Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 September

29 September 2021

List of longest-living United States senators – Endorsed. The consensus here is that the original decision by the closer is endorsed, including the deletion of the similar Indian lists - none of the endorsers here or those who said "delete" on the original AFD said they wanted to treat those separately. On the separate "philosophy" question, regarding the emotional nature of some "keep" !votes, the reason for discounting those !votes was (as noted by Alalch Emis here) that those keep !votes did not give a valid reason, rather than that they were emotional or NPA. So the closer was not inventing a new reason to discount !votes here. It doesn't seem to me that any separate RFCs are necessary to clarify that point, but of course editors are free to start RFCs if they think there's some doubt about something.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of longest-living United States senators (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I am asking for to overturn the close to a no Consensus close based on AfD participation and based on a procedurally flawed nomination. The closer discounted ivotes based on the fact that the some participants were emotional (one involved a PA) and I acknowledge that the keep participants did not make policy and guideline based arguments. I did ask the AfD closer to reconsider. My experience is that the closer is flippant when editors have issues with their closures. 1,2, 3. I remember a particularly egregious close at DRV and this closer simply ignored the many editors who took issue with their close. These lists fits exactly into our guideline for lists on WP:LISTCRITERIA and if we look at straight keep/delete opinion 8 (including nominator) favored deletion and 6 favored keeping (yes I know the policy on counting). A no-consensus close does not prohibit a renomination. An example of our consensus procedure will be seen in this DRV: If we had the same result of delete/keep ivotes here this DRV will be a no-consensus and it will result in maintaining the deletion of these four lists. The second part of my rationale involves a flawed procedure. The nominator added other completely unrelated lists to this AfD nomination after there was a delete participant. List of oldest living members of the Lok Sabha, List of oldest living members of the Rajya Sabha were added after debate started. You can see the nominator added the unrelated lists after the AfD began - this is the original nom with two US related deletions. After the first delete ivote the nominator added unrelated Indian Politician lists. Lightburst (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn /struck nominator self-!vote/ to no-consensus and relist each list unrelated article separately. Lightburst (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC) I also ask to undelete these lists for the DRV participants. Lightburst (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse The closer did not discount opinions because some participants appeared to be emotional -- their advocacy did not include policy-based arguments (as you say yourself), and what it did contain was attacks. So when the portion of !votes thus referred to is discounted, what remains is a consensus to delete. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you. Procedurally - as an AfD participant I was not aware that the Indian list were added. Perhaps they should be split out. We cannot know if participants all understood that there were four lists. I know how these DRVs go but we should also be concerned with the procedure of slipping in unrelated deletions. Lightburst (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC) I did include policy arguments, for instance, "a direct quote from your link: 'If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates.'" in response to someone citing a Wikipedia policy against "OTHERSTUFF"; in response to complaints about "SYNTHESIS" I quoted from that link where routine calculations (including the calculation of ages) is wholly permissible, "In the end, those are still calculations. I don't see any rule saying there can only be a limited number of calculations included on a page?????? From Wikipedia:Calculations 'calculating a person's age is almost always permissible.'"; in response to complaints about "TRIVIA" I rebutted that with yet another quote from that link, "I don't believe this violates Wikipedia:Trivia because, as the link states, "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and 'unselective' list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information". This is clearly the latter, a selectively populated list with a narrow theme."; and I paraphrased "NPOSSIBLE" to rebut yet another commenter's complaint, "According to Wikipedia:NPOSSIBLE, articles should be considered based on whether the sources can exist, not on whether the current article links to extant sources. Additionally, some sources have been collected above, proving that sourcing for this article's topic DOES exist". It appears to me that these inconvenient arguments quoting and rebutting people's policies have been ignored in favor of amorphous complaints about "personal attacks". Overall, the deleter ignored strong arguments and selectively chose weak arguments as reasons to delete these pages, preferring a misrepresentation of the "strongest" provided arguments for the "keep" side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:c580:3420:e02f:bf5c:b330:ddc0 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse the closer discounted "arguments" like this which just consist of insulting people who disagree with them. Apart from the fact that personal attacks are strongly discouraged here, comments like this simply aren't valid arguments. The count of six people supporting keeping includes several comments which did not advance a coherent rationale, such as "STOP DELETING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT!", and it would have been entirely legitimate for the closer to discount or downweight them. The other articles this was nominated with are all closely related and nobody in the discussion drew a distinction between them. Hut 8.5 18:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Right WP:CIR - It is too bad a person needs about a year of experience to learn all the ins and outs and acronyms here. I myself had many acronyms hurled at me when I started, and I pleaded for mercy which only got more acronyms. I tend to not penalize people for not understanding how the sausage is made. Lightburst (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC) I did, in fact, draw a distinction between the US Senators & Representatives articles and the Indian congress articles. See this, "In the American system, the US Congress is equally as important as the US president." Not using acronyms isn't the issue, it's the complete lack of any coherent argument in some of those comments which is the bigger problem with them. Nor should anybody be surprised that comments which just insult people are ignored. Nobody in that discussion, including you, argued that the situation of any of those articles was any different to the others. The only argument you've put forward for the bundled nomination being invalid is that some of the articles were added after one person had commented, which is nitpicking at best. Hut 8.5 21:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Comment. I was the nominator, and I did add two more closely related lists to the discussion 5 hours after the original nomination, and after one editor had already commented. As Lightburst linked above, I explicitly called this out in a note in the discussion, so nobody who participated after that time should have been surprised that there were four pages being discussed. The editor who had already !voted (Dronebogus), had recently participated in a number of similar discussions and I felt confident that they wouldn't object to my additions. If I was mistaken, I will apologize to Dronebogus for my presumption. pburka (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Relist A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age where opponents of deletion of a similar page about US Presidents were able to more effectively dispute the wrong-headed arguments for deletion (specifically a cramped reading of Wikipedia policies). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:c580:3420:e02f:bf5c:b330:ddc0 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC) The discussion could have been better, but it was sufficiently thorough. Relisting would very likely be more of the same. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC) I went out of my way to find sources that disputed others' contentions that this article was not encyclopedic. It does not look like you took that into consideration when the article was deleted; instead the deleter said the opposition was "personal attacks". I did complain that the rules seemed arbitrary and nonsensical, but I would hardly describe that as a personal attack, just an expression of frustration that a page I liked to look at was being deleted and it was not clear how I could stop it. Please reconsider deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:c580:3420:e02f:bf5c:b330:ddc0 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse – many of the keep !votes were "based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact" or were "logically fallacious", so the WP:DGFA allows the closer to discount them. The delete !votes were by and large grounded in our policies and guidelines, while the keeps by and large simply weren't. In light of that (and the fact that the deletes were numerically in the majority as well), a delete closure was clearly appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC) According to your link, WP:DGFA, three of the four main guidelines for deletion were violated in this case. See "Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" (see below). Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. When in doubt, don't delete." There was not a "rough consensus" because the strongest arguments for the keep side were ignored by the deleter in favor of accusations of personal attacks. The deleter did not respect the feelings of Wikipedia participants, who did not want the page deleted, regardless of how articulate they were. Finally, because there should have been doubt, the bias should have been towards don't delete, flagrantly violated in this instance. Endorse I went back through and only encountered like one coherent “keep” argument. The others were just variants on “don’t delete it” “it’s popular” “you suck for wanting to delete this” “it’s useful and interesting” etc. We really shouldn’t call AfD votes “votes” because they’re really competing arguments and not simply “ayes” or “nays”. Dronebogus (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse- That's really the only way the discussion could have ended. Commentary such as "STOP DELETING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT" and "you suck for wanting to delete this" does not actually contain a reason for keeping the article. I'm also disappointed, but unsurprised, that coddling the hurt feelings of people who wanted to keep the article is being presented as a reason to overturn consensus, when the feelings of the targets of all those personal attacks are apparently irrelevant. I say unsurprised because personal abuse of AfD nominators and delete !voters has become so routine and commonplace that hardly anyone remarks on it anymore. The closer of this AfD is one of a very, very small number of admins who does push back against it. Reyk YO! 10:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia has a longstanding and ongoing problem with gerontology-related OR. You could easily reverse the outcome of this AfD by producing independent, reliable sources about the longest-lived people who have served as US senators, but I don't think those sources exist. If they don't, then a much weaker alternative is to claim it's a navigational list, but that's not a source-based argument and the community doesn't agree with it. I can't see how Sandstein could have closed in any other way.—S Marshall T/C 13:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Thanks Marshall. for your measured and articulate response. The record will show that I have appealed several of Sandstein's closes. I never expect to have their decisions overturned. I acknowledged that the participants in this AfD did not know what they were doing. We can all agree that they did know that they wanted to keep. But that is not enough for the Wikipedians. Passion gets laughter from the participants here. Hut 8.5 points out that I am nitpicking. Procedure matters, and as I stated, when I first participated I did not see that the nomination had two unrelated Indian lists added. Sandstein will continue to be snarky and dismissive and I will continue to advocate for participants who do not know how to participate well enough to please the long-time participants here. Again Marshall, thank you for your professionalism. Lightburst (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC) I challenge you to find a long-serving admin who's not dismissive in a perfunctory way that can come across as snarky when they've been dealing with Wikidisputes as long as Sandstein or another half-dozen admins I can think of who have been doing this for 10+ years. It's a challenge for pretty much every helping profession: after a decade of the same complaints by different people, it's challenging and time consuming to respond to every one as if it were new and fresh, as it is to the requestor in many cases, when it absolutely old hat to the admin in question. Jclemens (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Yes, and particularly after some 15 years of complaints by people who hold sincere and strong views that are at odds with community consensus, but who seem to think that complaining to or about me is going to change that. Nonetheless, I do try to treat every good-faith request courteously and professionally (if perhaps briefly, given time constraints). I welcome feedback by editors (other perhaps than the ones who are currently angry at me because I've taken admin actions they disagree with) if they want to look at my talk page and tell me if they think I come across as inappropriately "snarky or dismissive". I would like to think that I tend not to do that, but it is of course not always easy to notice by oneself. Sandstein 18:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC) IMO it's fine to be succinct if the answers given contain the requested information. If others see conciseness as flippant, that's on them. Reyk YO! 08:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Sandstein did not mock Lightburst. But in the discussion above, the "keep" !voters are given very short shrift. Nobody exactly laughs at them, but nobody above is taking them seriously at all. In context, I would understand those !votes as expressions of distress, from people who feel their views are ignored and their work is casually obliterated. And they have a point: we as a community don't really care what they think, and we don't want this content. All we want is for it to be gone with the minimum of process and fuss. I've sometimes thought that the right solution might be for them to set up a separate gerontology wiki with their own rules.—S Marshall T/C 10:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC) That's not a bad idea, but I really think for it to work we need a federated setup for Wikipedia. I've thought this for a long time in fiction, that we would be better off linking to specialist Wikis like Memory Alpha when the level of specificity and "fancruft" exceeds a certain threshold, and point both links and interested editors to these other wikis. Without cross-wiki links, we are simply oublietting (Yes, Verbing weirds language) the editors and content. Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Another WP:Supervote by Sandstein? This time the coherent Keep arguments were dismissed in favor of a "impeachment is routine" argument. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Efforts to impeach Joe Biden (2nd nomination). Roughly 8-8. Contesting here would be rubbish. And a redirect is a delete. Lightburst (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC) I would suggest that if you want to contest another deletion, start a DRV for it. Alternatively, if you think Sandstein is making a habit of supervoting, a better venue to raise this complaint would be ANI. It's unlikely to accomplish very much here. I took a look at the impeachment AfD and saw that two votes were just bare "keep ~~~~", one was a personal attack on the nominator, one a simple "keep per suchandsuch", one was some irrelevancy about Matt Gaetz. That left about three !votes, including your own, that tried to make an argument for keeping and plenty on the other side who made good arguments to merge or redirect. Reyk YO! 10:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Thanks Reyk. You an I know how ANI goes: It is a sh&^ show on a good day. And overturning here...As I showed in one of my links above - 11-6 in favor of overturn at DRV was closed as no-consensus by Sandstein. So to recap, 8-8 on an AfD is redirect with the closer choosing a non-policy non-guideline argument. But here an 8-8 would be respected as a no-consensus. I know we do not purely count, but at the same time yes we do. We dismiss IP editors or those who say "per above", but maybe we shouldn't. One other question I have here is would this project have kept an article (with multiple RS, started by an admin) with Trump in the title? Forgive me for ranting and taking time away from building the encyclopedia. I will go try to be productive now. Lightburst (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC) We don't dismiss IP editors -- see WP:IPDIS; or discount per exes -- see second paragraph of WP:PERX — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC) We don't, but our attitude to them has changed. In days that Lightburst and I both remember well, when an IP editor made an argument unlikely to be taken into account in the close, someone would speak to them about how to make a good argument at AfD. Nowadays we simply disregard them. Wikipedia has become much less engaging for new editors as a result. We're also considerably happier to endorse a close that disregards the !vote count. I think that this reflects two key changes. First, people writing promotional content ("spammers") have adapted to Wikipedia, and second, Wikipedia has adapted to spammers. These discussions weren't about promotional content -- but they've been caught in the same net, because we've learned to pay less heed to IP editors and to overrule the !vote count. I think Lightburst might be taken aback by the extent of the changes to this place.—S Marshall T/C 14:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC) I think you'll find that the IP editors were not ignored in this discussion. There were responses to all of the IP participants except the one who wrote STOP DELETING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT. There were even discussions amongst IP editors. pburka (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC) This information is available in tables at List of former United States senators. I suggest changing lifespan to “age at death, lifespan”, to enable reader sorting by age at death. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Endorse - Either we, at DRV, are reviewing the closer's emphasis on strength of arguments, or the closer's attention to a vote count, or a combination of the two. The Keep arguments were extremely weak, and disregarding them was appropriate. If the closer had been relying primarily on a vote count, the closer should still have discounted IP votes to some extent, because the shifting of IP addresses and the use of multiple devices makes it impossible to ensure that the IP votes are all from different humans. Either way, it was a good close. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC) I think it is right to give IPs arms-length consideration at AfD. Either they are new and not well versed in Wikipedia standards, mainly Wikipedia-notability, or they are very probably violating WP:SOCK by editing project space while logged out. IP editors lack long term accountability, which is fine in mainspace where the edit is what matters, but is not ok in the back room processes. I disagree that Wikipedia is less engaging with genuine looking newcomers editing mainspace. If there is sense to their pattern of editing, and some kind of introduction on their Userpage, they get treated as a person. If they have a blue-linked but blank main userpage, and they edit like a WP:SPA, they are probably a WP:UPE using a throwaway account. I try talking to these accounts, but they won’t reply in flowing English, because, I have decided, the don’t want to give away personal style hints that will connect them to their main account. If Wikipedia is less engaging with newcomers, I think it is because there are so few genuine newcomers. And a large part of the reason is that genuine newcomers get sucked from mainspace into AfC where they are isolated and burned. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Comment this is largely turning into an off-topic discussion about Wikipedia philosophy, which is all well and good but has no place at a simple debate over reassessing a deleted article that consensus already seems clear about. I’d recommend taking this somewhere more appropriate if you’d like to discuss the implications of the deletion for Wikipedia culture and not the validity of the deletion itself. Dronebogus (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC) While I agree with the sentiment, this is a volunteer deliberative body that at its best identifies conflicts in Wikipedia policies and/or practices, a process which can, at its best, highlight needs for revision and generate discussion leading to RfCs. Honestly? That's probably the more important outcome than simply deciding whether a deletion is overturned or not. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 September 2021

