Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2021 March 15
2021 March 17 >

16 March 2021[edit]

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

I noticed the page Marriott Marquis Houston was removed. In it's discussion page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriott Marquis Houston the reasons are pointed out state that the hotel doesn't meet the WP:NBUILD criteria. However, this doesn't appear to be the case. To quote the necessary criteria for a "building or object", one of the criteria that offers it "notability" is stated as:

"* Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability."

Of these, the building offers social, economic, and arguably, architectural importance. For starters, it gets social importance as it is a 1,000+ room convention hotel. Furthermore, being a "Marquis" branded hotel alone also gives it the social importance to qualify as an article. There's only 10 Marriott Marquis hotels in the word, all of which have an article outside of this one (which was unreasonably deleted). Additionally, these factors also transfer the hotel's social importance to economic importance, being that all major convention events in Houston have this hotel as it's official hotelier. It's "Texas shaped" lazy river additionally made too much headlines to not be noteworthy.

Outside of the hotel's impact, the building is also architecturally noteworthy due to its height alone. Structures of this height get wikipedia pages as well. This combined with the hotel's impportance show no reason for such article to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:ParaguaneroSwag (talk • contribs)

  • Restore This was nominated by a sock and was redirected with very limited discussion. The AfD is so weak it basically has the same functionally the same as someone boldly redirecting the page, so we should rubber stamp a bold restore. The article probably needs another source to get clearly past WP:GNG. it has been discussed in other newspapers, but in the travel section, which doesn't really count. I do see some coverage of the fact it was the headquarters for the weekend when Houston hosted the Super Bowl. To the nom, this means we don't look for social importance or economic importance when determining whether there should be an article, but whether there are reliable secondary sources which cover the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Agreed with above. The Super Bowl headquarters is simply another reason for restoration. I do agree that more reliable sources need to be shown, but these can easily be found and added. The page was redirected with relatively no discussion, as long as restoration is agreed upon, the article should be restored and additional sources provided to give it's notability source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParaguaneroSwag (talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're the creator of this DRV, so your "restore" !vote is implied. --Kinu t/c 18:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're the creator of this DRV, so your "restore" !vote is implied. Stop prefacing every comment you make here with that. (Also, is the word you're looking for "unanimous"?) --Kinu t/c 18:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion should have started at Talk:George R. Brown Convention Center, the talk page of the redirect target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Without a !vote one way or the other, the nominator is asked to stop restoring the article until the discussion is closed. The contents are visible to other editors via the edit history. --Kinu t/c 06:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist our practice for htoels seems to be getting increasingly restrictive. Except for truly historic ones, there are usually plenty of sources, but the sources are almost invariably at least somewhat promotional --it's quite hard to write about a hotel in any other manner, except about the architecture. or th history.Regardless of how we're supposed to decide , I think we do decide on the basis of our own feelings of significance, and then support our feelings by arguing on the basis of whether the sources are acceptable . Personally, I think we should include major hotels, either in single or combination articles, but the generally promotional nature of the articles discourages me enough that I do not usually work on them or !vote on them. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Sockpuppets don't have standing to start AfDs.—S Marshall T/C 01:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per S Marshall. With only one other participant, a sock-started low-participation AfD should be essentially treated as a PROD. Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural restore. Nomination was void due to being made by a banned sock. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2021 (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.
Elvy Yost (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page is Elvy Yost deletion page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elvy_Yost there was no clear consensus, user deleted specifically not based on vote, but on own preference I am sorry for formatting; I am an occasional Wikipedia user and am doing my best here. NoahB (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Bad discussions make hard closes. To the nom, deletion discussions are not votes, but rather the closer must weigh the validity of the arguments. Here, there were two delete advocates: the nom, and a single "doesn't pass NACTOR." Two keeps say that she's been in a significant number of TV series, which might pass WP:NACTOR, while the third basically reiterates that and makes an OSE argument. The key reason why delete's an okay circumstance here is because the nom discussed the lack of quality sources and no one else rebutted that. The other options were a relist or a no consensus, which also would have been fine - I probably would have relisted a second time, but that's not a reason to overturn. Finally, a quick WP:BEFORE search I just conducted doesn't turn up anything which makes me think the discussion was defective for a lack of identifying sources, which has nothing to do with the close. I also sort of expect this will be overturned to no consensus, though there's nothing wrong with the close here in my mind. SportingFlyer T·C 23:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change from "Delete" to "Draftify". The deletion rational "TOOSOON" is a reason to draftify. It was draftified, but was put back. The