Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2022 Deletion review archives March 2022 >

28 February 2022[edit]

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

Since the discussion in 2009, Bass had become a prominant member of the band, writing most of it's songs, producing two of it's albums, he now owns a new studio, has multiple interviews and articles, becoming something of a second frontman. PurpleBuffalo (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's nothing stopping you (or anyone else) from writing another article about him, and you don't need anyone's permission to do so. The old version is still visible in the edit history if you want to use any of it. Hut 8.5 08:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, working on it. PurpleBuffalo (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • RattanIndia – No review of a deletion decision is sought here. Restoring the draft to mainspace is an editorial decision that does not need DRV approval. People here are of the view that the draft is fit to be restored to mainspace, although an AfC reviewer has meanwhile declined to do so. Sandstein 10:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
RattanIndia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The subject was identified notably in the discussion itself. The page got deleted due to promotional tone. There is a draft Draft:RattanIndia that looks notable and fine.GA99 (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Continue to Allow Review of Draft - The close said that the issue was with the promotional tone of the article, so that there is no barrier to review of a new draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing for us to review here, appellant can submit the draft through AfC anytime they wish. But I've added the AfC draft template to the draft article as it was missing. Jumpytoo Talk 04:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is submitted as per the suggestion. GA99 (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. The close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RattanIndia said, "There's consensus, albeit not the strongest, that the topic is notable, but the article is not in a fit state to be published." I consider the draft to be neutrally written and to have addressed the concerns raised in the close, so I support restoration to mainspace. The article even includes negative coverage: "There have been allegation on irregularities on RattanIndia by Lone Star Funds with which the company had formed a finance company.' Cunard (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article in draft seems fine. It's not 100% clear it meets WP:CORP but it meets WP:GNG and so I'd be fine with the draft being accepted (and quite possibly put back to AfD...) Hobit (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 February 2022[edit]

  • Mario Cerrito – AfD relisted. After discounting the opinions of the blocked socks WexfordUK and ValidatedKing, as well as that of Saiskysat for what I hope are obvious reasons, we have no consensus to overturn the "delete" closure. In a no consensus DRV situation, the closer can relist the AfD. I'm doing so here because given that the AfD and DRV were both tainted by socking, we need to try to have a clean discussion about this topic. I'm therefore reopening the DRV AfD from scratch rather than relisting the existing discussion, and protecting the AfD such that only experienced editors can participate. Sandstein 07:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mario Cerrito (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Nominated on February 3rd, 2022 to determine notability. It received 5 Keep Votes by established editors Alansohn Editorofthewiki (EDDY) Roman Spinner Lamona Saiskysat against 1 Delete vote. On February 10th it was closed by Geschicte as "keep." Lasting only 4 days, it was reopened by Geschicte after the original AfD lister posted to Geschicte talk wall asking for a reopen consideration. In the next re-list, the consensus was split and Relisted again on February 23. After one delete vote, it gained two "keep votes" by established editors NemesisAT and MrsSnoozyTurtle. Within hours after the second Keep vote, Seraphimblade closed the discussion as delete days before the re-list was set to be up and claimed the consensus was "clearly to delete.” This ideology is far from what it reads in the discussion. It leans keep and if at worse it should be Overturn to no consensus. There is plenty of verified strong sources in the article (35) and that was mentioned by the contributors to the discussion. The premise of the ones who said delete was sock puppetry contributing to the article but if sock puppets contributed to the President of the United States article that doesn't take away from notability. An article should not not exist because of others misuse of the platform. Or in other words, sock puppets don't disqualify an individual from notability and especially for this article it was proven notable and then ignored.

