: The article does not satisfy nr. 3: The event is highly significant and Chauvin's role is substantial, as the catalyst of the whole incident and the following protests and unrest.
  • WP:CRIME: This is one of the, if not THE most documented, talked about and influential crime in the United States since 9/11. Chauvin's involvement is well documented. We have articles about James Holmes (mass murderer) and Dylann Roof that should be deleted if we can't allow an article about Chauvin.Kebabpizza (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kebabpizza. I think that page was redirect to begin with. So in essence, adding content to that page was perhaps unilaterally overriding a consensus decision to speedy delete at the AfD [[[39]. Just to be clear the speedy was not one person's decision. Also, the redirect was protected due to edit warring [40]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus speedy delete at the AfD. [41]. Posting this just to be fair. It was absent from the opening of the discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • My preference would be an AfD discussion while the article is still redirected. We can have a link to the version of the article that is being discussed (either a draft or a link to an old version). Reasoning: I think we should be very very careful with what is clearly a negative BLP that is at the forefront of the news. We shouldn't just have the article sit around for a week so we can discuss it. But I think this needs an AfD rather than just a quick speedy, the nom above is making rational arguments. I think not allowing the discussion would be a significant mistake. Hobit (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I think Kebabpizza nails it in the OP. This is definitely not an A10 because it was substantially expanded. A10 is very, very clear about that. That's the end of the analysis; no other CSD criteria applies, so it was improper to delete this on a speedy basis. The AFD should be allowed to continue for the full 7 days. FWIW, I think BLP1E doesn't apply (significant participant in a significant event, plus there is coverage from before this event), and CRIME doesn't apply because "the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event...which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." (Admittedly, contemporaneous news coverage is ongoing because this is breaking news.) These things should be discussed in an AFD, though, and not decided by any one administrator. That said, I agree with Hobit that the page itself could remain a redirect while the AFD runs, and we can point to a permalink of the full article under discussion. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per Levivich and Kebabpizza. The 2nd article is clearly not an A10, and I see no consensus or other justification for the protected redirect. Allowe normal editing, adn discuss at an AfD or other forum if discussion is desired. I agree with Hobit that discussion must be allowed, but not that the article should be hiddedn bewhind a redirect during discussion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy ping - @MelanieN, Kire1975, Rhododendrites, Regice2020, Steve Quinn, SoWhy, Games of the world, and IVORK: Since you were involved with the original AfD, you should know about this Deletion Review. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuzheado:: Where are the original reasons for deletion given? The OP on that made some points I would like to adderss. Thanks for the ping. Kire1975 (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh - It's textbook WP:CRIME, but I don't know if there is yet justification in the discussion to snow close it (which is what it effectively becomes if A10 is ruled out). As OP says, it's a very well known crime, Chauvin's involvement is well documented... and thus per WP:CRIME/BLP1E/NOPAGE he should definitely be included in the article about the crime. I guess we can reopen it for procedure's sake for another 7 days and then delete it? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't see where to return to the original reasons, but the OP there made some points about other officers who were accused of police brutality in high profile cases not getting their own Wikipedia pages, and it wasn't hard for me to find two: Laurence Powell and Stacey Koon so his claim of the existence of this page being a new precedent is invalid. Kire1975 (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore article I checked the last version before the article was redirected and protected. No way it was a BLP1E. Azuredivay (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Keep as redirect In the proposed article it says, "According to police reports, Floyd physically resisted arrest." This has been proven false. The RS cited is way outdated - May 27th. It is essentially an uncritical echo of the police report. This is presenting a wp:false balance, by then saying body camera video shows otherwise. This needs to be corrected. This is being presented as if there are two valid sides to the story. RS has shown the police report is false. There are other issues too which of course I can't go into, since this isn't the proper venue. This and other stuff i'm seeing, falling short of NPOV, means the Wikipedia article is not BLP compliant. So for now, I endorse the close. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) due to me being redundant at this point. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steve Quinn:: Is it false that the Floyd physically resisted arrest or is it false that the police reports say he did? If we close the article, no one will be able to add the balance you are seeking to it. Kire1975 (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per A10. The article at this title was created by copying and pasting the relevant sections from Killing of George Floyd: the "Background" section is from the "Persons involved" section of that article (which looked like this at the time of creation) and the "Involvement in the death of George Floyd" section is from the lead of that article. The only original content was the "Prosecution" section, which was very short and largely duplicates "State criminal charges" section in the source article. The OP's claim that this article "significantly expands on the text about Chauvin in the article about the killing" simply isn't true, the only new information appears to be the fact that his wife is divorcing him and the jail he's currently in. Some people appear to be confusing this version with the one discussed in the AfD, which was completely different and much worse - I'm not surprised the AfD participants wanted it deleted as fast as possible.