Luca Soccer Club – Overturned to no consensus. Clearly this situation has become an unholy mess of procedural confusion and lack of clarity, between the multiple AFDs and DRVs. There is some support here for the notion that the second AFD could be allowed to stand on its own, with a numerical consensus for deletion, but overall I assess that the procedural concerns raised in the "overturn" !votes have the consensus here in this DRV. The feeling is that the second AFD was (a) out of process, as the first AFD should have been DRVd first, (b) tainted by a failure to notify participants in the first AFD, and (c) affected by the aborted DRV that took place simultaneously with it. There was also the view expressed by SmokeyJoe that the second AFD shouldn't have been closed as delete even by itself, given the GNG evidence presented. The overall decision is therefore amended to a no consensus, with the article restored, and I request that we let the dust settle with a period of at least two months without further AFDs. I further recommend that if editors do wish to renominate in future, they come with evidenced counterarguments to the keep !votes already presented, and make sure to notify everyone who participated already.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Luca Soccer Club (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 September 14 On 11 August, the community decided to keep this article in this AfD. On 12 September, Indianfootball98 nominated it for deletion again. On 14 September, Stalwart111 attempted to convert this very early renomination into a deletion review, which of course it should have been all along; but on 15 September, Spinningspark closed that deletion review on the basis that an AfD was ongoing. In my view Spinningspark's action there was poorly thought through, and it should have been the deletion review that continued, but I let that pass, assuming that in the circumstances, no proper closer could possibly find a "delete" consensus at the AfD. On 19 September, Fenix down did find a "delete" consensus at the AfD, and when challenged about this on his talk page, cited the ratio of "keeps" to "deletes" in what I see as disregard of the DGFA. This second AfD would benefit from close scrutiny, and I would particularly encourage those reviewing this decision to check the short contribution histories and low edit counts of the "delete" !voters. —S Marshall T/C 12:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn as hopelessly compromised by the procedural errors. Even if that weren't the case, a slew of early delete !votes who don't return to the AfD after further sources are posted should be discounted as not relevant to the sum total of sourcing. I note six initial deletes, most perfunctory, additional sources posted, and then 3-2 keep afterwards, leaving aside the legitimate procedural critiques. In other words, even if this were a brand new AfD, closing as delete with the sourcing discussion trajectory as it is would have been inappropriate; a relist would have been ideal, a no consensus/administrative close also within the realm of closer discretion since the AfD irregularity had been brought to light. But there is no WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS for deletion here, and the vastly different outcome even though the AfDs were both posted to all the same DELSORT lists suggests that some sort of inappropriate influence cannot be ruled out. Jclemens (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn the second AfD; do NOT allow another Afd; if desired, open another Deletion Review on the first AfD. What a mess! After the first Afd, immediately opening a second AfD was disruptive; perhaps that was through ignorance, but insisting it remain open was disruptive without excuse. Closing the deletion review as a procedural matter was a mistake, since the reason for the review was procedural error in the second AfD. By the time Fenix down got to the second AfD, they were put in an impossible position; no decision would have been any good. At this point, the best we can do is pretend the second AfD never happened, and that the first deletion review never happened. If someone is unhappy with the first AfD, open a new (third) Deletion Review. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse I absolutely disagree that the second AfD should have been a DRV, and I'm surprised to see people suggesting it. DRV is an appropriate venue for discussing procedural issues with deletion discussions, or mistakes made by closers. It's not a venue for discussing whether the subject is notable, and that's the concern the nominator of the second AfD had. If they had opened a DRV with that rationale they would have been told "DRV is not AfD round 2", so they opted to start AfD round 2 instead. While a month is rather soon to reopen the issue, the second AfD had far more participation and more detailed analysis of the sources, so I think it is a rather better discussion and the result should stand. Hut 8.5 07:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC) I certainly disagree with this. In the past, we've had to deal with editors whose attitude was: That consensus is wrong and the relistings will continue until this crap article is deleted. Most of them are topic-banned or site-banned now, because the community does take a dim view of rapid renomination, and rightly so.—S Marshall T/C 14:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC) I can definitely understand the view that the second AfD was inappropriate because of the short time between nominations, however I don't understand the advice to go to DRV instead. If we want to stop people renominating that soon then we should just tell them not to renominate so soon, rather than telling them to go to DRV. Hut 8.5 16:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Request temp-undeletion. Can we confirm whether everyone from AfD1 was notified of AfD2? If not, that alone is a reason to overturn. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC) No, that isn't a reason to overturn. There is no requirement for a new AFD to notify participants of an old AFD. While I would support doing that, it is actually quite rare for it to happen. SpinningSpark 08:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Yes it is, considering combination with the rapid renomination that is normally not ok. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Agree wth Smokeyjoe that it is a bit stealthy to relist without notifying those who have debated in good faith in the recent past. Not required but a bit stealthy nonetheless. Lightburst (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC) To reiterate: Yes, it is. Jclemens (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Link to the guideline that so requires that action please. SpinningSpark 16:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC) WP:NOTBURO and WP:BEANS. Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC) That just says to me that you agree that there is no such guideline. Citing pages that could just as easily be cited by the other side is meaningless other than confirming that you have no argument. SpinningSpark 12:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Request temp-undeletion. The consternation over a small new soccer club seems out of proportion. AfD2 has more quality input than AfD1, and it did already when the rapid renomination complaint occurred. Rapid renominations are a bad idea because they rarely develop the discussion, but this one did. Ideally, the AfD2 should be considered a continuation of AfD1. AfD1 participants should have been invited to participate in AfD2. Some did. The AfD2 closer, User:Fenix down, is remiss in not commenting on the "keep" "consensus" in AfD1. User:Fenix_down, could you make that comment now? Did you close of AfD2 consider all the arguments present in AfD1? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Request temp-undeletion. It is essential to see what the !voters were looking at, in both AfD1 and AfD2. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Done. I had seen your request but left it to others as I am a little involved here. SpinningSpark 12:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Thanks. It took me a long time to work out why you considered yourself involved. (the Sept 13 DRV close). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC) I wouldn't have thought soft undeletion is something that you need to worry about from an INVOLVED point of view. It's pretty much routine for contested AFDs where the result was delete, unless the DRV is so lacking in merit that it's not even worth continuing with it.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC) Endorse The question here is there are procedural errors that override the closure of the underlying AfD. The only procedural question I see is the strength of the guidance in the WP:RENOM essay. While I think the essay is quite good, the essay only provides a suggestion. Without any procedural errors, we must judge the underlying discussion. The strongest case for a relist was that the last five bolded keep/delete comments split 3-2 for keep. However, the last two were delete comments, so there was no clear trajectory of later comments. A closer should not discount early comments for being early, especially in this case where one editor quickly provided a detailed analysis of the sourcing used in the article. --Enos733 (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC) You're correct to refer to the rules, and you're correct to say that RENOM is an essay. For the guideline, please see the third limb of WP:PCLOSE: it says (lightly paraphrased) that hasty renominations that boil down to an objection about the outcome of a previous AfD should be procedurally closed (which means closed without result) and listed at DRV instead. This is what Stalwart111 did, and this is why I say that Spinningspark was wrong to reverse Stalwart111's action.—S Marshall T/C 10:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC) If that indeed was what the DRV nominator had done, that might well have been my action. But the DRV nomination was not challenging the outcome of a previous AFD, they actually supported that outcome. Rather, they were objecting to the opening of a second AFD. The correct procedure under those circumstances is to call for speedy close from within the AFD, not to open a DRV on a discussion that is still ongoing. That's for the simple reason that at that stage there is no decision to endorse or overturn. SpinningSpark 12:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC) I'm sorry, I'm really confused by this reply and I don't understand it at all. To me, Stalwart111's deletion review nomination seems mostly consistent with the third limb of WP:PCLOSE, except that Stalwart111 didn't actually close the AfD. He had the right idea though -- Stalwart111 was saying that if Indianfootball98 wanted to challenge the outcome of the previous AfD (which he did, from his AfD nom), then DRV was the place to do it. But that led to two parallel discussions happening at once. In my view, the correct way to regularize this would have been to procedurally close the AfD, not procedurally close the DRV. I've tried to follow the argument to the contrary and I can't see how it makes sense.—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC) It's quite simple. The order of events needs to be pclose AFD2, THEN open a DRV on AFD1. Now I accept your criticism that I could have closed it myself. I did not do so, because as I said in my DRV close, I would have felt uncomfortable closing a discussion that had become so well developed. By the way, no one referred to PCLOSE in either discussion. SpinningSpark 14:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Someone did indeed refer to PCLOSE, in this edit.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Not exactly. Mentioning procedural closure is not the same as referring to the guideline. That is, pointing out that the guideline has something significant to say regarding the case in hand. SpinningSpark 12:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC) People closing discussions should either know the rules, or else be willing to look them up. When we mention a guideline, it shouldn't be necessary tell the closer what that guideline says.—S Marshall T/C 14:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC) As I said, the guideline was not actually mentioned. I think you have an idealistic view of the superhuman abilities of administrators. Show me the administrator who knows every word of policy and guidelines off by heart and I'll resign immediately (besides which, the body of guidelines is edited on a daily basis). Contrary to what you say, AFD participants who want their arguments to be given weight by the closer need to explicitly say what guideline(s) they are arguing from. SpinningSpark 14:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC) How do you view that debate in the light of the guidelines that I've now told you about?—S Marshall T/C 16:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure which debate you mean. I wasn't responsible for closing AFD2 so no comment on that. I don't think it changes my close of DRV1 for the reasons I've already given. The nom called for AFD2 to be closed, not for AFD1 to be reviewed (they only said DRV is where the nom of AFD2 should go) and the only two bolded !votes were for speedy close because AFD2 was still ongoing. The debate had so thoroughly gone down that path that to try and force it back on to a PCLOSE#3 procedure would be either impossible or at best hopelessly confusing. Close and refocus was the only sensible course to my mind. SpinningSpark 16:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Had I simply come across the second AFD during a wander through the AFD logs I probably would have non-admin closed it as being out of process, with the suggestion that the nominator take their grievance here to DRV. But my involvement in the previous AFD (only a month earlier) would have made that a WP:BADNAC. So I didn't. Instead, I argued it should be closed (within the AFD, as suggested), and brought it here so that it could be highlighted as out of process and closed by an uninvolved admin. Unfortunately, the nature of football-related AFDs (and the related WikiProject) is that by the time anyone else saw it, there were already a slew of non-policy !votes for deletion. So DRV1 was closed before the AFD could be closed, but it is still absolutely the case that the AFD should have been closed. St★lwart111 01:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Yes, very BADNAC. So why not admin closure? Instead of closing it oneself procedurally as an involved non-admin, one could have asked an administrator to do it. The "unfortunately" part actually starts when an ongoing AfD can't be reviewed at DRV (and can't be effectively procedurally corrected under WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE by switching the venue to DRV because the reason for renomination is not DRV-worthy). — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Indeed, I asked a group of uninvolved admins with a working knowledge of deletion processes (right here) to do exactly that. St★lwart111 22:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC) I would note that the guideline in WP:PCLOSE describes an immediate renomination. To me, a month between AfDs does not feel "immediate." --Enos733 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn per Jclemens. NW1223(Howl at me|My hunts) 17:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn to null outcome Spent a long time debating this one. On one hand "it's just an essay" on the other hand, this is not behavior that AfD could really support. If there was something special about the prior AfD, fine. But there doesn't appear to be. We can't just keep doing this over and over until the delete side gets what they want (because the recreation bar is much higher than the "send it to AfD again" bar). And not just because "the delete side wins" but because AfD can't support having a redo every time someone doesn't like the result. Let's wait for WP:RENOM and then we can discuss it again. RENOM isn't always required, but there should be a darn good reason for when it's not. No such reason was given. Hobit (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse. I would disregard the procedural issues raised by the appellant with respect to the first AfD and DRV. In my view, it does not matter whether the closure of the first AfD and DRV was correct, because we have a more recent decision "on the merits" before us: the second AfD. It is this most recent closure that we should now review, and I see no benefit in reviewing earlier discussions. As to the second AfD, the appellant does not really substantiate why they believe it was wrongly closed. They are of the view that citing the ratio of "keeps" to "deletes" is a disregard of the WP:DGFA, but they do not explain why that is so. Numbers do matter to some extent in AfDs, in addition to the weight of the arguments advanced. The appellant also remarks on "the short contribution histories and low edit counts of the "delete" !voters", but in my view these edit counts are not so low as to suggest sock- or meatpuppetry, and I don't see why else these views should be discounted. A case for doing so could be made if their arguments were unfounded in policies and guidelines, but apart from one person ("the club is so irrelevant") that doesn't seem to be the case to me. For lack of a convincing reason to question the closer's judgment, I would not overturn their closure. Sandstein 14:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Additionally, with respect to the arguments about WP:RENOM above: Compliance with WP:RENOM (an essay, I note, and therefore a text of no particular authority) is an argument on the merits and belongs at AfD, not DRV. It would therefore have been an argument to make in the second AfD for keeping the article or closing the AfD without a result. That argument was indeed made by some in the second AfD, but did not obtain consensus. It is not for us at DRV to substitute our judgment for that of the AfD participants. Sandstein 14:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC) I must say, I do rather object to the characterization of this as "procedural issues". In rapid succession, we have the same discussion, different decision-makers, opposite results. In the circumstances, how can we possibly have confidence in our decision making processes?—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC) We can't, but we've never pretended that Wikipedia is good at consistent decision-making. Our decisions tend to be decided by whoever bothers to show up, which is often quite random. Sandstein 18:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC) If our decisions were random, and if it was acceptable to redo a discussion promptly after closure, then I could just keep re-starting the same discussion until my preferred outcome was reached. I have to ask: If the contributors to AfD #1 wanted their views to be given weight in the close of AfD #2, would they need to copy/paste them into the new AfD? Should I have pinged them all during AfD #2 so this could happen?—S Marshall T/C 09:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC) @S Marshall: Well, that's how AfDs work, for better or worse. The people who participate in them get to decide the outcome, but that outcome is not permanent: an article can be renominated if not deleted, or recreated if deleted. Pinging previous AfD participants is OK, as long as it is not done in an one-sided manner so as to amount to canvassing. If we want our deletion decisions to be consistent, we'd need to delegate them to a permanent Deletion Committee, but I don't think that there would be community consensus for that, and it wouldn't scale sufficiently to deal with the number of deletion requests we have. Sandstein 09:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Well, I don't see it quite that way. For as long as I've been editing, the community has always frowned on rapid renomination after a "keep" closure at AfD. I've been citing WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED as an argument to avoid since 2009, and indeed I see that that redirect was created in 2007. I do realize that WP:ATA is an essay and you're unimpressed by essays. I wonder whether we need an RfC to establish whether the community does frown on it.—S Marshall T/C 13:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC) That's peculiar, since I'm sure you've expressed distaste for WP:ATA on more than one occasion, such "One of the worst things about Wikipedia deletion processes is ATA, an essay that consists entirely of a list of things that some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say." in Dec 2019. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC) ATA does tell us what the community thinks about deletion discussions. It's true that I personally disagree with a lot of the thought behind ATA and I would love to deprecate large parts of it.—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC) @Sandstein: The slippery-slope argument is then "is it okay with you if many of our keep discussions result in an immediate relisting?". That seems like it has the potential to be quite disruptive. Would you be okay with delete outcomes also being immediately relisted and a "keep" outcome in those resulting in a restoration of the article? Hobit (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC) No, it would not be okay with me if many of our "keep" outcomes result in an immediate renomination (not relisting). That would be a waste of community time. But I'd say so in the overhasty second AfD, and if enough people agreed, the AfD would be closed as speedy keep. But that argument is one for AfD participants to make, and they did not do so here. It's possible to make the case that WP:RENOM should be a policy or guideline, but right now it is not, and so we should not pay it any heed here. With respect to a "delete" outcome being immediately contested, that is in fact possible even now: everybody is free immediately after a deletion to request draftification and to recreate the article; if it is sufficiently different from the deleted version (which is often very easy to do) it will need another AfD to delete. Sandstein 18:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse: Despite me making some procedural errors, the second AFD had clear consensus to delete the article. Indianfootball98 (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Overturn to null outcome: I would not disregard the procedural issues. WP:RENOM is very helpful here as it documents best practices -- no one here is saying that it doesn't. Saying that something is an essay doesn't answer the question of what the most opportune recourse is. Incidentally, the problem of too-soon renominations is addressed in a guideline: WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE: Nomination is an immediate objection to a prior deletion outcome. This nomination was an immediate objection to a prior deletion outcome. A possible correction is specified: List it at deletion review .... This correction is good when the objection as expressed in the deletion nomination itself is composed of arguments that would work at DRV... but when same reasons are classic deletion arguments, porting the discussion over to DRV would mean instant relitigating -- not a proper use of this venue. The reasons for renomination were that... "club fails NFOOTY". I mean... seriously? This immediate objection would not work at DRV so the aforementioned correction would not be a feasible solution. This makes the deletion discussion incorrigibly procedurally compromised, and the only proper way to close would have been a PROCEDURALCLOSE. Instead it was closed with a material finding of consensus, and it couldn't have been. This means that there were substantial procedural errors, and the close needs to be overturned. S Marshall says that during the previous DRV of this same AfD it should have been the deletion review that continued, and the AfD that was closed. I agree per above that the AfD should have been procedurally closed (not even contingent on a DRV close, but by any administrator who'd treat it as non-constructive in light of WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE and WP:RENOM), but also, that the DRV should have been speedily closed (as it was). So I'd have shut everything down, and told interested parties to wait, and to use the right venues if and when they have the right reasons. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC) That's a better argument than I made. +++. Hobit (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC) The question is whether and AfD made a month after the close of the first AfD is equivalent to "immediate" as described in WP:PCLOSE. I don't think the timing leads to a clear violation of the guideline and I don't see anything to indicate the nomination was in bad faith. --Enos733 (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC) I disagree that the second AfD was "incorrigibly procedurally compromised". It cannot be so for violating RENOM, because that page is an essay and therefore cannot establish correct renomination procedure in a manner that binds other editors. I agree that PCLOSE, as a guideline, is applicable to this case, but being a guideline rather than a policy, it can be overridden by local consensus, such as in an AfD. If editors had made PCLOSE-based arguments in the AfD, the closer would have been required to give such arguments considerable weight, but such arguments were made only by @S Marshall and @Stalwart111. I can't fault the second AfD closer for not giving these two (even if persuasive and guideline-based) opinions determining weight in the face of every other AfD participant who wanted to discuss the notability of the topic on its merits. I would therefore still not overturn the second AfD, even if I can now better see the argument for doing so. Sandstein 09:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Relist: I don't think the issue here, is the odd history of AFD/DRV/2nd AFD ... but that in the second AFD, that the close was premature, and should have been given at least another week. Saying that it should be deleted on a 9-3 vote, suggests that the closer has a fundamental misunderstanding how AFD works. WP:GAFD is clear it's not a vote, but a discussion. In that discussion of 9 "delete votes", 7 of them were right at the beginning, before any reasons to keep it were provided. Then there were 3 keep votes, followed by 2 more deletes, one of which seemed a bit pointy. None of the earlier 8 users who endorsed the delete, returned to the discussion after reasons to keep it were presented, other than Muur's non-sequitur. Consensus was never reached - particularly after the clear Keep AFD day's earlier. Another option is close as no consensus, with no prejudice against relisting. Nfitz (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC) It wasn't "AFD/DRV/2nd AFD ..." but AFD 1 / AFD 2 ongoing / DRV 1 / AFD 2 closed / DRV 2 (this). — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC) I was listing it by the closure sequence ... but that's not my point at all. My point was about the poor AFD2 closure. Nfitz (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Overturn (though I would think my opinion was obvious by now). Obviously I had a problem with the closer's vote-count (under the circumstances) and said so at his talk page. I would have brought this here myself were it not for the fact that I've been swamped with school holidays (vacation) activities. I brought it to DRV when the second AFD was first opened in the hope someone would close that second (out-of-process) AFD and review the original AFD instead (if that's what the nominator of the second AFD wanted). That discussion was closed. Fundamentally, those who expressed a view in favour of deletion cited WP:NFOOTY and the second AFD featured a disingenuous list of sources and whether or not they should be considered valid. But that list was deeply flawed and multiple people said so. On the other hand, multiple people provided sources to confirm the subject meets WP:GNG and given that WP:NFOOTY does not supersede that guideline, !votes that relied on WP:NFOOTY really hold no value. Add to that the personal attacks and WP:POINTY contributions from a couple of the !delete voters who had their unrelated AFD nominations SNOW closed elsewhere... the second AFD shouldn't have been opened, should have been closed when it was brought here the first time, and shouldn't have been closed as anything other than a result that aligned with the only policy-based arguments in the discussion. St★lwart111 01:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC) I suggest that a better procedure for dealing with an AFD that needs to be urgently closed would have been to request assistance at ANI rather than opening a DRV. SpinningSpark 12:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Absolutely this. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC) This is probably correct, but ANI is a cross between an eternal flame and dumpster fire, so I find it hard to fault any editor with a modicum of common sense for trying to find any other appropriate venue first. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Amen to that. One can always approach administrators individually of course, but a bit or work is needed to find one active at that moment. SpinningSpark 16:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Yes, I could have. But rather than asking an individual admin (to implement my personal desired outcome) I brought it here so that it could be reviewed impartially and so that any number of admins familiar with deletion and related procedure (and uninvolved with either AFD) could action a close. But that idea was rejected. Bureaucracy is a wonderful thing. St★lwart111 22:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Overturn (no consensus, and procedurally compromised). AfD2 is not a strong consensus, and the closing statement is inadequate. There were persuasive "Keep" !votes, Henriklars (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2021 makes an analysis of the sources, and was persuasive to many. However, Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2021, offered five sources, and of these #2,3,4 are good enough. Henriklars source analysis is criticised, but Nfitz's is not. St★lwart111 and Eastmain also make good "keep" !votes. The closer's perfunctory statement implies a strong consensus, which there is not. The procedural irregularity, loudly complained about during the process, may have poisoned the discussion. End the end, the discussion was poor, key sources were not discussed. There are multiple reasons for why quick relisting is discouraged. One of them is that an AfD discussion so soon after the previous one tends to be of lower quality. This happened here. A lot more words were posted, but few of the words were directing to why the best sources weren't good enough. Overturn to "no consensus", and follow WP:RENOM and do not allow a fresh AfD nomination until at least two months after the close of this DRV discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC) At the time when Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 September 14#Luca Soccer Club was open, it "looked" like AfD2 was proceeding with a quality that eclipsed AfD1. However, after the close of that DRV discussion, AfD2 went downhill. I don't fault the close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 September 14#Luca Soccer Club, but the failure of that action to top AfD2 should not be read as an endorse of the too soon AfD2. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 September 2021