AfD repudiated the bold re-mainspacing. Draftify and forbid mainspacing until approved by an AfC reviewer or better. Recommend following the advice at WP:THREE. Reference bombing decreases the likelihood of AfC acceptance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key question is if there is a serious claim of there being two "significant" roles. I've not got a clue how those are generally judged. I think relist would have been a better option given the weakness of the !votes, and NC probably a better option too. weak overturn to relist I guess, but I'm an inch from a weak endorse and I'd be fine with a NC outcome. Because the closer is likely looking for some kind of consensus, I'd be okay with a move to draft too--SmokeyJoe's right that a TOOSOON outcome should probably send to draft. Hobit (talk)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Jendrik Sigwart – Moot. The closure as a redirect has been reverted as there is now more sourcing, and that seems like a reasonable place to end up. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jendrik Sigwart (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I see that German finalist Jendrik Sigwart's page has been deleted after an politcal discussion of members of the German right-wing party AfD. Jendrik is a finalist to Eurovision, and one of the "Big Five" who will definitely sing in the final. His page has been deleted despite a number of good references and comprehensive articles and changed to a redirect that tells nothing, part of the logic being that the artist becomes notable after performing. But after performance the interest would have plummeted anyway unless it did real well. By deleting, most of those interested are let down. They want to know about the act prior to the event where they are searching for facts from all the artists, let alone that this particular artist had established himself in musicals and other art domains long before Eurovision. I am very disappointed. One of those in the discussions on AfD said this article is bound to come back some time later on and I am almost sure with lesser information than the two liner about qualifying. Many also argued with good reasos for keeping the article. So it defeats the purpose really what Wikipedia has done. ALso, the deletion was clearly a politically motivated act to reduce the chances of the German contribution to the ESC. In addition, all participating artists from 2021 and all German interpreters in history have their own page. Binocular1234 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • My read of the AfD and the closer's interpretation (which seems reasonable to me) is that the AfD-enforced redirection was understood to be likely moot in the near future and a standalone article appropriate. I can't speak to the political motivations or to WP:OSE arguments, but I see nothing there prohibiting an un-redirection and addition of appropriate sourcing that occurred after the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow recreation I am new to Wikipedia so I do not really understand how this "un-deletion" process works. I would like to expand the original article and to source it properly. Binocular1234 (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spartaz Since this was your close and since the nom didn't consult with you before coming to DRV (which isn't quite required but is very encouraged, but the nom is also a very new user) would you have any issue with draftifying the page? It's what we do with sports biographies when the player doesn't meet guidelines, but will meet guidelines in the near future, and it makes more sense here than a redirect so that it can be incubated. SportingFlyer T·C 17:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
meh. Simple question, has better sourcing emerged in the 20 days since the redirect was put in place? The history is still there and the bar to undoing the redirect was deliberately set low enough that I don't feel that admin policing of the redirect is necessary. Any sensible user is welcome to review the redirect on the basis of new eventsnand use editorial judgement. I don't see any point of forcing thus through drv. If there is dispyte about what to do, local consensus at the article talk page is surely enough. Spartaz Humbug! 18:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct - someone can just move the most recent non-deleted version to draftspace and work on it there. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Well run and closed AfD.
On the desire to revert the redirect. The proper place to discuss that is the talk page of the redirect target, which is Talk:Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2021. Has better sourcing emerged since the redirect was put in place? Discuss on that talk page. DRV is well premature for this discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Unniyarcha (film) – Endorse - but draftify; the request at request for undeletion was procedurally denied as wrong forum, so it doesn't precedent here. WilyD 10:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC) WilyD 10:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Unniyarcha (film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It may be restored in the draftspace and may be re-added to the mainspace once I finish expanding it using this. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't see the article due to ad blocker blocker, but I don't see how we can deny the restoration to draftspace; the AfD was closed as delete with only one other participant, who agreed with the nominator. Hardly controversial unless I'm missing something. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you ask Amanda (aka DQ)? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should have been posted at WP:REFUND or the deleting admin requested. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They asked back in January, and this seems to be the exact same request. This user has tried to repost several articles, and takes me to deletion review without having an actual discussion on things. They don't seem to care about Wikipedia's conventions, but just restoring their content without notability/referencing. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - A valid close of what appears to be a poorly documented film of questionable notability. Is the appellant claiming an error by the closer, which there wasn't, or is the appellant asking to restore in draft, which the closer says she is agreeable to? If the appellant is saying that they, the appellant, will move the draft back to article space when it is ready, No. The article was deleted, and we are endorsing the deletion, and a review is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as requested by Kailash29792. I don't understand why this request wasn't granted in the first place – an article is nominated for deletion because the sources it had were just database entries, after very little participation the article is deleted, then an editor comes up with better sources and asks to work on it. The closure of the AfD, as it stood, was correct, but there appears to have been a very basic failing of BEFORE – the second result when I search on Google Books is the film's entry in the Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema – so I wouldn't worry about the outcome of that discussion. It should at best be treated as a soft delete, with no questions asked of the editor who brings up sources and asks for restoration. – Uanfala (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as draft Assuming the source listed wasn't in the article, it seems like enough to give it another go. Hobit (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2021 (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.
Mavis Amankwah (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Was not given adequate time to argue against the deletion. Moderator expressed his view that 7 days was enough but it was not realized for 6 days into the delete discussion.Requesting another chance at delete review. 45.151.238.152 (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse deletion. No sign of notability, as everyone else said, and as I can see myself. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional endorse even though I can't see the content, as these sorts of apparent promo-bios percolate throughout Wikipedia all the time. Solution? Recreate in draft with better sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Temp undeleted - sorry for the delay. WilyD 10:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the actual content in the article, the Mirror and Guardian links seem to provide some evidence of notability. If only they hadn't been buried in a sea of news releases... Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I haven't seen the article and am not asking to see it. It appears that the appellant is wasting the time of the community with this appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. Note that the discussion was closed more than 7 days after it was opened. Further note that I was not informed of this DRV, as required. Daniel (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not, and has actually never been, required, although the level of how strongly it was suggested has varied a bit. WilyD 10:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Step 3 of the 'Steps to list a new deletion review': "Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:". Daniel (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is, and has always been, required to notify the person whose decision you are disputing that a DRV has been opened. It was previously also required to discuss with that person before opening a DRV, but that was quietly spirited away by a poorly-advertised two-day discussion last July. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-open - XfDs need to be closed by an admin who can at least act as a disinterested party. And really, one week, no substantive arguments for or against, a relist would've been sensible anyways. WilyD 10:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WilyD - how was I in any way an "interested party"?Daniel (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • An admin closing a discussion as a disinterested party acting on community consensus wouldn't come to DRV to argue for a particular outcome. Admins who so strongly favour a particular outcome they can't even try to act like they're judging consensus as a third party shouldn't be closing discussions because their own feelings are very likely to cloud their judgement, and it's poisonous to the trust of the community for admins to act like their enforcing their own preferences over consensus. WilyD 23:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, I don't follow this at all. Am I not allowed to advocate for my close to be endorsed? I couldn't give two hoots about the article, the people involved in the debate, or the actual outcome (despite what you seem to be inferring), but I do care about my assessment of consensus. I'm not sure your viewpoint expressed immediately above - "an admin closing a discussion as a disinterested party acting on community consensus wouldn't come to DRV to argue for a particular outcome" - reflects the consensus belief of the wider participants at DRV. I frequently see closers come here to provide comments and support for their close, and never once have I seen them criticised in this way. I am going to move this discussion to the centralised Deletion Review talk page, as if that is the consensus, it should be established. Daniel (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The discussion was clear and I don't see any error. SportingFlyer T·C 11:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Appropriate close based on the discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 06:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deletion process was properly followed. Deletion discussions are open for one week as normal. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion There does not seem to be any present change that an acceptable article can be written. This is exactly thesort of a promotional article thatshould never have gotten as far as mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I see no procedural issues here. "Requesting another chance at delete review." No, deletion review is not AFD 2.0. --Kinu t/c 04:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist those !votes were truly cookie-cutter and basically useless. So was the nom. And Jclemens identified sources in the article that might be at the WP:N bar. Just because the DRV nom has a horrible argument for the DRV doesn't mean that we shouldn't take a look at it. That said, this does look like a great case for WP:TNT at the least. Still, I think a deletion nomination where there are sources that look good in the article shouldn't be deleted without some discussion of those sources... Hobit (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2021 (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/2021_March_16&oldid=1039506297"