    I suggest that anyone who thinks we should have a separate article on this person come up with a draft version and bring it here for review. Bear in mind that WP:CRIME says that people known for committing a crime shouldn't normally have separate articles if there is another article they can be covered in, and also advises against creating articles on people who haven't been convicted. Hut 8.5 07:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This DRV is like putting apples and oranges in the same barrel and saying they are the same. This seems to be some sort of end around. The AfD pertained to a different titled article someone created because the Derek Chauvin page was a redirect [42]. Someone added content to the redirect, then claimed it was speedy deleted. It wasn't, it was (and is) a redirect [43].
Then the OP is making AfD arguments for an AfD that didn't happen for this redirect, and also after the AfD for the other page has been completed. I'm don't think this is the proper venue for this discussion. The redirect has been hardened due to wp:edit warring not because of an AfD [44]. So, the reason for the redirect is being falsely attributed to an AfD result for a different page. The intended result is to indirectly undo a decision by an admin to protect the redirect. Rather than go to the admin or an admin board the OP opens a DRV.
I think this discussion should be closed. I think this belongs at WP:ANI or WP:AN, and not DRV. It's just not making sense. I also concur with the A10 reason and explanation given by User:Hut 8.5 - there is only trivial differences between what is already in the Floyd article after a copy and paste job and some extra references. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse He is notable for one thing and one thing only. He does not appear to have been particularly notable as a copper.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment: This is not actually a deletion review, because this title Derek Chauvin has never been deleted - just redirected. As I read the history, this title was NEVER deleted - speedy or otherwise. It was created as a redirect on May 26. Various edits between then and June 3 consisted of modifying the target and adding categories. On June 3 Kebabpizza expanded the redirect into a full article. On June 4 StAnselm requested speedy deletion citing G4, then changed his mind, removed the G4 tag, and restored the redirect. Kebabpizza restored the full article several times and was reverted by several people. Finally administrator Nick restored the redirect and full-protected the page because of the edit warring, and that is where we are. There was also a page titled Derek Chauvin (police officer) which was created on June 3 by Tabletop123, speedy deleted the same day per the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer), and then recreated as a redirect, which it still is. This article could be subjected to an AfD discussion (with a link to the full version so that it can be discussed). But the issue does not belong here because there is no deletion to review. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was full protected as a redirect explicitly citing the AFD that was closed as A10. I think neither the A10 nor the full protection should have happened. We should decide based on consensus (not unilateral admin action) whether Derek Chauvin should be a redirect or article, in a discussion open for longer than a day, as is being done with George Floyd. When the redirect was expanded, it should not have been reverted and protected, and that AFD should not have been closed A10 (because the redirect had been expanded). Seems like a valid DRV to me? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 14:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Theresa Greenfield (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

With all due respect, the closer gave no overview of the discussion and people were split on whether to delete, redirect, or keep. The decision to redirect was premature. Smith0124 (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • While a best practice, the closer of an AFD is under no obligation to summarize it, or indeed provide any explanation at all other than stating the result, beyond what's stated at WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators should justify their actions when requested", emphasis mine. I'm certain Sandstein would have done so had you asked him to before coming directly here.