Timothy J. Edens – Resolved: closer has reverted their own closure. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Timothy J. Edens (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) Complicated AFD that should not be closed by a non-Admin, discussion should have been extended and only an Admin should close Mztourist (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Mztourist, if you want it undone that's fine. I have no objections to letting an admin close it. Can we just revert my edits to undo the close? ––FormalDude talk 06:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC) FormalDude I really don't know the process, I assume you can just undo it. thanks Mztourist (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC) No problem, Mztourist. I've undone my closure and the AFD is now open again. ––FormalDude talk 06:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 September 2021

Pedimental sculptures in Canada – This is a classic case of a BADNAC with a terrible close summary, and as per Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions ("Closures may only be reopened...by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning") and the ever-growing consensus below, I am going to vacate this close and close it as no consensus, with no prejudice against immediate re-nomination, due to the procedural irregularities within the original AfD. (I do not see 'relisting' as a viable alternative, as much as I believe it would be the best course of action, due to the nature of AfD1 - hence the 'no prejudice to immediate re-nomination' statement.) I also note Extraordinary Writ's comments regarding this particular closer, and encourage the community to provide relevant education, or alternatively consider restrictions, to reduce the frequency and/or severity of any future disruption caused by BADNACs. Daniel (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Pedimental sculptures in Canada (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This discussion was closed with a non-admin closure. Due to the extensive canvassing that took place as well as quite a contentious discussion, I think this discussion should have been closed by an experienced admin. I asked the closing editor to re-open the discussion but they have defended their close as is their right. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Adding to above: the closer did give their reasoning behind the closing but a simple vote tally is not the optimal method at the best of times never mind when there has been inappropriate canvassing. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Reopen. This AfD was too complicated for non-admin closure. I was also considering bringing it to delrev. pburka (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC) This was pretty clearly ineligible for a non-admin closure given its controversy and complexity, but the actual outcome is very much defensible. In such cases, the most efficient resolution would be for any uninvolved admin to reclose the AfD per WP:NACD, thereby resolving the process issue. (I doubt a well-reasoned keep closure by a sysop would be challenged.) If that doesn't happen, count me as a !vote to vacate the close, but a speedy reclosure would be the best outcome. (By the way, this isn't the first time DRV has seen this particular non-admin making difficult-to-defend NACs. There's precedent for topic-banning users from AfD closures, so that might be an option if the situation continues. If your closures are being regularly overturned at DRV, that's a pretty good sign that you need to slow way down.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn the BADNAC due to the appalling wording of their close that does nothing to reflect the complexity of the discussion or to give confidence of process to people reading it later. The discussion is somewhere between "Keep" and "No consensus", it can't be stretched to a "delete", and further immediate discussion turning the tread is improbable. If you think it should be deleted, see WP:RENOM. In the meantime, at worst it is innocuous, causing no harm. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Whilst I agree it was inappropriate for a non-admin to close the discussion, there is no possible way it could have closed as delete. As the distinction between keep and no-consensus is not, in this context, important, I would say no action. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Re-close. Could some sensible admin (or any admin if need be) simply re-close the AfD and avoid any continuation of that appalling discussion? Thincat (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn and either relist or reclose, and leave to an experienced closer. Closers have a responsibility to actually read a discussion and provide a concise summary of the main arguments, and Peter303x's five-word straight-up head count is a very long way off from meeting that standard. As a delete voter I'm not convinced this is not a "delete" result or a consensus to reuse this content in a more appropriate format: while the numeric count is nearly 3:1 an experienced closer would disregard many of the "keep" !votes which were plainly "I like it" or "they worked hard on it" rather than any argument addressing the list's encyclopedic suitability, and discounting those comments makes this a much more interesting discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Reclose. Disclosure, I started the article in question. If there's any procedural error here, it's the too-short description of the discussion by the closer. Why not ask the closer if they're willing to reopen, elaborate with 3 or 4 more sentences on the discussion and their conclusion, and reclose. This would also have the value of providing supportive feedback to the closer, who shows every sign of having good faith and being responsive to criticism.--Lockley (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC) This already happened as stated above. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC) User:Lockley. The closer User:Peter303x was asked on his talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC) I understand. My suggestion was different -- to give the closer a chance to develop and insert a sufficient description, as a fix -- but I withdraw that suggestion. Better to get an admin and keep this process straightforward.--Lockley (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn - having contributed to the discussion, I can't see any possible way a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT and canvassed keep !votes could result in keep, especially given the absolute absence of policy-based justification for that result. That it is WP:OR that people have worked hard on is no reason to keep something that only appears here on Wikipedia. I suspect this was the result only because the closer doesn't have the toolset for deletion. St★lwart111 04:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Vacate the Close - I would recommend that the admin closer Relist the discussion, but would be satisfied with a Keep or a No Consensus. I mostly concur with User:Stalwart that the closer Kept because they don't have the toolset for deletion, but that is a known issue with non-admin closes in general. (A non-admin could theoretically close a delete and tag a G6, but that would be reviewed by the admin, and so would be a pointless exercise.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Reclose - This should have been closed by an administrator. AfD's that are complex with extended discussion like this one, requires a deep understanding of process and policy on the part of the closer and should not be closed by a non-admin. I agree that the outcome would likely be Keep or No Consensus. Netherzone (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Reclose by an administrator. Like others, I do think it would be a stretch to close as delete as there are strong policy-based arguments on both the keep and delete side. --Enos733 (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mahmoud Shoolizadeh – Deletion endorsed, article will be draftified with encouragement to return this to mainspace via AfC. Further encouragement for the person who ultimately reviews it at AfC to read this entire discussion, considering this is a more nuanced case than normal. Daniel (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mahmoud Shoolizadeh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This more than 14 year old article regarding a film director was nominated for deletion because of limited sources about the director in Persian language (his native language) since he was assumed to be Persian. However, this is a director who is currently working and residing in the United States and has no current activity in Persian language, with all recent activity being in English as evidenced in the article's many sources. After nomination for deletion, there was no consensus or any opinion after one week, two weeks, or three weeks. After four weeks the article was deleted due to two "weak delete" opinions. I got in touch with the admin who did the deletion but he did not provide any particular advice, simply stating that there is nothing he can do due to the "consensus" which was probably not a strong enough consensus for a meaningful decision. I also got in touch with the colleague who nominated the article for deletion who was helpful, provided useful advice, and stated that he is open in assisting with improvements if needed. Although there is clearly room for improvement for the article in many ways, some simple help, research, and editing would save the article from being completely deleted. Thank you. Side note: For full disclosure, it has been stated elsewhere that I'm related to the subject, which is true, but although I created the article 14 years ago (which in hindsight should not have been done by me) I have disclosed everything with full transparency and have deliberately stayed out of giving or swaying any opinions on deletion discussions, and I believe it may be unfair if an article got deleted only because the original creator 14 years ago was me. Thanks again. Pouya sh (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn I don't say this lightly, but all the evidence that GNG is met is right there in the AfD. The two !voters list the references, and then mischaracterize them: When one newspaper (the Florida Times-Union) runs two articles on one subject seven years apart that's two RS, not one. The Brunswick News is also referenced, but inexplicably discounted. That's 3 RS about the director already in the article (I think?) and one more that focuses on the work. The !voters also note that his work has won awards... and yet come to the conclusion that doesn't contribute at all to the notability of the director just because a specific SNG is not met? TL;DR the close was correct but the outcome was wrong because both !voters were wrong. Send it back for a new discussion if anyone wants. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Per the analysis of Jclemens I would restore the article as though the AFD had reached no consensus. No fault to the closer who would have been criticised for "supervoting" had he closed in any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse. Couldn't have been closed any other way. If you disagree with the (weak) consensus to delete, the best way to proceed is to request undeletion to userspace or draftspace. WP:REFUND would surely do this, although they would surely refuse REFUND to mainspace. Once in draftspace, fix the stuff criticised at the AfD. As you are connected to the subject, you are required to use WP:AfC, and to not boldly move it to mainspace yourself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Wow, hard one. Folks looked at the sources, which seem to plainly meet the GNG, and concluded that they don't. Both are reasonable and experienced editors. I hate to overturn them because as much as I disagree with them they are obviously informed opinions and that's how AfD should work. I'm leaning toward "contact them both and ask if they stand by their !votes" after some additional thought. If they do then I'd (sadly) endorse. Hobit (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC) That’s right. DRV is not AfD2. If the participant and the process and the close were all not at fault, then DRV should uphold the AfD. To recover from mistakes, or to work from a better presentations, or especially to review in light of COI issues, the answer is clearly REFUND to draftspace and work through AfC. Invite the AfD participants, sure. What DRV should not do is micromanage the boundary cases. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Yep. Still a very strange discussion. I've no idea why the !voters claimed the sources weren't enough for WP:N. The problem is that AfC can't improve sourcing if that's all the sourcing there is. Do you object to pinging the contributors to see if they stand by those !votes? Hobit (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC) The problem with allowing the decision to stand is G4. At the very least a clearly wrong deletion discussion like this should be "soft" overturned to a soft delete. WP:NOTBURO applies. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC) G4 is moot, because the proponent has a COI and is required to use AfC. Acceptance by an AfC reviewer (should) confer G4-immunity. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Unlikely an AfC reviewer would approve an article that was deleted for notability without sources beyond what was in the original... Hobit (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Any editor in good standing, without a COI, can mainspace a draft. If no AfC reviewer or other editor in good standing without COI is willing to do this, then it stays deleted. What’s the role of DRV here? Except to ENDORSE the process? Personally, I disagree the the sources meet the GNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC) One role is to act as a counter for systemic bias. Had this guy been another ethnicity, would his contributions have been treated this way? I am sufficiently uncomfortable with this deletion that I would happily help the AfC or mainspacing process. It's one thing to believe the outcome is correct--you do, I do not--but I have serious reservations about the net effect of the process, without positing any intentional bias or maleficence on anyone's part, to marginalize this gentleman. He's not a wannabe self-promoter trying to get a career started by gaming Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Believe it or not, I am unaware of the ethnicity issue here. On checking, I see he is American-Iranian, which I consider quite unremarkable. When this DRV closes, it would be entirely proper for you to mainspace the draft, if you believe in it. I just don't think DRV should mainspace the draft, because there is no clear cut error. I do not "believe the outcome is correct", but I see it as "not obviously incorrect". Thorough source analysis is tedious, and I have not done it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Fair enough; my apologies for mischaracterizing your position. I don't know that Iranian-Americans are particularly dis'ed intentionally by Wikipedia as a whole, but when there's a marginal case that goes against such an individual, I'm more inclined to work harder to provide appropriate representation. Jclemens (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Weak endorse and allow recreation via AfC. The delete !votes are certainly questionable, but I don't think they're so far outside the realm of reason as to justify discounting them. If you want to try again via AfC that's fine, and I'd encourage the AfC reviewer to be a bit more lenient than in ordinary cases of recreation. But DRV is for process issues, and it takes a truly extraordinary case to justify overturning an AfD on grounds of substance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 September 2021