    On the merits, you're not going to get your way here; the only other possible outcome of that debate was deletion. —Cryptic 05:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure was not premature, the AfD was open for the full seven days and had plenty of participation. Consensus was clearly on the side of the view that we shouldn't have an article about this person. Admittedly opinion was split about whether to delete or redirect it, but the delete comments didn't offer any reason why we shouldn't redirect it and it's clearly a plausible search term. Closing as no consensus because opinions were split between delete and redirect would not make sense. Hut 8.5 06:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure; nomination fails WP:DRVPURPOSE deletion review should not be used, item 2. Without waiving the foregoing objection, the closure adequately reflected the debate and there could not possibly have been a consensus to keep. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Redirect and delete are not mutually contradictory positions that need to battle it out in sudden death overtime to determine an official winner — since they both lead to the page no longer existing as a standalone article in the end, delete votes automatically count as support for a redirect if the pro-redirect participants have presented a valid and convincing reason to maintain a redirect, unless they addressed a specific reason why full redlink deletion was actually preferable to redirection (which none here did). And even if the page had been deleted, any editor would still be allowed to create a new redirect afterward without being in violation of the consensus. (And note that I'm saying all this as one of the delete voters.) So there's simply no problem here that requires review at all: if there's clearly no keep consensus to be had, and instead you're just trying to juggle redirects vs deletes, then either one's fair game and you don't have a no-consensus problem. Bearcat (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close was reasonable, and probably better than a delete clsoe. This way if she wins the election or otherwise becomes notable, the history is available. The only other option, as Cryptic said above, would have been "Delete". DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Sandstein clearly followed the consensus of the discussion. It was either redirect or delete, and choosing redirect is sensible. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that was the outcome of the discussion. But I'm always confused about how we treat political candiates in the US on Wikipedia. Why don't sources like [45] from Morning Consult and [46] from Politico put us above the GNG bar? They are in-depth coverage of her and her situation in the race, including biographical details etc. They seem like exactly what we'd want for a BLP article. There are plenty of other, less great sources (e.g. [47] has biographical information but is a lot shorter) that would also seem to count nicely toward GNG. Are we in a situation where the SNG is overriding the GNG? People seem unwilling to have an article on her unless she wins. That can't be our standard for an article, can it? Hobit (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hobit The practice has mostly been that political candidates are not considered notable due to coverage connected with their candidacies, unless that coverage is truly exceptional, as in the Christine O'Donnell case mentioned in the AfD. This does to some extent override the GNG because of concerns about a regular influx of people with intense but very brief coverage, just as WP:NCORP imposes stricter standards than the GNG because of a concern about promotion driving editing. Or in this case it could be seen as an example of WP:BLP1E, treating the campaign as a single event. It may be that there should be a general discussion of whether to codify or change this practice, but this is probably not the venue. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the main issues with articles about candidates is that their core purpose is to help the candidates publicize and promote their candidacies to their own voters, in defiance of our WP:NOTADVERT rules — but candidates are not automatically of enduring public interest, in any way that would pass the ten year test, just for being candidates per se: with a few very rare exceptions, losing candidates are not normally going to be topics about which there's still any meaningful interest that would necessitate the retention of an article in 2030. But we also simultaneously have a rule that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY — so our approach to candidates cannot be "keep the article for the duration of the campaign because of potential current interest, and then put it up for deletion after election day if she loses", but has to be "if she hasn't already achieved something that already gets her past the enduring significance test today, then you have to wait until she does before the article is allowed to be started".
      As I've often pointed out in AFD discussions, as well, even WP:GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who can surpass an arbitrary number": it most certainly does take into account the context of what the person is getting covered for, and it does deprecate some contexts as less notability-making than other contexts. For example, we don't retain articles about city councillors just because they can show "multiple" hits of local coverage — except for a small, rarefied tier of global cities that can already demonstrate widespread national and international interest in their municipal politics (e.g. New York City and Chicago and Los Angeles), we otherwise accept city councillors as notable enough for Wikipedia articles only if they can demonstrate a nationalized claim to being much more significant than the norm for city councillors, which the vast majority of city councillors cannot.
      And similarly, people aren't automatically exempted from having to pass a notability standard (e.g. WP:NMUSIC or WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NATHLETE) just because they can technically show pieces of purely local human interest coverage in purely local interest contexts like winning a high school poetry contest or a battle of the bands competition. Even with a volume of media coverage in their pocket that technically passes the "multiple" part in GNG, we still test those sources for whether the thing they're getting covered for is of national interest or not, and whether it's of enduring "people will still care about this achievement in 2030" interest or not.
      In a nutshell, when it comes to candidates, to qualify for an article just for being candidates the test is not "does media coverage exist?" — media coverage of every candidate always exists, because covering election campaigns is part of the media's job — rather, the test is "does a reason exist why this candidate is markedly more notable than most other candidates, in some way that people will still be looking for information about her a decade from now even if she loses the election?" If you can't answer that question in the affirmative, then she has to win the election, not just have campaign coverage while running in it, before she qualifies for permanent inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that's a great set of options and I get where they are coming from. But that's not what WP:GNG says. It doesn't require a 10 year test. It doesn't require their coverage be of national interest (though this one surely is). It says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article...". Is there any doubt there is coverage here in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? I don't see how the case can be made that there isn't such coverage. If you feel there should be a different standard, that's fine (I actually disagree with the GNG fairly often myself). But you need to get consensus for that. Hobit (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is already an established consensus, exactly as I described, that GNG is not just "count the media hits and keep anybody who surpasses a certain arbitrary number of them", but tests the sources for a lot more than just their number alone. There is already an established consensus that we consider whether or not a potential article topic has attained enduring, permanent notability, and not just her current state of temporary newsiness in and of itself. And on and so forth: nothing I said above is just my own opinion, and nothing I said above falls outside of our established consensus around how notability works — I was summarizing established consensus, not stating my own opinion about anything. GNG isn't the only policy or guideline document we have, after all — just because a principle isn't articulated there doesn't mean it isn't articulated in other places. People are not automatically exempted from having to pass rules like WP:BLP1E and WP:10YT, or from having to have any notability claim that would actually satisfy any of our subject specific notability criteria, just because they've technically surpassed an arbitrary number of media hits in not inherently notable contexts — and that's not just because I personally think that's the way it should be, it's because Wikipedia has an established consensus that that's the way it is. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:10YT is what, basically an essay? And BLP1E doesn't clearly apply (is a candidacy a single event? If so, why isn't actually being elected a single event? Or playing a professional sport? Or writing a book?). If there is an established consensus, I'm not seeing it documented in guidelines or policy. The GNG is our primary guideline for inclusion, and she meets it by a country mile. Hobit (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Someone notable only for being a political candidate generally violates BLP1E, and we do have recentism concerns. Every couple years there's a lot of generated candidate spam from the U.S., in part because the U.S. does a lot of electing that's based in individualism and not political party apparatuses, and all of the coverage they receive is in the context of the race or races that they've run. (For instance Australian politics candidates do not have to win a preliminary election, they get preselected by the parties and are generally forced to follow the party lines, so there's no need to advertise the fact that specific person runs for office.) If they lose, the vast majority are forgotten - I don't have time to pull up old AfDs of articles on decades-old failed candidates, but these are (I don't think this is a misrepresentation) typically unanimously deleted per consensus at WP:NPOL. In instances of recentism, we typically redirect or merge to the campaign page, or outright delete, unless the campaign itself will be remembered. This is longstanding local consensus based on interpretations of WP:NPOL/WP:PROMO/WP:NOTNEWS, the fact once someone's notable they're always notable, and the understanding running for office in the US means a person will receive a set level of coverage, not because they themselves are worthy of note, but because they are engaging in an activity which gets covered by local press. If you're suggesting this needs to be codified somewhere, this isn't the place for it. SportingFlyer T·C 06:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks for the response (and to all of you participating). When I get a chance, I'll start an RfC on this. I'd strongly prefer we have clear rules here that anyone looking at could successfully interpret. As it stands *I* can't reach the