Qatalog – There is a consensus that WP:CSD#G11 did not apply. The article is now at Draft:Qatalog and AmirahBreen is welcome to move it to article space if they wish. – Joe (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Qatalog (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I have discussed the deletion with both the admin who deleted the page and the editor who placed the deletion requests. The admins response to asking them why they deleted the page was unhelpful to me. 'Only about 32000 results when googling "Qatalog" does not make it notable here'. This does not tell me anything. The page actually had some very good reliable independent sources with significant coverage and I considered it notable. It doesn't help anybody if an admin who deletes a page won't even give an decent helpful explanation for why they did so when asked. The editor who placed the deletion request was more helpful, at least in explaining why they found the page promotional. They also said that they would have no objection if I wished to request the page was put back to draft so that I may edit it to improve it. If it were put back to draft I would certainly also like to double check why the sources were not considered sufficient for notability, and would not attempt to republish it until that is properly addressed as well as making sure the article is in a non-promotional tone. Amirah talk  Done undeleting the page and moved to Draft:Qatalog--Jusjih (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Bad G11. Would probably be deleted at WP:AfD. It has been draftified. Let the author move it back to mainspace if they think it is ready for WP:AfD. Read WP:NSOFTWARE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn speedy and send to AfD if anyone wants. WP:GHITS cuts both ways. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Leave in Draft as restored. I haven't checked the references, but it looks very much like another corporate draft that I would decline with the template, {{compsays}}. The references usually turn out either to be independent but not significant, or to look significant but not be independent (and so be of no value). I haven't declined it because it isn't submitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn and list as desired. I think G11 wasn't crazy and I could probably endorse that. But the closing admin's comments on his talk page has nothing to do with G11. I think the topic is probably notable with [1] seeming to be the best source. That said, the creator's recent history of article creations strikes me as things that one could get paid to create and run a weird set of topics. @AmirahBreen: could you address if you have any COI with respect to this company? Hobit (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC) No, I don't have a COI. Even if my recent topics seem weird to you, not everyone thinks the same. I have simply been branching out into new topic areas which I am not so familiar with and trying to progress with my understanding of new page criteria. It does not help simply to brand my editing as COI with no evidence of that. I created the page because I felt the topic was notable too, if I hadn't I wouldn't have created the page. If it is not notable then I need to understand why so as not to make the same mistake in the future. Articles should not be deleted under G11 if they are notable and can be rewritten, that is why I am contesting the deletion. Amirah talk 18:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 September 2021

Cultus Deorum (Modern Religion) – Closure endorsed. Daniel (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cultus Deorum (Modern Religion) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The closer did not properly address concerns raised over WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, & WP:HOAX. The reason why a title could not be found is because the article is essentially an original synthesis. At the very least this article should have been draftified until a proper delimited title was found and OR and SYNTH removed. 4meter4 (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC) As I stated on my talk page when this close was challenged; concerns over synthesis were not elaborated upon; several participants made substantive arguments that the broader phenomenon of Roman Pagan cults being revived was notable; at least one scholarly source in the article was pointed to, and not rebutted; and article titles do not necessarily have exist verbatim in reliable sources, when they are neutrally describing a phenomenon that is also covered by reliable sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC) It's not overwhelming me with its sources, I've got to say. I mean, those are good sources but none of them are specifically about Roman neo-paganism, are they? It does look quite a lot like a novel synthesis to me.—S Marshall T/C 00:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC) I read No consensus on deletion; rename, and the rename was a WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, and was done well. On the title, continue at Talk:Revival of Roman paganism#Poll for a new title. On deletion, see WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse WP:HOAX isn't just for things that someone can't believe, because there are indeed a bunch of ridiculously strange things on Wikipedia, but requires proving (to a certain standard of proof) a hoax; even if the article was problematic, sources identified suggested it reflected a real phenomenon in some manner. WP:SYNTH AKA WP:OR (seriously; they're the same thing) applies to particular article content; if it can be verified or removed it can be solved through regular editing. It would only become a deletion issue if the entire topic were OR/SYNTH, or if there was otherwise no way to improve the article away from OR/SYNTH, otherwise ATD applies, which is precisely what I understand the closer to be saying here: There's evidence this thing exists, but this probably isn't the best name for it. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Jclemens, when you say “this probably isn't the best name for it ”, do you mean the prior or the current name? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC) I'm agreeing with the closer's sentiments that based on the discussion this apparently real phenomenon is best described using another name; I have no opinion as to what name that might be. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC) I looked at the history of titles for this page, and they were broadly terrible. I support the closer's NOGOODOPTIONS-justified choice of Revival of Roman paganism, subject to a formal RM and clear consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse - a reasonable close under the circumstances. My only hesitation is that there will be an appetite to renominate this and going though the motions of a renaming discussion only for that discussion to give reasonable justification for renominating it for deletion seems pointlessly bureaucratic. Given that seems an inevitable outcome, perhaps someone should just be bold, rename the article, and renominate it for deletion so that sources can be properly assessed in the context of a title that better reflects the idea (which is worthwhile, synthesis or not). St★lwart111 02:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC) No. RENOM gives two months moratorium on renomination, which is enough time to discuss the title, the title concerns are a major reason for the unstated “no consensus on deletion”. DO NOT encourage a bold rename. The closer already did that reasonably, and if you look at the long history of the article, you’ll see a history of many unsuccessful bold renames. There is no uncontroversial rename to be done. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC) I did, and my comment above should have had a question mark rather than a full stop. It was a genuine question. But I understand the reasons for not doing so too. I still think we should generally avoid pointless bureaucracy, but if there is support for a little bit of bureaucracy in the hope it will produce a better outcome, I'm not opposed to it. And I concede WP:BOLD is probably the wrong thing to invoke if reversion is a certainty. St★lwart111 04:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse. Vanamonde probably didn't do themselves any favours with the waffly closing statement and invoking IAR for no reason, but the outcome is still correct. The purpose of AfD is to decide whether an article should be deleted and there is clearly no consensus to delete this article. What its name ought to be is a subsidiary issue best left to the talk page. As for the nomination here, it's a little rich to criticise a closer for not "properly considering" your three-word !vote. If you thought the article was irretrievable SYNTH or OR, you should have made a case for that in the discussion. – Joe (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC). Quite right, laugh. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus; renaming was not discussed or supported enough in the AFD to close that way. This will not prevent a rename taking place following discussion on the talk page or pursuant to WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC) It was though; Ealdgyth, Chiswick Chap, and Æo all clearly suggested renaming, and their arguments were more substantive than those of the "delete" side. Even if you argue there wasn't clear consensus to rename, there certainly was consensus against deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC) No there wasn't. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse. I probably would have closed it as NC, or maybe relisted this for another week, but I can't find much to object to with the actual close. The only really important decision a closer has to make is whether to delete or not, and I don't see how this could have been closed as delete. I certainly would have down-weighted the "Simply not notable at all" argument from a user with 87 edits. And "Delete as WP:SYNTH" with nothing to explain why it's synth isn't the best of arguments either. I note that this has already been renamed, to Revival of Roman paganism. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ismael Belkhayat – List at AfD. Either endorsing the speedy or listing at AfD would be defensible. I'm going with the later partly because it's the more conservative option, and partly because it will produce a more authoritative outcome, whichever way it goes. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ismael Belkhayat -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ismael Belkhayat (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) See also: Chari.ma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sarouty.ma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is a moroccan entrepreneur page. While creating it I made sure to be written in a neutral point of view and not to have a promotional tone. All the press sources are quality ones (if you have an idea about moroccan medias you'll agree with me). Most of them are in french language, but there are also some in english and arabic (and no Wikipedia policy requires english references). I don't see any reason for deletion. I discussed with the deleting admin and she referred me to this deletion review page without giving any explanation. Art&football (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse. Speedy deletion was not done outside of the criteria, and it is disputed as being outside of the criteria (I don't see any reason for deletion). Administrator acted within discretion. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Hello Alalch Emis (talk · contribs) I just need an explanation for this. Sources are independant and in-depth. No promotional style. Why do you see it's not done outside the criteria? Honestly, did you check the article?--Art&football (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC) In reply to your question of Why do you see it's not done outside the criteria?, it is because the deleter cited WP:G11, while finding that there is "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Since G11 says that an article can be speedily deleted when it involves unambiguous advertising or promotion, a speedy deletion done based on a finding of unambiguous advertising or promotion means that it was done based a relevant criterion. Whether promotion is ambiguous or not is something an administrator decides. Whether there is promotion at all so that it could be deemed ambiguous or not is maybe something that can be questioned, and I would say that there is certainly an appearance of promotion, for the following reason: In relation to the substantiveness of content, the quantity and quality (at a first glance) of references looks like WP:REFBOMB. This is characteristic of promotional articles. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you for explaining and clarifying. However, I already know the given reason for the speedy deletion but what I contest is the reason itself. Where did the deleting admin see an unambiguous promotion in the article? Every honest editor here that can check the article will say that there is nothing promotional ! Also, you said <<there is certainly an appearance of promotion>> and that shows that you're not sure and I'm sure there is nothing promotional there. And, if there is nothing promotional, the page shouldn't be deleted ! And you shouldn't vote endorse ! Really, I can't understand !--Art&football (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse as providing a clear WP:REFBOMB signature for a new article by a fairly new editor. Although the article doesn't contain promotional language, it comes across as a CV intended for publicity purposes, with a list of references (many of them redundant and unnecessary) that appears to be there in such quantities for the purpose of giving the subject the appearance of notability. @Art&football: what is your association with that subject? Is it you or someone you know, or someone who hired you to write the article? Nevertheless, after looking at some of the sources I think this is salvageable. @Athaenara: if it's OK with you, I am willing to restore this to draft space provided the author agrees to submit it for review and refrain from moving it to main space. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Hello Anachronist (talk · contribs) First of all, I have no connection with the subject. Second, I have chosen to insert different sources for each info so the editor who doesn't understand arabic for example can read the english or french press article. And they are all quality and not put to show coverage or to create a superficial appearance of notability ! I hope you've understood.--Art&football (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC) I made no judgments about the sources; that's a concern for notability, which isn't the issue here and not the reason for deletion. I stand by my view that it came across as a refbombed CV. You don't need three citations on a single short sentence about a single mundane fact. In one case I saw you had four. Just one quality source is needed to verify a single assertion. Just as you can spoil a gourmet culinary dish by adding too much of one ingredient, you can spoil an article with redundant sources. While English is preferred, the language doesn't really matter. If the article is restored to draft space, your task would be to cull out the redundant citations to leave only the best ones. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC) You should be rather... happy about the pending offer to move this article to draftspace, and take it as a very serious, and by far the most plausible, path for this article to ultimately (conditions being met) be kept. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Anachronist (talk · contribs) I made several sources for each info as I'm really sure that there are reviewers who can delete the page just because they don't understand french or arabic. This happened to me before.--Art&football (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Can we get a temp undelete, please? Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Jclemens (talk · contribs) I hope so. Athaenara (talk · contribs) can we, please?--Art&football (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC) This would just be a process for evaluation so non-admins can see how promotional the tone was. It's not really like a reversal. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC) {{Temporarily undeleted}} per requests here. – Athaenara ✉ 04:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Speedy list at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC) On review of the temp-undeleted version. It look and reads like a CV, so I understand the G11. It is heavily WP:Reference bombed. Given so many references, it is usually better to send to AfD. The existence of the native language Wikipedia article, fr:Ismael_Belkhayat, I think should be a rule to use AfD. At AfD, it may very well be deleted, but AfD discussions have purpose beyond just deciding whether to delete or not. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC) As a notice prominently displayed on my talk page says, "ANY reliable administrator is free to reverse ANY administrative action I have taken, whether page protection, page deletion, user block, or anything else." I meant it when I wrote it and I mean it now :-) – Athaenara ✉ 03:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC) The response at User talk:Athaenara#Explanation fails WP:ADMINACCT#“Failure to communicate”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC) (As "Explanation" was an unclear section heading, that discussion is now located at User talk:Athaenara/Archive 15#Ismael Belkhayat.) – Athaenara ✉ 06:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC) 07:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Speedy list at AfD per SmokeyJoe. I agree about the reference bombing, cross-language article, and that AfD is a better venue to hash it all out. I agree it's a borderline G11, I do not agree it is unambiguous. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC) @Jclemens: I don't believe AFD is the right venue and would waste the community's time. I think it should be draftified for improvement, as I suggested above. The subject appears to be notable, and AFD is basically a referendum on notability, so AFD would simply confirm the notability of the topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Comment: I think listing at AfD is an excellent idea, and I think also I should undelete two other articles Art&football created on the same day (00:33, 15:11, and 22:59 UTC, 16 September) for Belkhayat companies: Chari.ma and Sarouty.ma. It was the Sarouty page, which had been tagged for speedy {{db-g11}} deletion, which drew my attention to Art&football's pattern of editing promotional pages about commercial subjects of marginal notability. I felt at the time that all three pages should go: they came in as a package deal, they should leave the same way. – Athaenara ✉ 05:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC) (I mean for inclusion of course in the "Speedy AfD" suggested above.) – Athaenara ✉ 06:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Hello, you just should've said it when I asked twice in your talk page but you preferred not to explain. Anyway, I expected this way of thinking. However, you should know that when I finished the entrepreneur page, I saw that 2 of his companies were also eligible, so I said why not? (especially I like writing about this field). Also, I don't agree with the "marginal notability". This is only your point of view. Thanks anyway!--Art&football (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Also, can you tell me why did you blank the entrepreneur page please? Thanks in advance--Art&football (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC) It's standard practice with temporary undeletions for the purposes of deletion review discussions on the English language Wikipedia. – Athaenara ✉ 12:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC) The image in the deleted article is a copyvio of the one from this page and needs to be removed during the AfD. The article is flagged as a rough translation from French, which is accurate. Many of the references listed are of poor quality. At the AfD, Art&Football should be ready to explain why he thinks sources like this are reliable. In my view its chances of surviving AfD are not very good.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Agree. One can get too serious about image copyvio. Commons have a process, let that process play out. See commons:File:Ismael_Belkhayat.jpg. It's 2 or 3 days into their 7 day process. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Hello S Marshall (talk · contribs), Thanks for sharing your opinion. First, about the link, I'm really sure that when you saw MediaMarketing as a title in the link you shared, you automatically thought that it's promotional. I can ensure that it isn't. This offline and online magazine gives regurarly short bios like this about moroccan CEOs and entrepreneurs. Second, this source isn't reliable ? Like many in the article? Third, all sources are from independant and trusted medias in Morocco (LeMatin, Lesecos, Lesiteinfo, L'economiste, Finance News Hebdo...I hope you've a moroccan friend to ask:) Fourth, I found several other sources but didn't insert them as they are not reliable...I'm aware of the importance of sources. Fifth, we'll see in the AfD.--Art&football (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Good to know someone is checking these things, S Marshall. The current image with that name is tagged for deletion on Commons and a check of "what links here" there turns up the talk page of a now-blocked user who had previously uploaded it in March this year. I agree with SmokeyJoe about letting the Commons process play out. – Athaenara ✉ 12:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Even more interesting, at Commons:User talk:MehdiKass#Deleted content, Chari.ma, DizzyDiddy, and Abdou diop show up: they're all in Art&football's editing history here on the English language Wikipedia as well. Please, @Art&football: can you tell us, was MehdiKass another account you used? Was User talk:MehdiKass your talk page locally? – Athaenara ✉ 13:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Not at all. I found him editing a morocco related page and I discovered he is moroccan too so I checked his contributions. --Art&football (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Send the bio to AfD It is primarily descriptive, and does not use promotional language, so it not a speedy G11--though it is significantly promotion. I see no point in sending it to Draft--on the available information, he is not notable. Endorse speedy for Chari.ma and Sarouty.ma, which I think are hopeless. And send to spi for the relationship between this user and MediKass, (who is already blocked for using WP for advertising) DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 September 2021