outcome that appears to be the way we do things by reading WP:NPOL/WP:PROMO/WP:NOTNEWS/WP:BLP1E and I think I'm fairly knowledgeable about our inclusion guidelines. I think it would be best if things were a bit clearer. Thanks again. Hobit (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've had several RFC's on this issue. The status quo continues to win out because there is no consensus on what clarity looks like. In general, our community agrees that the campaign is notable, even if the candidates may not be. For me, there are problems with trying to define who is a notable candidate. Because (nearly) all candidates (from city council to President/Prime Minister) receive some media coverage, either there must be a line drawn or we presume the notability of all candidates. But, I don't think the community agrees that everyone who files for state legislator becomes notable just for filing. And then, where do you draw the line? Major party candidates? Defining a major party is a value judgment, which we try to avoid. Major party nominee? We need a standard that can work in all countries. And, then, while not necessarily embracing the 10-year test, there are important questions that the essay raises. Does anyone who files for state legislature or even Congress and then loses their election, still remain notable years or decades later? (Notability is permanent). It is more likely that losing candidates are low profile individuals, with the exception of the year (or months) they were running for office (or encouraged to put their name on the ballot for a variety of reasons). And adding to this the questions of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and the concern about maintenance of campaign pages (and preventing advocacy), I think the current consensus, while imperfect, is better than the alternatives. (Voted redirect in the AFD) Endorse --Enos733 (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: There were more editors that favored deletion than redirect - but a redirect is slightly better than a straight up deletion because the name Theresa Greenfield goes somewhere. In defense of the XfD closer, I also cannot see how a relist could have changed the result. WP:CHEAP Lightburst (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 June 2020[edit]

2 June 2020[edit]

1 June 2020[edit]

  • User:Kappa/Kaaos – Relisted. I agree with the commenters that this is a close or contentious AfD that non-admins shouldn't close, and that Buidhe erred in closing it as "redirect". I'm therefore undoing the closure on my own authority as an administrator. Sandstein 07:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Kappa/Kaaos (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was a non-admin closure. I do not believe the closer interpreted the WP:NOCONSENSUS correctly, additionally it was relisted May 29 and the editor closed it 3 days into the relist after 3 straight keep !votes. User:Buidhe closed it as a redirect which is a De facto delete. I did ask the editor to reopen this MfD on their talk page. I am asking that this result be overturned and/or we allow an experienced administrator to close this. Lightburst (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There were more votes requesting delete than keep, as I stated on my talk page, and one of the "straight keep !votes" said that they did not object to redirect. buidhe 21:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As usual, if the outcome isn't immediately obvious, it shouldn't be a non-admin close. One person argued to redirect, one person explicitly rejected it, one person said they were ok with it, and nobody else addressed it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that only a sysop can close discussions is an appeal to authority: i.e. a logical fallacy. Our admin corps is largely well-meaning, but they don't necessarily have the judgment of Solomon. And that's why we need to have deletion review at all. We shouldn't overturn Buidhe because he's not a sysop. We should overturn him if, and only if, he made the wrong call. Which, in my view, he did, because that discussion did not reach a consensus to redirect. Re-close by someone else, and I don't care what their permission set is because they clearly won't be needing the "delete" tool.—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The weakness in S Marshall's argument is the fourth word, "only". Of course, non admins can close discussions. It is not an appeal to authority, but pedestrian case of credentialism. RfA tests a number of things, and many of them relate to suitability to close a non-consensus discussion with their reading of rough consensus. Closing such a non-consensus discussion is a challenging judgement call on whether the direction of the discussion can be divined, and whether further participation will more likely be a net negative use of volunteer time.
A non-admin is advised to not close a contentious discussion. This is excellent advice, because the purpose of a non-admin closing a discussion is to help. If their close results in an unhappy participant raising a formal review, then the non-admin close has not been helpful.
If an exceptionally good closer can provide a good enough closing rationale, that is great.
A good admin closer is more likely to have their judgement call respected, because the questioning participant can reveiw the closer's RfA, including questions relevant to closing discussions.
In this case, while I note that the closer closed the discussion exactly according to my !vote, the closer did not provide a reasonable rationale that makes it easy for everyone to understand thier close. That makes it a WP:BADNAC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_June&oldid=959863218"