File:Ap munich905 t.jpg – Deletion endorsed. No support for a potential exception to Wikipedia's copyright treatment, and consensus that this deletion was in line with copyright law. (non-admin closure) Jclemens (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Ap munich905 t.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) This photograph was published by the Associated Press without a US copyright notice. When it's file is not public domain in Germany, it is ineligible to upload on Commons. Commercial photo agency were strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, according to WP:NFC#UUI. 49.150.116.127 (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Ok, a couple aspects to this. Being published without a copyright notice isn't enough by itself to be public domain the US; it also had to have either been first published in the US, or out of copyright in its country of origin before 1996. The onus is on you to show all aspects of that; I can't find any such claims. Publication by the AP without copyright notice, and first publication in the US (given that it was taken by a German photographer in Germany), both seem quite unlikely to me. In the much more probable case that it isn't PD, the image itself is going to need to be the subject of sourced commentary in the article, as UUI (which you've helpfully already linked) #7 says. All the article said before the image was removed was that it was "one of the most reproduced photos taken during the siege", which really isn't sufficient, and neither of the sources it cited even said that. (This poor source, for example, does, though.) Low-effort googling doesn't turn up much else that's usable; there's the recently-offline time.com version of the book that Deadspin cites, and two pages in this that I can't view. In any case, I can't help thinking it'd be excluded from our article as undue weight anyway. —Cryptic 11:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC) I think it's suitable enough for public domain, although by the Associated Press photographer Kurt Strumpf. Unlike other images by the Associated Press featuring a running Vietnamese girl (File:The Terror of War.jpg) during Vietnam War. --49.150.116.127 (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Regarding "I think", yes that's precisely the problem. I'd like to see you provide some proof/citations supporting your claims; your thoughts and opinions do not trump the law, and Cryptic has already provided a fairly detailed analysis above. -FASTILY 21:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC) While DRV is not AfD round two, image and copyright issues do tend to be a specialized topic area, so pinging Keith Edkins, Whpq, Fastily for input. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse The image belongs to the Associated Press and is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion WP:CSD#F7 as a non-free photo from a commercial source. For non-admins: image, description -FASTILY 20:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Is it okay to upload this photograph on Commons? --49.150.116.127 (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC) No. Commons does not accept non-free images. -FASTILY 23:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC) As a purely procedural point, uploading this to pastebin and imgur seems nutty. Why not just temp-undelete, and if you're that worried about it being displayed on pages while at DRV, either temporarily add it to MediaWiki:Bad image list or upload a placeholder image over it and protect? —Cryptic 07:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse. The file was originally uploaded under fair use and the discussion clocked it for its shortcomings regarding WP:NFCC. The argument that this image is in the public domain is shrouded in doubt, so this can not be restored without evidence of such licensing terms. We can not assume a free license and hope for the best. ✗plicit 01:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC) So I've been giving this more thought, and I've been getting more and more uncomfortable with how this was deleted. The 2021 FFD is brief and based almost entirely on the non-free use rationale not matching its current use in the article. The previous FFD, for all that it was in 2007, was better attended and more thorough. In particular, it analyzes NFCC#2 in detail; the 2021 just asserts it fails, without any kind of backup. Of greater concern is that, just before the first FFD was closed, the nominator replaced the existing, nuanced rationale with what appears in the ==Fair use rationale for Munich massacre== section it was eventually deleted with, which is entirely generic except for its repeated emphasis that the image was being used in ways it wasn't. They even acknowledged that in their edit summary, "adding what would be a valid fair use rationale"; and then doubled down by edit warring on the image description page for a week. How they got out of it without an indef block I can't begin to guess. Now, DRV doesn't usually take notice of 14-year-old deletion discussions, and we've become more strict about usage of images in particular. I still don't think that the ten words in the image caption that were specifically about this image are quite enough to justify non-free use. I can certainly see a modest expansion being sufficient, though, especially if what the Deadspin article says is true. (I have no reason to think it isn't, though the offline sources it cites in turn should be checked directly. I wouldn't consider it a reliable source in itself, though we do link to it about 1200 times from mainspace, so what do I know.) So I guess where I'm standing now is to leave the image deleted, but not allow this FFD to stand in the way of restoring or reuploading the photo if more discussion specifically about it is included in Munich massacre or some other article. Jclemens pinged the participants of the 2021 discussion; I'm going to do the same for those of the 2007 one who've edited in the past year. I think @El C, Howcheng, Nv8200pa, Quadell, Raul654, and WilyD: is everybody. —Cryptic 07:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Assuming that the copyright situation hasn't changed, my reasoning is still the same as it was back then. Use of the image is allowable only if we are discussing the image itself and its impact on society or culture. If it were included in the article without any commentary, then its inclusion would only be decorative. —howcheng {chat} 07:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC) I tried to figure out what 2007 discussion is being referenced here, but it remains a mystery to me. Regardless, I don't think it's really possible to have a reasoned discussion about image copyright on the project, so I decline to participate. El_C 10:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC) The 2007 discussion is here. Hut 8.5 17:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse there is no evidence that the image is in the public domain, and the burden of proof for showing that is on those who want to use it in Wikipedia. As has been noted the fair use rationale was not nearly enough to justify using an image from a press agency, WP:NFC#UUI expects that the image be the subject of sourced commentary in the article, all the article had was an unsourced statement that it was an often reproduced image. Hut 8.5 16:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse. A straightforward proper deletion. Free content is important. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse. Insufficient evidence that the image is free; this would need to be proven and the burden of proof is on those looking to include it. To the extent the image might be fair-use, it is likely to interfere with commercial opportunities for the image and fail NFCC on that ground (though this hasn't been argued in FFD so I mention it as an observation only). Stifle (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 September 2021

PROIV – The result was overturned. There is a consensus that the second nomination, so soon after the first, did not follow the deletion process properly. – Joe (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
PROIV (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) DRVPURPOSE: (5) Per In my view the the key most important root cause of issue with this XfD was its raising with 24 hours of the good faith closure of the previous XfD by Daniel without, to my knowledge, referral to Daniel to question that 'no consensus' close. Seems to violate BEFORE B.5 and the expected review outcomes would be speedy keep or ... alternatively ... if necessary review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROIV and endorse that XfD result (no consensus) or overturn that XfD. Per DRVPURPOSE: (1) feel there may be questions (excluding the BEFORE issue), if the consensus was interpreted correctly but to a degree that is moot and borderline. Close has offered re-open but that doesn't really cover this matter and the length of time at XfD would be regarded I think as very unhealthly. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Comment: I have attempted to notify all participants or indirect involvered in XfD and the one preceding it excluding relisters and delsorters. If I have missed anyone that is not intended. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC) To give clarification to a good faith reverted edit: The prose above has turned out a little unclear and can easily be mis-read. It is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROIV (2nd nomination) which is the primary focus of this review. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Comment. I can agree that the nomination was done without a proper WP:BEFORE and that it was overly hasty in being re-nominated. No opinion over the need to overturn the outcome of the 2nd AFD.4meter4 (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC) I would like to see the discussion reopened or overturned to no consensus. If low participation in the previous discussion was the reason for renomination so quickly, I feel participants in the first deletion discussion should have been pinged. I don't believe this happened. NemesisAT (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Yowzee wow, lots of irregularities here! 1) The nominator of this DRV linked to the subject AfD, which was open at the time, from a question in Blablubbs' RfA, and Primefac removed the question here. I think Primefac was right to do that because linking an open AfD from an RfA is a pretty irregular thing to do. This link clearly increased participation in the discussion but it didn't have the effect the nominator expected. I don't know how that fact affects this DRV, or even if it should. 2) Boleyn didn't follow WP:RENOM. He doesn't strictly have to follow RENOM because it's an essay, but the fact that he didn't makes me uneasy. If you want to challenge the outcome of a very recently-closed AfD then you should go to DRV. We've seen this before -- users whose attitude is, the relistings will continue until the article is deleted -- and the community has always, historically, disapproved. 3) None of the AfDs considered any of the alternatives to deletion, and it's written into the deletion policy that we should exhaust the alternatives before deleting a page. S Marshall's view: this is rather a mess. Neither the deletion policy nor the process have been followed, with mistakes on both sides. IMV what we need to decide now is if there's any reasonably plausible merge target. If one exists, then I think there are clear grounds to overturn.—S Marshall T/C 16:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC) @Marshall "didn't have the effect the nominator expected" ... please confirm by "nominator" you mean me, the "nominator" of this DRV, as it could mean anything else. If this is the case please don't vaguewave "have the effect the nominator expected" please precisely define "the effect that I expected". The essay in question indicates the stress elongated XfD's have,: a discouragement to sourcing. As supplier of possibly the two most significant sources to the previous XfD, and just after a recent block for an outburst .... that nomination seemed almost taunting, perhaps targeted, with bold shouting of "12 years" in it to boot. I just about held back from an incivil response and a further block, but made the question at the RfA which would had been quite interesting if the the AfD hadn't been open. A somewhat psychotic methinks. Anyway per Primefac's comment on my talk page I accepted his decision on reflection, determine his suggestion regarding ANI was not worth a boomerang hit between the legs and simply struck and recused from the XfD as I had been accused of CANVAS'ing so best really to back off. I perhaps could have argued it wasn't a canvas but determined probably best to back off and go exploring River Lavant culverts like a troll. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC) If nothing else the article did not cite any third-party sources at the time of deletion - every citation and link was to something written or published by the company which maintains the software. The article was therefore in violation of WP:V, which says that articles should be based on third-party reliable sources, that we shouldn't have an article on something where there are no sources of this kind, and that the burden of proof is on those seeking to keep the content. WP:V is core policy and can't be overruled by an AfD discussion of any type. The most we can do here is draftify it to allow for improvement. There were some sources mentioned in the AfD but at least one of them doesn't appear to mention the subject at all. Hut 8.5 19:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn and redo with hopefully more eyes on it this time. Immediate relisting without pinging immediate past participants is a party foul and should not be rewarded. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn. Deletion process was not followed in that the article was renominated for deletion almost immediately after a previous nomination was closed, without a very good reason. If relisting is decided upon, which I would discourage, I would recommend starting from scratch rather than reopening the last AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn - an "out of process" nomination from this nominator (who has a full 30% of their deletion nominations closed as keep)...? One day they'll be dealt with, but until then, we have DRV. St★lwart111 11:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn. If anyone still wants to challenge the article, wait a while. But as one of the people who helped develop the informal guidelines on renoms, there's no fixed minimum for renom after a non-consensus. It's not necessary to wait at least 6 months, as after a keep. Quick renom after non-consensus were not uncommon in the past. (And just in terms of strategy, immediate renomination are unlikely to succeed) Doing it this way-- regardless of the essay or of strategy,--is an poor judgment that just leads to repeated and unnecessary conflict. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC) To be clear I read the the following from WP:RENOM: "If the XfD discussion was closed as “no consensus”, generally do not renominate the page for at least two months.", the language used being the same as per a keep. The essay also suggests "When you do renominate, try to make a better nomination statement than was made last time." Given my involvement in the first AfD, and with fully embellished citations of two particular sources, that felt rather taunting, and I was just on the verge of being UNCIVIL and ending up with a further block, in the end I backed off due to risks of that. The onus is on those wishing to keep, as to a degree so is the stress and risks of the psychotic event, and strain of resource management of RL, sometimes to the detriment of the latter. I have seen a closer closer with the comment such as "no objection to immediate re-nomination". Any surely it is a complete disrespect of the closer's judgement to enquire about their closure first? The closure also possibly has the object to suggest WP:STUBIFY is considered along with adding sources mentioned in the AfD; and a week (with an extension if requested), would be a reasonable requirement; and pretty much suggested by my reading of Earwig/Maturin comments. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC) Comment as the person who instigated the 2nd AfD thanks for the comments, definitely something for me to take onboard here as I misjudged it. My reason for swiftly re-nominating was given, but wasn't strong enough. Just to be clear though, some of the assumptions here of bad faith are off the mark. I work through the articles that have been in CAT:NN the longest, but I am well aware that many are notable, and many I remove from that category. Others are taken to AfD. They tend to be tricky ones, so, as has been said, 70% of them are deleted or merged/redirected, which, given their complexity, is me getting it right a reasonable percentage of the time, especially as any notability discussion is dependent to a large extent on who participates. People tend to to even try to tackle these as they have been there that long and are tricky, but I think they deserve to continue without a tag, or be deleted if that's the judgement. I am definitely not argumentative if articles are found more notable than they are in my opinion, and wouldn't consider myself keen to delete everything. All the best, Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC) @Boleyn: If you are talking about by assumptions of bad faith then specifically mention me. You seem to be claiming it would be OK for you to renominated immediately if the reason was stronger .... does this mean emboldening more text in the nominatation than 12 years. It takes very little effort to raise a vaguewave AfD nomination and it has few consequences, if actually takes a helluva lot of effort (cost/resource) to sort the things out. If you decided to donate 1 hours wages to charity or the Wikimedia foundation every time an AfD nomination was kept would you still decide to nominate as many or as quickly? Food for thought maybe? I'm not sure you've owned the issue, or shown you will respect a closer.-- Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC) I suspect they mean me; I've pointed out their disruption in multiple discussions and urged admins to have the guts to block them. The majority of their nominations are launched mere minutes (or seconds!) after edits elsewhere, confirming absolutely zero consideration of WP:BEFORE. The result is a log full of dozens and dozens of nominations (from this one nominator) with flimsy deletion rationales and little participation. A good number of the 30% that are kept are speedy closed, or WP:SNOW closed. But they continue to believe they are doing nothing wrong. *shrugs*. St★lwart111 01:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Response my comment was aimed at the general atmosphere of some comments, and wasn't meant as any kind of attack - just explaining my editing had been misinterpreted. user:Djm-leighpark, the reason I would sometimes swiftly re-nominate would usually be if it has closed due to zero, or close to it, participation, and the closer has written that there is njo prejudice agaist a swift renomination in their closing statement. user:Stalwart111, I have explained above why my noms would often come close to each other, as I would analyse them, then wait until the numbers at AfD weren't too high, then add them in. This was suggested to me and others working through CAT:NN years ago, and is something I have done since then, so if CAT:NN editors are particularly active and some are going to AfD, it doesn't cause knock-on problems in getting enough participants in AfD discussions. Anyway, thanks for your comments. I will look at the points made in terms of obviously making an error on this one, and also if I need to nominate at the time I have analysed it to make it really clear how I am editing, rather than thinking about AfD queues. All the best, Boleyn (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC) @Boleyn: I only The result was no consensus and nothing like no prejudice against a swift renomination in the close of the prior AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROIV). If you think the closer's made a bad there's aks the closer and there's DRV ... I think,for a many year old article with no copyvio the most closers would likely advise wait, give a further chance for the article to be edited outside of DRV. And I would also say bring forward what you consider to be the best 3 sources from the previous nominations and discuss them ... perhaps show good faith by adding them to the article. I'd also note closer's could sometimes be helpful in suggesting when AfD sources are added to the article and when an article may need to be WP:STUBIFYed due to large amounts failing WP:V and/or significant COI editing. (Mind you half the time that would probably end up with the title or lead sentence being citebombed!) And a pause allows time to recharge battaries, a different set of people to be available, a fresh look. I could go on, I have RL. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC) As above, I have already said that I made an error on this one, user:Djm-leighpark. Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC) The first error was the nom. A second error was not to retract it on 5 September 2021 and admit it on 26 September 2021 likely to avoid a possible ANI appearance. If you wonder why I seem so aggressive and sarcastic this has cost me already a lot of volunteer time and left me sort of mentalled and stuff, to which peoples will likely say take a break, but there's a job to be done on PRO*IV after you're out of this; that job wlll probably be mine, and i'll likely get bits knocked off like I'm at the Battle of the River Plate while I'm doing it. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 September 2021

Omar & Salma 3 – Restore as draft There's good consensus that this should be restored in some fashion so I've restored it to Draft:Omar & Salma 3. There's no real consensus on what should happen next; possibilities include expanding to a stand-alone article and submitting to WP:AfC, or just moving to mainspace once it's expanded without need for an explicit review, or merging into Omar & Salma, perhaps with a mainspace redirect. I'll leave the next step up to normal editorial judgement. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Omar & Salma 3 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) As sometimes happens with articles about non-English films, and particularly those with names written in non-Roman scripts, participants didn't find good Arabic-language reviews. I don't read Arabic, but after I discovered that two other movies in the same series had been nominated for deletion, I started looking for references for this one. Here are some that I found: film review, https://shorouknews.com/news/view.aspx?cdate=19012012&id=916f2eef-f149-4e1c-955d-8ffe803be7ad , https://elcinema.com/work/1416070/enrich , , IMDB, only as a external links, photos of actors at film premiere For these reasons, Tamer Hosny postponed the movie "Omar and Salma 3"! and there are probably others to be found. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse if this is an appeal of the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Allow Re-Creation of Draft if this is a request to create a draft (without waiting two or six months). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC) I'm sure it can be restored to draft space if the OP wants to work on it. There is absolutely no requirement that someone who wants to create a draft wait two to six months as suggested above. Hut 8.5 07:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC) I'd be happy to draftify for Eastmain or anyone else to work on. It appears sources exist and this could be moved back once they're added. Star Mississippi 15:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn (to merge and redirect to Omar & Salma). Per policy, WP:ATD-M, the discussion failed WP:BEFORE. Also, beware English language bias. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Nobody suggested this because there's nothing to merge. The article was extremely short and apart from the title essentially identical to your suggested target. Hut 8.5 07:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC) WP:ATD-R then. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Draftify and allow recreation – the AfD was procedurally correct but substantively flawed. In such cases, there's no harm in allowing a new, properly sourced article: anyone who's especially aggrieved is free to start a new AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC) I recommend interested editors to expand Omar & Salma to cover the set of three films. They are a very closely connected set. Even better, do this first at ar:عمر_وسلمى_(فيلم), the native language Wikipedia article, and the slightly ahead WP:STUB of the three versions. However, I support anyone who would prefer to do according to their own preference. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 September 2021

Luca Soccer Club – Speedy close. Partly as a procedural close (linked AFD still ongoing) but also because two parallel discussions are not helpful. The alternative is to close the AFD and let the DRV go ahead as if it was appealing the first AFD. I have not gone down that path because the AFD is now well developed and the nominator if not presenting new rationales has at least presented a more detailed one SpinningSpark 17:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Luca Soccer Club (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) This latest nomination is simply an end-run around DRV by editors who don't like the result of an AFD closed just one month ago. Besides WP:RENOM, the nominator expresses displeasure at the result, but hasn't raised that here or with the closer of the last AFD. Can someone review and close this? The nominator doesn't seem to want to address the disruptive nomination itself. St★lwart111 06:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC) This is the original AFD, which should have been reviewed here if the nominator had an objection to the close. St★lwart111 06:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure we're able to do anything here--except maybe show up at the currently-running (if opened more prematurely than convention should allow...) AfD and complain there, which would possibly be construed as canvassing by some folks. You think the original, closed, AfD was closed correctly. Fair enough. The second AfD hasn't been closed, and so I'm unclear that there's anything at all for us to opine upon. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC) It's not up to me alone to determine if the original close was correct, nor anyone else. I think the second AFD should be procedurally closed, but I contributed to the first and so am WP:INVOLVED. St★lwart111 09:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Speedy close. Inappropriate listing, as the AFD under appeal has not yet been closed. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC) The AFD should never have been opened, and having been opened inappropriately, should be closed. St★lwart111 09:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Agrees that this should not have been opened. But I cannot agree this is inappropriate as the present one is leaning towards delete. Indianfootball98 (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC) @Stalwart111: That's an argument to be made at the AFD. DRV does not deal with incomplete AFDs. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Let's imagine it was OK to take an AfD that was closed as "keep" one month ago, and relist it back at AfD. What would be the consequences of that? We need to think that through before !voting in this DRV, and I would point out that WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED is an old, and very wise, rule. We have a place where you're allowed to say the last AfD wasn't discussed correctly, and it's here. IMV that AfD needs to be procedurally closed without result. On reading the actual debate, head in hands, I notice that we've had one AfD that was a clear keep and now a month later we've got another AfD that's tending snow delete. AfD is becoming a random, capricious venue that makes rather inconsistent decisions.—S Marshall T/C 11:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Question for User:S Marshall - Was there a previous golden age when AFD made consistent decisions, or has it been a random and capricious venue for years? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC) I think it used to be a lot less random and capricious than this.—S Marshall T/C 08:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC) The fact is a look at the "keeps" of the first AfD suggests they are at best dubious (in essence the only convincing arguments are "meets GNG" vs "does not meet GNG" - there's no detailed analysis or anything, so the first AfD should have been relisted and not vote-counted). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC) And that would be a perfectly reasonable discussion to have here at DRV. St★lwart111 00:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Comment: Im the nominator. I hadnt heard about DRV until a few hours ago and apologies for the renomination. But I request the admin not to close the present discussion. I had clearly said my reason for the renomination. WP:RENOM allows you to renominate the article if any new valid arguments shows up which is the case here. Indianfootball98 (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Far from allowing this, WP:RENOM says: If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months.—S Marshall T/C 15:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Agrees this also. But as I said before, I recently came to know about DRV. Im requesting not to close the present AFD as it is going against the outcome of the previous closure. Indianfootball98 (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Not knowing how something works is not a sufficient excuse for disruptive behaviour. Far from "going against the outcome of the previous closure" there are now multiple additional keep !votes that provide explanation of ways the subject meets WP:GNG, far beyond the delete !votes' "fails NFOOTY". St★lwart111 00:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC) I think "disruptive" is a bit strong, as is bluelinking CIR. It costs us nothing to be kind to a new editor.—S Marshall T/C 14:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Speedy close. Discussions not yet closed can't be reviewed. The assertion here is that starting this AfD was procedurally unsound and disruptive. That makes it more of a conduct issue than anything. Recourse is alerting an administrator who will take appropriate administrative action. Administrator(s) can be alerted to this issue on user talk or AN/I. An administrator who would procedurally close this [the nominated deletion discussion] as a disruptive nomination would have my endorsement in doing so (not that she/he would need it...). — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC) To frame this as a "conduct issue" is harsh. It is in fact a matter in which an inexperienced user has made a procedure mistake. Indianfootball98 has identified a problematic AfD, and it's led to a decision that we should review; the problem is that the review is in the wrong place, at AfD rather than DRV; so let's simply move it here with the minimum of process and fuss.—S Marshall T/C 14:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC) I'm just basing my comment on what's said in the nomination. If something is framed as disruptive it's a conduct issue by definition even if there's no bad faith behind it. I wouldn't bring the past deletion discussion into question based on this nomination. I'd procedurally close this DRV [and also procedurally close the ongoing AfD, which is what I referred to by "administrative action" in previous which is probably not the best term to use here] and possibly direct Indianfootball98 to start a DRV of that AfD. I might be wrong but it doesn't seem realistic that we'll have a workable DRV of the keep AfD in this section. Edit: I'd also direct Indianfootball98 to possibly start a new AfD in cca. 5 months, as an alternative to starting a new DRV. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

All Z-number templates – Deletion endorsed. No such user (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Z number documentation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) (doc page as a stand-in for all the others). Unexplained close. When pressed for an explanation, closer openly admits that they basically just counted votes, and the reminder of their reasoning is not satisfying. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse This TfD concerns 208 numbered (identical) templates of a technical nature, made to "conveniently" compensate for something lacking in 2009, said to be redundant to a better-designed software functionality that exists in 2021. When templates are found to be redundant they are commonly deleted: this is a valid reason to delete per WP:TFD#REASONS. There isn't a much more controlling norm here, it comes down to common practices. The motive of the delete side is obviously to delete redundant templates. This doesn't make their !votes ILIKEIT like you said on the closer's talk. On the other hand, keep advocacy based on "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" does not appear to be in concord with the spirit of TfD, and I can easily see why the closer would not weigh it very favorably. There was a more substantial keep argument, in that "What links here" is a more convenient and reliable way to search... but this argument glosses over the results of the discussion (which was good and thorough), where it was shown that great many of the templates are actually unused... which is another reason to delete. It was said how the mass deletion will require hundreds of thousands of technical edits, but not much was made of this fact advocacy-wise; would that really be a reason not to delete? It does not proceed from what was said. When I read the close, and the closer's replies on his talk page, the only idea that I get about what his approach to determining consensus could have been is -- seeing typical TfD delete arguments, based on well-regarded practices, coming from the delete majority, that were unrefuted by the keep minority, in a fairly thorough discussion. So when the closer says There is no detailed explanation because there was nothing complicated by this close. I completely understand him. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC) As the close, this appears to ignore the counter-argument made at the TfD (so, no, not "unrefuted") that this template was not, in fact, redundant to something better made, since Special:WhatLinksHere is just as easy or even easier to use (and allows for other functionalities too). And WP:AINTBROKE might not be policy, but it's pretty much valid advice in a lot of places, so saying that this is not in the spirit of TfD (while a delete result on a widely used tracking template actually does create just that, lots of not-broken things to be removed....) doesn't seem accurate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Kindly take a look at the upper-middle part of my comment again, where I mention this counter-argument. You didn't say anything as to how the templates are in great many cases unused. How can WhatLinksHere work if the templates aren't even used? (...which they aren't because they were filtered out as each corresponding substituted template was updated... which is indicative of WP:EDITCON). WP:AINTBROKE is in collision with TfD practices (where things that are not broken are regularly "fixed" i.e. deleted or merged). If we are to make a thought experiment to consider these conventions as competing, the more specific context of TfD would be more relevant than generic context of that essay. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC) It's not suprising that some are unused now that they're being mass removed for the last 10 days. That's not, however, an argument for deleting all of them; some are still in use; ex. Template:Z200 (and this was also reflected in keep arguments, i.e. "keep all, save for deprecated". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Many were already unused while the discussion was ongoing, there's a specific thread on that (...among other comments: "Just checked templates connected with {{Z9}} – {{Z20}} in the doc page, and the only one that still contains a Z-template is {{Help me-nq}} (Z20), and there's no point notifying its creator, because their last edit was in 2011.). "keep all, save for deprecated" would have actually resulted in many unused z templates being retained. Unused template with no prospects is also a reason to delete per WP:TFD#REASONS. No one said that there are prospects to restore the z templates to where they were formerly included. The idea to delete only some of the templates while essentially retaining the schema is only cosmetically different from a pure keep !vote; the specific comment you refer to was also (like yours) an argument that WhatLinksHere is more handy, but it couldn't have been more handy when many of the templates are unused. In connection to all of this, I can't see how a closer would not find significant agreement around the entire z template schema being redundant and in large segments already inoperative and unsalvageable. Since this now probably looks like relitigating (I don't think it truly is but regardless), I'll stop here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Actually WP:AINTBROKE is never a valid advice. It's something that is mostly thrown around to block any change. A real argument explains why something should not be changed. Gonnym (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Whatever's decided here, can we please not have hundreds of thousands more technical edits putting them back? —Cryptic 19:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse. I was involved in the discussion in that TfD but didn't formally !vote, as I saw some values in also leaving them. The closer was correct in their valuation of the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse There was a 6:3 majority in favor of deleting, and no strong basis on which to downweight that numerical consensus. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse, the administrator was within discretion even if the arguments for keeping were stronger than they are. --Izno (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Comment - I have very little clue as to what this is about. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: Closer here. The problem addressed by the z-number templates is that usage of substituted templates (particularly user warnings) cannot be tracked through what links here due to the nature of substitution. The z-number templates are included in the target template; they add no visible text, but allow usage to be tracked of the z-number and hence indirectly usage of the template they are in. The de facto way of identifying the template a warning comes from nowadays is to include hidden text within it stating the template name. In the early days of Wikipedia, the search engine was not very sophisticated and would not be able to find this text, but can easily do so now. The argument at the TFD was between those who wanted to delete the templates as no longer necessary and those who argued they do no harm and preferred to search with what links here rather than the search engine. SpinningSpark 09:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you very much for that summary, it was very useful. Jclemens (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse. Clear consensus at TFD. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse While I wasn't super excited about this deletion, it is undoubtably the consensus. While consensus determination isn't just about !vote counting it is the best way to handle decisions when the arguments on both sides are of the same strength. This was the case here. It was clearly demonstrated that just using html comments was a usable solutions and some (quite weak) benefits with deletion were presented and the opposition gave some reasons why the old way was somewhat easier. --Trialpears (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC) endorse, clear consensus for deletion. Frietjes (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC) I didn't come across this TfD until my watchlist started blowing up with all the removals. As much as I'm not particularly pleased to see that and wish it had been given more attention in the discussion, I have to concur with those above that the reading of consensus seems to have been fine. An invite to more widely watched page might have been nice, given the scale of the nomination, but it still seems to have gotten adequate participation (and, with the caveat that I'm a semi-regular at TfD, I wouldn't say that it has major issues that would require drawing in the broader community). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 September 2021

IZArc – Deletion endorsed. Daniel (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
IZArc (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) There is sufficient evidence that IZArc is no doubt notable (cf. [2] and [3]), thus Ritchie333's comment no obvious significant coverage or any indication this is used by the wider world. is an invalid argument for deletion. RekishiEJ (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC) "Notable" on Wikipedia has a specific definition, not its common meaning. Your first link was in the article while it was under discussion; the second was brought up - by you - at the discussion itself. Neither was found to be a reliable source with significant coverage of this program. Speedy close, WP:DRVPURPOSE #5, repeating arguments already made. —Cryptic 18:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Why are they unreliable? And each of them discusses IZArc non-trivially.--RekishiEJ (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse 2015 discussion, as the sources were evaluated by the participants and that discussion could not have been closed any other way. Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Speedy close because what the DRV nom says does not mean that: (1) the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly -- even if Ritchie333's !vote is discountable it still doesn't form an argument to this effect; (3) new information has come to light -- not asserted; (4) there's no way to tell what was deleted -- not asserted; (5) there were procedural errors -- not asserted. Therefore, the nomination does not align with the purpose of this forum, so there is no prospect of success. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Top attack was listed in the AFD and wasn't persuasive to the participants then, and DRV isn't supposed to be a rehash of the debate. As to if Top attack is reliable, I've reviewed the site and can't find out anything about who publishes it, who writes the content etc. etc. whois records use a hiding service to not reveal anything either, so it's pretty much impossible to know. If there is no one to stand behind what's published, my view is we can't treat it as reliable. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse as the only possible closure. DRV is not for relitigating the AfD; please review WP:DRVPURPOSE before making additional nominations. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse, keep deleted, even if only because the nominator statement "IZArc is no doubt notable (cf. [4] and [5])" is nonsense, these two links do nothing to demonstrate Wikipedia-notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse since this appears to be an appeal of the AFD, and since the close was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow the deletion process. It is not a venue to make (or repeat) arguments from the AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Comment Lifehacker is an outstanding website, and it praised DonationCoder.com, thus DonationCoder is reliable (although its review of IZArc that I cited may be outdated since it was published in 2005). Plus TechBang's comparison of five file archivers (in Chinese), IZArc is no doubt notable. Period.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC) You can make a draft. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC) I think it's much easier to undelete the article, update its information, and incorporate reliable third-party sources that review IZArc.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 September 2021

Aame Katha – Closer agreed with 'No Consensus' as revised AfD outcome, will modify close appropriately. Non Admin Closure. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Aame Katha (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This deletion discussion concerns a film on which there is a paucity of coverage. The closer found that there is consensus to keep. The close should be overturned to no consensus or relisted /struck by DRV nom: proposal to relist withdrawn/ for the following reasons: The closer did not interpret consensus correctly when he found that there is consensus when in fact there was not (yet) consensus; 3 advocated for keep and 2 advocated to delete, and the discussion was ongoing. Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, closers must determine when rough consensus has been reached. The discussion was not yet at the point when this determination could be made, as the discussion was pretty lively and evenly divided, with participation from all sides being policy-based and having appropriate weight. In addition: When the closer found that, Consensus reached is that this article passes WP:NFO, it would indicate that WP:NFO criterion #3 can be a controlling norm here, on which to base notability. However, it can't. I'm sorry to have to put it this way, but it's as if the closer hadn't read WP:NFO #3 fully, which says: This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete. Standards have not yet been established to define a major award, .... This means that one can't find a pro-notability consensus based solely on WP:NFO #3. Tied to reason #2 : Had the closure not been so quick I would have added that the award is not sufficiently major, and that would also point us back to a lack of 'clear consensus' required for a non-admin closure in this matter. It's looks to me as if the closer was persuaded by the last comment, and their successively quick close reads as emotive support for keep based on that argument alone, without much regard for the rest of policy-based advocacy expressed. This creates a perception of pile-on supervoting, which even if not truly the case, already at the level of a perception, makes a non-admin close really improper. Substantial procedural errors - according to WP:NACAFD, the close was an improper non-admin close -- Non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion ... which is beyond doubt a clear keep means that they can not close a discussion which is not a clear keep. Not only was this not a clear keep, there wasn't even rough consensus to keep. The way this discussion had progressed, the !votes being roughly split, and having in mind the nature of the subject where it was not in dispute that there's a great paucity of sources, it could probably not ever be subject to a proper non-admin closure. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC) You lost me as soon as you tried to frame that as a premature close. No way. Anyone could have closed that and it was long overdue for closure. You might persuade me to overturn to no consensus, but I can agree with very little in that nomination statement.—S Marshall T/C 12:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC) @S Marshall: I didn't say that the discussion was not overdue. It was overdue. Being 'overdue' measured in days, relative to the 'seven days' period has procedural implications, but consensus can't arise from this passage of time alone. Discussions can only be closed with a material finding of consensus when there is consensus. This deletion discussion had stalled for a long time, but was reinvigorated on September 10 and was heading towards a state of thoroughness, and the consensus-forming process was interrupted by the close. Precisely because it was being significantly overdue, it started to generate attention and multiple editors started commenting at the same time, engaging with each other. This is emphatically not when you close, this is when you let the discussion proceed naturally to see where it will end up. Maybe the keep argument would have been strengthened, who knows? Rough consensus doesn't mean that a discussion that hasn't run it's natural course can be "roughened up" to clear up the log. — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC) WP:RELIST is the rule here. It explains that discussions may be relisted a maximum of twice, or thrice in exceptional circumstances that are clearly explained by the closer. Nobody who is qualified to close AfDs would have relisted that a fourth time. We have that rule because AfDs are expensive in volunteer time and volunteer time is Wikipedia only scarce resource. It had to be closed then. I could get behind overturning that to no consensus but there's little difference in practice. Welcome to DRV, by the way. —S Marshall T/C 13:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the welcome. Basically I edited in relist as a proposed outcome after the fact, my primary idea here is to overturn to no consensus. I'm convinced now that relist is not a viable outcome and would like to withdraw it. I'll actually just go ahead and strike it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus, because there wasn't a consensus. —S Marshall T/C 14:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus, as closer. My mistake I should've closed it as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination, since the WP:NFO status still being contended. Thanks Alalch, I appreciate the constructive criticism. Curbon7 (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn to No Consensus with no prejudice to renomination, as per closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus - the closer accepts they made a mistake. Any objection to the closer simply rectifying that mistake and striking their original close? I can't see the value in bureaucracy here. St★lwart111 01:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 September 2021

Open Plaques – Deletion endorsed. Daniel (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Open Plaques (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) A similar article was deleted years ago. The Open Plaques project has grown since then. I think the speedy deletion is because the previous deletion has been considered, but not that it happened several years ago and the project has matured. I read the discussion of the previous deletion and there is a mention about this, that at that time the project was not yet developed enough to be included in Wikipedia. Nowadays I think it is mature enough and has a remarkable database of commemorative plaques. It could be on Wikipedia. Please reconsider the speedy deletion. Thank you. Dcapillae (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC) I suggest you start with WP:THREE, your three best sources that meet WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV; don’t use the Open Plaques website, don’t use GitHub and don’t use a blog. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC) There's a short description of the project in: Beale, N. (2012). How community archaeology can make use of open data to achieve further its objectives. World Archaeology, 44(4), pp 612-633. It’s not much but it’s a start. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Another short description in Trib Live: "British project gathering info on historical plaques worldwide", Trib Live, 23 February 2018 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC) A decent article in the Sunday Times: Duncan, C. (2013, Jan 13). The writing's on the wall: As funding is cut for blue plaques, the people who hunt down these landmark signs explain their obsession to Duncan Craig. Sunday Times. Via ProQuest. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC) The most recent iteration of this article was deleted partially on copyright grounds, which means it's unlikely that it will be overturned. I'd recommend starting afresh through the AfC process, as well as following Malcolm's advice above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse the G12, with the understanding that a new, copyright-compliant article may be written if the sources permit you to do so. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Agreed. G4 is iffy, and often wrongly applied, but if this did use word-for-word or closely paraphrased text, etc. from another, copyrighted site? It simply needs to be rewritten, because that's non-negotiable. Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse the G12 (having not seen the article but knowing that User:Diannaa has seen it). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse the original AFD close if this is an appeal of the original AFD close. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Allow Re-Creation of Draft, but only if not copying anything from the copyvio version. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Just a comment as to why I deleted it: The article was two paragraphs, almost identical to the two paragraphs visible at https://openplaques.org/about. — Diannaa (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC) ... and that means you can write an article. We've found the sources, which override the (correct) AfD close from 2010, and we've explained the most recent deletion as a copyright issue which you can overcome by writing non-infringing text. Your article should be neutral and well sourced and not a rehash of their website, and you shouldn't create it if you're connected with Open Plaques -- in that event you should leave it to someone else to write. —S Marshall T/C 09:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse the OP's version was a clear copyright violation of this page on the subject's website (which is clearly marked as copyrighted). You are welcome to write another article about the subject, and the discussion which took place 11 years ago shouldn't be used as a reason to delete new versions, but you can't copy text from copyrighted sources. The article needs to be written in your own words. Hut 8.5 17:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse. Encourage use of userspace or draftspace, and WP:THREE is very good advice for a previously deleted topic. Take much more care to not copy content wholesale. Find WP:THREE good sources, and use them to make a WP:STUB version and then ask for advice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

cFosSpeed – Restore. The simple fact is that this is a WP:PROD which has never been through AfD, so it can be restored on request. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
cFosSpeed (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This product has been reviewed by at least two independent reliable sources (Softonic & Elyas Thinks…, Elyas Thinks… 2), thus Dialectric's comment "Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references." in the page was invalid. RekishiEJ (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC) The links provided seem to be someone's blog, and softonic which in 2007 was likely user reviews, this one attributed to Nick but little other information. If these are the best references then certainly fails to establish notability. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Softonic's review of cFosSpeed is written by an editor rather than a user, according to the link to Nick given on the Softonic's review.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia calls it's users editors, it doesn't really make a difference. Given the reviewer has a single name a no other details it's pretty impossible to conclude much, regardless it wouldn't speak much to the notability of this software to have the only mark it's made during the age of widely available internet if this is the best of the references out there. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Speedy close - The full content of the deleted article was, "CFosSpeed is an ultility program". Literally, that's it. It unquestionably qualified for speedy deletion A1. That was 5 years ago. If someone wants to recreate the article with a little more context than a 5-word misspelled sentence fragment, they should feel free to give it a try (although, in my opinion, the sources listed above would not be enough to establish notability). I don't think DRV is necessary here. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Yes, the right remedy is "write a new, wholly non-promotional article citing reliable independent sources, and then the AFD won't apply". The prodded version was a lot more substantial than the 5-word afd'd substub, but it still did none of those things and so would be of no help either. —Cryptic 18:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC) While there's no real point in overturning a five year old AfD--write a new article, please--If there was a previously expired PROD, then I find it difficult to believe that A1 would actually apply. That is, since "A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its revisions are also eligible," I presume a high likelihood that the PRODded version was not A1 eligible. Our guidelines would seem to say that if a previously deleted revision would escape the CSD, then that CSD should not be applied. Am I wrong here? Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Restore PROD-deleted version per below, improve that and/or take to AfD as desired. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC) I don't believe that your interpretation of CSD is correct. In my interpretation, that sentence of CSD is intended as protection against someone editing a decent article to make it trash and then quickly nominating it for speedy deletion. I don't believe that it's intended to say that an admin needs to also look through all deleted revisions to see if there is a revision that escapes the CSD. If those revisions had already been deleted, then we can assume that they were deleted for a valid reason. (If they were deleted inappropriately, then it should be taken to DRV.) In my interpretation, CSD rules apply to all of the revisions since the last time the article was last deleted. CSD would be almost useless if your interpretation of CSD were correct and deleted revisions needed to be checked. Here's a thought experiment: an article is created that doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, it is taken to AfD, obtains a consensus to delete, and is deleted. A few months later, someone creates another article at the same title, and the full content of the article is "derp derp derp derp derp". According to your interpretation of CSD, that derpy article would not qualify for speedy deletion, because there exists a deleted revision that doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC) I think that's an entirely reasonable interpretation, and more reasonable than the way I'm reading the plain meaning of the text. Should we consider updating CSD policy to match? I think I'll BOLDly try and see what happens. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Since there's never been a consensus-based determination that the topic isn't notable, I don't see any reason why the PRODded version can't just be REFUNDed. That version didn't meet A1 (see here) and thus would deserve an AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC) The version that you linked to was the version that was deleted on July 3, 2016 after a PROD expired uncontested. About 6 weeks later, someone created a new version of the article with the content, "CFosSpeed is an ultility program". That is the version that was speedy deleted under A1, less than 24 hours after it was created. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC) That's precisely my point: keep the A1 version deleted and simply restore the PRODded version. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC) All we have to do here is to endorse the speedy deletion, which hasn't been seriously challenged. If you really want the PRODded version back, I think you can just go to WP:REFUND and get it restored, per my comment above. (Or you can just use the Internet Archive link above.) Regardless, this article would need substantial sourcing improvements to be kept at AfD, so the most prudent course of action would be to simply start afresh. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Restoring the prodded version as-is wouldn't accomplish anything except to briefly satisfy wonks and to make it harder for us to eventually have an article on this subject; absent new, high-quality sources that haven't been put forward and aren't easily findable due to the SEO effort of which that article was part, there's no way it could survive afd. Not to mention that its first revisions have several hallmarks of being a copyvio, though proving it after hosting the article and letting it be mirrored everywhere for more than six years would be laborious. —Cryptic 20:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Probably best if the OP just writes a new article about it, to be honest. The most recent version just said "CFosSpeed is an ultility program" and was correctly deleted as having little content. The PRODed version was largely referenced to a bunch of primary sources which have mostly gone dead since they were added in 2010, and it didn't do much more than describe a few features of the software. As such it would need a major overhaul anyway. Hut 8.5 17:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Speedy close because what the DRV nom says does not mean that WP:A1 could not have been applied -- nominator does not say that this one-sentence article had sufficient context to identify the subject of the article, at the time of speedy deletion (which is the relevant time for determining if speedy deletion was allowable). About CSD and past potentially better versions: per Scottywong, an admin does not have to also look through all deleted revisions to see if there is a revision that might escape CSD (the amount work needed to consistently check and deliberate on that is incongruent with the role of speedy deletions). The discussed PRODded is not appropriate mainspace content in 2021, and it could only be potentially refunded to draftspace. This can be (and could have been) done at WP:REFUND. Based on all this, the nomination does not align with the purpose of this forum, so there is no prospect of success.— Alalch Emis (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse. Encourage use of userspace or draftspace to write a draft. See advice at WP:THREE. The three reviews offered may be good, but they are not a slam dunk here. Not all reviews are considered independent, and reliably. Check WP:NSOFTWARE for advice. White a WP:STUB, and then ask for advice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse if this is an appeal of the previous AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Allow Creation either of draft, subject to AFC, or of article, subject to risk of AFD, if this is a request to create a new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC) No action. The article was deleted five years ago by speedy deletion, and prior to that by PROD. You may recover the PRODded version at WP:REFUND if you wish to write a new article, or you can just start one. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 September 2021

MKFM – No consensus. Opinions are divided about whether the decision to close as "delete" was correct. A fourth relisting in my capacity as DRV closer would not be appropriate. The decision to delete therefore remains in force for lack of a consensus to overturn it. Sandstein 14:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
MKFM (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This article related to a licensed community radio station in the United Kingdom. The decision to delete appears to have been a very tight one. Other, very similar pages about similar radio stations have been kept - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Preston_FM_(2nd_nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KOAD-LP. Thank you. Flip Format (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC) Allow recreation: This article appears to have been caught up in a wider debate as to whether licensed radio stations, regardless of their size, are inherently notable per WP:GNG and/or whether WP:BCAST is a policy or an opinion. My assessment is that either the MKFM article is allowed to be recreated, or there would have to be a mass deletion of articles about similar community radio stations. Flip Format (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC) Decline and yes, mass delete similar non-notable stations that fail WP:GNG too, per WP: Wikipedia is not. But see also WP:other stuff exists. AGF but it is difficult to read this request as other than intended to reverse the thin end of a wedge: if MKFM goes then whither the other little league stations. (Fwiw, the station is described at Milton Keynes#Communications and media which says, in half a sentence, all that is worth saying.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus per WP:NHC. The fact that WP:BCAST hasn't yet been codified as a guideline does not make those referencing it have intrinsically weaker positions. After all, people reference WP:FANCRUFT and WP:TNT all the time in deletion discussions, and neither are guidelines. If we really want to say that admins should ignore !votes based on established positions that don't yet have the imprimatur of 'guideline' there are a whole lot of discussions which should be reclosed differently... Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC) To elaborate a bit, I believe the closer's error is assigning the GNG a "non-negotiable" status. Notability has never held this position in Wikipedia. Notability has had guideline status for the 15 years I've been here, but the relevant non-negotiable policies are NPOV, NOR, and V, none of which this article transgressed. While there are many people who don't like the idea that certain things are presumed notable and we should have an article on them just because they can be shown to exist regardless of whether the GNG is met doesn't mean that N has been elevated to policy. I'm surprised this isn't actually listed at WP:PEREN. Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC) The issue isn't that the GNG is non-negotiable but that arguments citing it should be given a bit more weight than comments along the lines of "Yeah, I think we should have an article on this", since it's a guideline. There is definitely scope for exceptions to be made to guidelines, but there wasn't much of a case for that here other than a reference to WP:BCAST, a failed notability proposal. I don't think the other two essays you cited are comparable, WP:FANCRUFT is really an interpretation of WP:NOT#IINFO or WP:NOT#PLOT or other content policies, and WP:TNT isn't a rationale for deleting anything by itself. Hut 8.5 17:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC) IINFO is among the most misused, if not the most misused, deletion rationales, most often it is used against overly-discriminate (that is, niche) articles or lists. Fewer than 5% of the time IINFO is cited does one of the four specific examples even remotely apply. TNT is used in AfDs all the time as an excuse to not follow ATD. If you haven't seen either of these things, then I would encourage you to look at more fictional elements AfDs. Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC) I don't believe I'd have much to add to what I said in the close of this AfD. In this instance, no editors refuted the claim that the subject did not pass the GNG. In the other two discussions mentioned, several editors did, so of course those had different outcomes. Of course, if someone can find sufficient sourcing to pass the GNG, I have no objection to recreation. If that doesn't exist, then deletion was the proper outcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC) I'm right on the borderline here. I'd say NC appears to be the best assessment of the discussion, but I'm not sure if delete is within discretion or not. Could we get a temporary undelete so we can see the sources in the article that were referenced during the AfD? A concern is that it's probably not ideal to delete something that's borderline while the relevant SNG is being discussed. But I have to agree nothing in the AfD itself looked like it helps with the GNG. But I find it really (really) unlikely that there aren't sources on this. Hobit (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC) overturn to NC (Addendum: I'm also good with a relist as the sources in the article never got discussed.Hobit (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)). Sources in the article appear to be independent, reliable and non-trivial. Are they good enough for meeting WP:N? That's for the discussion to determine. Both Keep and Delete !voters made mention of those sources, but no one had really any argument than "is not" "is". Even if we discount the arguments about the proposed inclusion guideline, we have an NC outcome both in terms of numbers and strength of argument. Hobit (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC) The independent sources in the article were only that it had been given a broadcast license. The article had serious COI editing, which caused its head to go above the parapet and serious questions to be asked about notability. As a local area editor, I did try hard to find some, I wanted it to continue despite that editing, but I found none, nor did anyone else. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Erb? Could you point to the part of WP:N that says such an article can't be counted toward WP:N? The article that was deleted didn't seem overly promotional--the existance of COI editing isn't a reason to delete. And [6], which is in the article, predates the license by years and years. So no, they aren't all about them having gotten a broadcast license. And a brief search from there turns up a lot. [7]. Things like [8] and [9] seem quite decent. Hobit (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Now that the article has been temp undeleted and I can see the edit history, it looks like there has been quite a bit of COI editing from someone (presumably within the MKFM organisation) consistently stating that it isn't a community radio station for whatever reason. The confusion here is perhaps because it's a community and a commercial radio station - its FM licence is for community radio, and its wider DAB digital licence is a commercial licence. It is, however, a licensed radio station of some years standing and I agree that an article being subject to COI editing isn't in and of itself grounds for deletion. If MKFM is not notable, is Heart East, which does have its own article but appears to be a regional rebroadcast of a station in London? Flip Format (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC) No, of course COI editing is not a reason for deletion, I never said it was. To clarify, it was the COI editing that caused me and Fishplater to look at all the citations in the article only to find that almost all were self-referential. In summary, it is not notable. As for Heart East, I agree: propose it for deletion and I will support. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Could it possibly be the case that you are simply not an expert in the field of radio broadcasting and are unable to find sources to improve the article yourself? Why, in that case, does it need to be deleted instead of improved by other editors who do know about broadcasting? Flip Format (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC) I make no claim to any such expertise. But the fact remains that none of the participants in the AfD found any evidence of notability. Of course if you can produce any new WP:RS material, then we cease to have a problem. Meanwhile I have no doubt that if the article as it stood were submitted today to the AfC process as a new article, it would be dismissed out of hand for failure to meet GNG. Finally let me affirm that as soon as notability can be demonstrated, I will strongly support its (re-)creation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)  Note: Article temporarily undeleted for DRV (ping Hobit). Daniel (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC) We seem to have an article called Community radio in the United Kingdom, which was actually mentioned in the AfD, and also a Timeline of independent radio in the United Kingdom, which wasn't. The AfD should have considered alternatives to deletion, at least some of which are as obvious as a coal pile in a ballroom, and didn't. Relist as a defective debate.—S Marshall T/C 00:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Clearly it could be included as a section of a larger article. The question is whether it is sufficiently notable to have its own. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC) If it clearly could be included as a section of a larger article, why was this at AfD and why didn't you suggest a merge? Hobit (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC) It was already mentioned in a larger article (Milton Keynes, see above), it didn't need its own article. If someone wants to mention it any other article, then who am I to stop them? If someone wants to recreate it as a redirect, then let them propose that. For better or worse, we have a number of nominators who are using AfD as articles for discussion, explicitly proposing a merge or redirect rather than deletion, Piotrus for instance. I find that discussions started in such an ATD-aware manner tend to invite people to meet in the middle, and I don't think that's a bad thing in the least. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you. Finding middle ground is important, and conversely, I find criticism of those who propose alternatives to deletion in their AfD comments, including nominations, very unhelpful. Anyway, I want to encourage people to consider suggesting alternatives such as redirects or merges in their AfDs. What's the harm? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Ok, but in this case it would be hard to carry out the selective merge that we need because the article was a redlink. There are also considerations about preserving attribution to think about.—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse. The discussion was close. The keep votes made claims that the subject meets WP:NRADIO but did not explain why this is the case; and as such are very close to WP:ITSNOTABLE. As such, I concur that they were weak and can be disregarded, and those who made them are encouraged to explain why something is notable better. If such an argument could be made here properly, we could consider overturning this and relisting, perhaps. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Per WP:BCAST: "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or being the originator of some programming." This station is licensed, permanent (inasmuch as recurring five-year licences are permanent) and originates its own programming from its own facilities rather than being a satellite/translator station, and so under that section of WP:BCAST it would be considered notable. I wonder if User:Sammi Brie would appreciate being tagged here to give her views. Flip Format (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse the Keep side made no attempt to refute the central argument for deletion, which is that the subject doesn't meet the GNG. Instead they focused on showing that it meets WP:NMEDIA, an essay with no official standing. A recent attempt to promote NMEDIA to guideline status failed in large part because it's overbroad and the radio-specific section would grant notability to almost every radio station. It would make sense to redirect to List of radio stations in the United Kingdom#Community radio stations. Hut 8.5 11:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn to No Consensus: Per reasons above. Whether they're refuted or not, the "keep" votes have merit whatsoever as the "delete" votes. I strongly agree with Jclemens that there's really nothing wrong with using essays that haven't reached the guideline status in explaining why a certain article should be kept or deleted, whether it's WP:FANCRUFT or WP:BCAST or whatever essay. So, be it. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Just to add, the discussion was relisted thrice and I don't see a need to have it relisted. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC) @Superastig: I second the motion. I believe discarding !keep votes that reference a "non-existent guideline" is a total BS. SBKSPP (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Pinging participants in the previous discussion @Fishplater, Spiderone, Jeepday, Whiteguru, Rillington, SportingFlyer, Neutralhomer, Superastig, and SBKSPP: as nom should have done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC) We don't normally ping all participants from the AfD to take part in a DRV, DRV isn't intended to be a repeat of the AfD. Hut 8.5 11:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Ok, my mistake, I was not so aware. Though in reality almost all of the discussion above is indeed a rerun of the AfD, not about whether the process was properly carried out or introducing new evidence that was not available for consideration last time (ignoring the WP:other stuff exists arguments). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Then perhaps you should stop professing to be an expert on the procedures (I freely admit I'm not) and stop talking down to me and others in this discussion. Flip Format (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Eh? Where have I professed to be an expert on the procedures? [for the record, I make no such claim]. Also, show me where you feel that I have 'talked down' to you? Do you mean where you challenged me for my failure to find sources readily available to subject experts, so I invited you to produce an example? I'm still waiting. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC) We already know that DRV isn't intended to be a repeat of the AfD. Every participant from the AfD has the right to share his/her thoughts on the closure and I see nothing wrong with that. So, be it. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC) I never said they couldn't. However the nominator certainly isn't expected to ping all the AfD participants, contrary to what John Maynard Friedman claimed above, and it doesn't add much to the discussion. The people who wanted the article kept are going to say that the AfD should be closed as Keep, the people who wanted the article deleted are going to say the AfD should be closed as Delete, and we're back to square one. DRV is best when it can bring outside input. Hut 8.5 16:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC) As I said above, I have no expertise or even experience of this process [this is my first AfD nomination; I have also done just one RfD], so forgive my noobie error. I gained the impression that the case was being relitigated (rather than being challenged on the grounds of procedural errors or significant new evidence). So it seemed to make sense to reinvolve those who participated first time as it seemed to me that they might have something new to contribute given the passage of time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Question does anyone really feel that the arguments that the sources in the article don't meet the GNG were stronger than the ones that said it did? @Seraphimblade: states that "...no editors refuted the claim that the subject did not pass the GNG". But the claims that the sources in the article were not enough were simply "they aren't enough" and the ones that said they were simply said they were. Seraphimblade, did you evaluate the sources yourself? If not, could you explain how you see the argument in the AfD against the sources in the article meeting the GNG as stronger than the ones that said they were enough? Thanks. Hobit (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Who said that the article passes the GNG? The closest I can see to that is "The sources in the article seem reliable" and "I also found a few reliable sources which talk some of the station's programming", which aren't the same thing at all. The Keep comments were all based on WP:BCAST, which is a failed proposal that would make almost all radio stations notable. Hut 8.5 07:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Two people claim that the sources are reliable. I don't think they need to cite the GNG directly to make it clear they feel the GNG is met. The second one is "Sources presented above including the ones in the article are reliable enough". Hobit (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC) The GNG requires a lot more than the existence of reliable sources. Hut 8.5 11:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Fair. But "Doesn't meet the GNG" isn't a lot more clear. And multiple, reliable, indpendent sources is commonly shorted to "reliable sources". I certainly think their arguments are saying they think the GNG is met. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. I suppose we could ask them their intent. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC) I voted and got pinged and don't really care anymore, but after reviewing, the arguments for keeping were "passes a non-existent guideline," and the arguments against were "fails GNG." I don't know how anyone can argue even for a no consensus in good faith. And please don't ping me, I won't respond, I only logged in to add a specific piece of information but checked why I had been pinged. SportingFlyer T·C 23:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC) I'd swear we are reading different AfDs. This one had people saying that the sources in the article met the GNG and one person provided other ones. I'd personally agree the new ones in the AfD were poor, but the ones in the article look just fine. If all mention of the "non-existent guideline" were removed, this could only be closed as NC. even dropping all those keep votes that only referenced said non-existent guideline'. Those poor arguments really shouldn't count as a negative, at most they should be ignored. Hobit (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Weak Endorse - The closer correctly applied the applicable guideline in a situation where, in my stubborn opinion, the guidelines are wrong. I prefer SNGs to GNG, and think that deletion discussions would be more straightforward and cleaner if we didn't apply GNG as a procrustean bed that distorts the subject out of shape. But the community obstinately refused to upgrade the SNG to a real guideline, let alone to make it independent of GNG. So the closer was right, and this illustrates what is wrong with GNG supremacy. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn (relist), WP:Supervote. The closer analysed to conclude “delete”, but that analysis was too much his expertise and not enough apparent in the discussion. There were weak votes on both sides, and some more discussion would surely clarify consensus. Experts closing discussions to the bewilderment of non-expert participants is a bad thing. Relist, again. The nominator and User:SportingFlyer made good arguments, but they need more participants to agree with them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Do not overturn to “no consensus”. The discussion was clearly on the side of “delete”, but just needed more refutation of the weak “keep” !votes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Comment - I respectfully disagree with those editors who have said to Overturn and Relist. If the close is overturned, it should be overturned to No Consensus. The AFD has already been relisted three times, which is enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC) All three relists were pointless comment-free relists. They are a procedural waste of time and a visual distraction. They should be ignored. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC) That is a misreading. That fact that the AFD was relisted three times is highly significant data: it tells us that substantial time was made available for different opinions to be registered. That absence of further remarks says that editors concluded that everything that should be said had already been said. It is obvious that we have reached the same point here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC) The relists tell us nothing about time beyond what times stamps already have done. Completely disagree that everything that should have been said was said. Namely, the rebuffing of the many weak !votes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Related item It may assist editors in assessing this case to look at User talk:Fishplater#Your submission at Articles for creation: Secklow Sounds (July 24). (Secklow Sounds is the other local community radio station in Milton Keynes.) The AFC rejection was a fair one, with which I agreed. In the context of this discussion, though, how are the cases different? The RS information about each station is essentially the same. So any decision we make here really should explain adequately why MKFM is sufficiently notable but Secklow Sounds is not. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Or, conversely, hold that the AfC rejection was inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn to NC, do not Relist Per above arguments. The discussion has run its course after 3 relists. So, there's no need for a 4th relist since both !keep and !delete votes have good enough arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Nonsense. The AfD is peppered with “meets ABC”, “does not meet DEF”, “fails EFG therefor HIJ doesn’t count”. WP:VAGUEWAVES. The ONLY deeper substance comes from User:Superastig and User:SportingFlyer. Superastig offered six sources, and SportingFlyer refuted them all. User:SBKSPP’ late bland VAGUEWAVE only took the conversation backwards. I agree with the closer’s conclusion, but as it amounts to a 1:1 headbutting, it really needs another editor to engage on the substance. Even the nominator, User:John Maynard Friedman, would have done well to go to the source details. “No evidence of notability” is not quite BEFORE Standard, and “Only citations in the article are for…” demands a response to Superastig’s more sources !vote. If only User:Seraphimblade had !voted instead of closing, the AfD would have been a clear “delete”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Even the nominator, User:John Maynard Friedman, would have done well to go to the source details. Which source details? If I (or to be more precise, Google) had found any such details, the question would never have arisen. Others have provided sources in this discussion (not the AFD): if they had done so at the AFD stage, I suspect that the outcome would have been to keep. Quite frankly, when I see unambiguously WP:trivial product-placement articles like List of The Union members being created with only "it needs citations" from the reviewer, I have to wonder why we bother with AFD. Let the weeds grow. Keep. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Hi John, The specific details of superastig’s six sources, in particular. As for the nomination statement, I believe that it is better to explicitly state what search you did, how many results you looked at, and a comment on what sort of results they were. It’s not that I mean to criticise your nomination, it’s that in the face of !votes such as “meets WP:NRADIO”, more detail is needed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC) (I meant to write "I wonder why we bother with GNG"). As I have said multiple time, I have no strong belief that the article should have been deleted – as the station serves my local area, I would be happy to see both it and its competitor included. But is is invidious to reject creation of an article for Secklow Sounds 'because it is NN' but keep MKFM which is just as N – or NN. I searched via Google for any third-party references and found only the original award of broadcasting licence to both stations. (Surely the AFD stage is the time to raise such questions and for others to validate my results: we all know that Google gives different results to different people at different times.) Superastig's citations were not presented at the AFD: if they had then maybe the outcome might have been different. It is not for me to judge whether or not they are good enough to overturn the AFD: I have no idea whether or not they are WP:RS. It seems that, within the terms of NRADIO, they are good enough, even if rather tenuous otherwise (to be missed by Google). I suspect that they are a lot more notable than the characters in a minor Marvel Comics franchise. I presented 'the case for the prosecution', Superastig and others have done likewise for the defence. If fellow editors are waiting for me to withdraw the nomination to bring this saga to a close, then I withdraw it. But it looks like I kicked over a hornet's nest of notability challenges to little-league radio stations so others may be less willing to let it drop. I can't be judge as well as prosecutor. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC) There are strong arguments to delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 September 2021

Oliverwanch3512 – Request outside the scope of DRV, requester also now blocked as a sock. Sandstein 08:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Can i have permission to deleted a page Comment to User:Oliverwanch3512 - Read the deletion policies, or ask for advice about deletion at the Teahouse. Do not blank a page in article space as a means of trying to delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC) Speedy close – DRV doesn't delete pages. If you're really here in good faith, try AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 September 2021

The Hired Heart – There being no consensus to overturn the AFD outcome, it will be undisturbed. For the avoidance of doubt, the article title is not protected and there is no bar on anyone recreating the article (either directly or via AFC) if they can overcome the reasons for deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The Hired Heart (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This movie is playing on Amazon prime. I can't read the original page because it's deleted but it's an average movie of the typical rom-com type with at least one actor with a wiki page. I see no reason why the page should be deleted just because a couple of people couldn't find information on it. Other viewers may want to look it up as I did. https://www.amazon.com/Hired-Heart-Penelope-Ann-Miller/dp/B01MRCHB8W 2601:681:8100:2B60:71DC:6620:CFA0:8E7C (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Comment - The appellant is saying that the film is notable. The article was deleted because the closer found that the article did not establish that the film is notable. In this Deletion Review, we are only considering the article on the film, and the close of the AFD on the article on the film, not the film itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Weak Endorse of the close, and requesting that the article be temporarily undeleted. The close appears to be correct based on the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Comment - With no references, Delete was the only possible result. I have no comment on whether the film itself is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: I have undeleted the page. It contains an infobox, two sentences, and an external link to IMDb. ✗plicit 03:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC) Allow Re-Creation of a better article on the film, but I haven't seen the original article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Overturn. Nothing about this AFD was done right. Malformed, not listed properly to begin with. Neither commenter there performed a minimally sufficient BEFORE search. If you just click on the Google link in the DRV, it's easy to find, on page 2 of the results, a review of the (TV) movie nationally syndicated by the New York Times. If you're going to limit your review of search results to page 1, you're not contributing intelligently to the AFD process and should stay away. If you're going to look for coverage of 25-year-old TV films, newspapers.com is a good resource -- but if you dpn't realize that you will need to sift out a large number of plain tv program listings to find the reviews, you, again, don't understand the process. I've encountered deletionist advocates who insist that when there are too many potential sources to check, [[WP;BEFORE] should be disregarded, but sloth is not the secret sixth pillar of Wikipedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Restore given that only one person supported deleting the article other than the nominator it's reasonable to treat it as a soft deletion which can be overturned on request. However to have an article here a film needs to pass the notability guidelines, specifically WP:NFILM, and if there is no significant coverage in reliable sources then an article on a film is likely to be deleted. I think Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is referring to this column about what was on TV one day in 1997, which isn't exactly much to base an article on. The deleted version was extremely short and had little content beyond an infobox. Hut 8.5 18:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Deleting admin comment. OP filed this DRV and then inquired about the deletion without a DRV notice, so I wasn't aware of the former until Extraordinary Writ notified me. I would be more sympathetic if they made an attempt to link to at least one film review, but the basis of their notability argument is that it can streamed on Amazon Prime and received user-generated ratings on IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. ✗plicit 03:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC) Comment - A draft of a better article should include a plot summary, a Reception section, and references. References are not a nice-to-have in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC) Sources presented, or in the temp-undeleted article, are insufficient to justify re-creation. Recommend AfC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 September 2021

Simple file verification – "No consensus" closure endorsed. Interested editors are free to continue discussing a merger. Sandstein 15:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Simple file verification (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Closed as no consensus, but I count: three deletes (counting my nomination), two 'trim and merge', and a single 'week keep or merge'. If I was closing this and was feeling inclusionist, I'd close it with a WP:SOFTDELETE redirect to the merge target or just as a merge. While the comments are split between delete and merge, I don't see how this could be interpreted as a simple 'no consensus', de facto defaulting to keep, given the current comments. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse Looking at the final comments discussing sourcing, by an editor who did not submit a bolded !vote, improved the article a bit, and their comment on sourcing was nor refuted or challenged in any way over the next week, it's a reasonable way to read the trajectory of the multiply-relisted discussion: no further comments were forthcoming, nor was another relist likely to generate more. It's a very weird discussion, with not a lot of strong feelings expressed, which is why I don't disagree with the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC) Closing admin: Exactly as Jclemens puts it, there is nowhere close to a consensus that the sourcing is insufficient after considering the late-submitted book source; those who wished to challenge it had a week to do so. Also, if we're !vote-counting, one of the "delete" !votes is from a sock and doesn't count. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse. No consensus was within the range of closer discretion on this one. Ignoring a comment because the poster forget to, or didn't know they were supposed to, bold a recommendation is (possibly accidentally) disingenuous on the part of the nom. The proposed merge target was an utterly inappropriate place for this material to live, so I'm not surprised that that wasn't the decision. SpinningSpark 07:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC) KEEP (or worse case is a merge) - Here is my vote that I forgot to do last week. Even today, this file type is still being created in a subpart of the internet. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC) Well, after that discussion, what we now have is a short article on simple file verification that needs expansion and more sources, and another short article on file verification that needs expansion and more sources. It's disappointing that file verification wasn't even considered as a merge target. I think it boils down to this: we've closed the discussion roughly in accordance with the procedure but we haven't reached a particularly good outcome. IMV the optimal solution doesn't involve any sysop tools, because we can do everything we need from here with a {{mergeto}} template and a talk page discussion.—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC) Cyclic redundancy check is the proper target. SFV merits maybe a sentence there, as a once fairly widely used implementation of CRC32, and most of the article is about CRC anyway rather than SFV itself. File verification is a much broader subject of which CRC is a subset. —Cryptic 00:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Endorse – There's a pretty clear consensus that some content should be preserved (particularly when the sock !vote is discounted), but not much agreement about how to do it. Particularly given that several participants were decidedly unsure of how to proceed, I don't think that "no consensus" is unreasonable. Obviously, the closure shouldn't be understood to preclude a talk-page merger discussion: there's certainly an appetite for merging the content somewhere. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.