  • Overturn to no consensus is my stance. WexfordUK (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WexfordUK (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC) blocked as sock [reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus while the AfD was plagued by sockpuppetry, there were plenty of keep votes made in good faith. Per the close, I discounted all "keep" votes that weren't from "more experienced editors" which leaves us with Alansohn, Editorofthewiki, Roman Spinner, Lamona, Saiskysat, myself, and MrsSnoozyTurtle. On the delete side we have the nominator Tamzin, Oaktree b, Eggishorn, Anton.bersh, Liz, and Doczilla. The closer did not discuss the strength of the arguments on the delete and keep sides and thus I'm assuming each has equal weight. Thus, we have seven keep votes vs six delete votes and therefore the statement that "the consensus is clearly to delete" is completely false. NemesisAT (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus - I had seen previous articles for Cerrito and I was ready to immediately start an AfD when I saw the newest version pop up on my watchlist. But in reviewing the references, I saw that the notability standard was met with in-depth independent reliable and verifiable references and I voted Keep, as did several other experienced editors, all of whom specifically cited the sources as meeting standards. While I would have closed this as a Keep, the claim that consensus was "clearly to delete" is simply not backed up by the actual discussion that took place. Alansohn (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse even accepting that the raw numbers of experienced editors commenting were about equal, WP:NHC applies. The delete !voters such as myself all explicitly addressed sourcing quality and found it wanting. That will not change if the close is overturned. The churnalism and local human-interest stories that the argument for keep rests on do not meet the definition of WP:SIGCOV as it has usually been interpreted in AfD discussions about BLP subjects and the UPE and socking concerns cannot be dismissed out-of-hand as irrelevant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The delete voters did not "all explicitly address sourcing quality". Doczilla's vote read "Delete and salt. Also, do not give into the socks." while Liz's vote was a form of WP:OTHERSTUFF. NemesisAT (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. Or did you miss the long discussion about the value of sources from NJ.com because we went back and forth about that at great length. Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I cannot see how "the consensus is clearly to delete" if a greater number of experienced voters said "keep" than the number of experienced voters who said "delete". There are obvious AfD nominations of individuals who are so non-notable that even the most hardcore inclusionist would vote to delete, but Mario Cerrito is definitely not one of those. I voted "keep" simply because anyone with 48 inline cites and a good number of credits listed on IMDb appears to be automatically notable. Of course, mine was not the only "keep" vote, with the experienced "keep" votes ultimately constituting a slim majority. At the very least, the article should have been retained as "no consensus". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, besides fixing the first relist, I had no other particular involvement in this, though I did follow it somewhat and admit to being surprised, and perplexed, by the consensus reached by the closer. The rationale does seem a little too much like a head count when this is not what AfD is about and there was no evidence of the !votes being analysed as such. There seems to be enough credible expressions of keep as well as delete and I would have thought this is a classic "no consensus" conclusion. It probably doesn't help that the closer jumped in with this closure perhaps a bit premature and when the weight of opinion had shifted slightly closer to keep from the previous relist. Alas, I don't think the outcome can be considered as being explicit. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting parallel conversation yesterday evening: User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Mario_Cerrito_AfD. I think the nuances of DRV and a complicated AfD are a challenge for a new editor, but I wasn't able to fully assist WexfordUK before I had to go offline. As I mentioned there, I did not have time to delve into the merits of the various !votes, but have no issue with Seraphimblade's "early" close after my relist. These month long AfDs don't help with the backlog and if one can be closed, it should be. Star Mississippi 23:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus as per nominator and other contributors. Sockpuppetry was not a reason to discard the views of the established voters, only a reason to ignore the statements by the sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus per above arguments. Deb (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus I believe its against Wikipedia guideline to delete a article which has more vote in AFD. Hope we should also consider the above points in favor.°Saiskysat (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, it's not about vote counting. Second, you have 25 edits, how did you find your way to a deletion review discussion? Just curious given the sockpuppetry and paid editing surrounding articles about this person. Liz Read! Talk! 18:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse good close, with much better arguments by the delete voters. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I expect to be bashed here for not discussing the details of this AfD discussion but I just wanted to comment, how can we have 3 pages about this individual salted, so as to prevent ANY article recreation about him, and yet still he still has an article on Wikipedia? I understand that this recent article may be of higher quality than previous articles but I think the fact that every previous deletion decision on articles about Mario Cerrito has led to page deletions might have influenced the closer of this particular AFD discussion. Should we just accept that if article creators can find a version of a person's name that hasn't been salted, then article recreation is an okay idea? Because in other cases, an attempt at article creation at an unsalted page title, when the previous articles have been deleted and their page titles have been salted, has often led to speedy deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: It's a perfectly reasonable expression to make and the previous salting will influence some no matter what, but the issue here seemed to be more around the socking, although there was definitely some credible expressions of keep. I think going with NC is the closest to satisfying both sides, as it doesn't conclude it outright as keep, but in the same respect I don't think, looking at this afd alone, that it's a straight delete (and I think you have to judge each article and AfD on its own merit). As is often the case in DR, those who voted against the conclusion will want to overturn and those who were on the same side will endorse, which is how this is playing out. A fresh AfD may be best here. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bungle I agree. As much as I was in favor of keep in the AfD- I think it’s really split down the middle (slight lean keep) and I feel a closing of no consensus of the AfD was merited. Hence why most are saying here overturn to no consensus. It for sure wasn’t a delete and it for sure wasn’t a keep.WexfordUK (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC) blocked as sock[reply]

  • Endorse (did not !vote in the discussion, but did comment) - Given that WexfordUK was a 2-day old account when it interacted with the AfD, that Roman Spinner was improperly notified as I and other editors have argued in the discussion, and that Saiskysat is not an established editor (25 edits, first AfD ever, return from inactivity for this AfD only, including Deletion review), my final tally is 7-5 for deletion. (Del: Tamzin, Oaktree b, Eggishorn, Feline Hymnic, Anton.bersh, Liz, Doczilla; Keep: Alansohn, Editorofthewiki, Lamona, NemesisAT, MrsSnoozyTurtle). Strength of arguments being roughly dependent on whether local sources constituted reliable, significant coverage or not, I believe the closer was correct in closing this as delete. WP:NOTPROMO concerns were also not sufficiently addressed by keep voters. Pilaz (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also take note that the three editors that I have excluded from my tally have taken part in this deletion review. Pilaz (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pilaz: The closer literally says he’s a “deletionist” on his page. Another closer relisted this article on AFD to gain a more thorough consensus. It got one delete vote and then two keeps and was deleted a few hours after it was leaning keep. That is what this deletion review is about. It wasn’t even set to be over until 3-4 days after he closed it prematurely. WexfordUK (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC) blocked as sock[reply]
7-5 for deletion is not "consensus is clearly to delete" as the closer suggested. WP:NOTPROMO wasn't mentioned in the nominator's rationale so I'm unsure as to why keep voters were expected to dispute it? NemesisAT (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. If new deletion rationales appear in the deletion discussion and no one disputes them, it's probably because they have valid foundations. Pilaz (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus After reading the AfD it absolutely looks to be No Consensus. Many arguments for both sides.ValidatedKing (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC) blocked as sock[reply]
  • Noting for the record that I have just blocked the OP and another one of the !voters in this discussion as block-evading socks of the same user who plagued the original AfD with socks. Girth Summit (blether) 16:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is perhaps not too surprising and the entire debate really has been unfortunately compromised by such activity. I still stand by my assessment of the AfD but would encourage another run of it, with much more scrutiny of participants. Only if several who !voted keep choose to endorse in this DR may that change things somewhat, but I think notwithstanding, a fresh debate may be appropriate. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 February 2022[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2021 Ukrainian coup d'état plot (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated the reality of the allegations last year covered in this article. I think it is important for it to exist as it is part of the build up to the February invasion. As stated in the deletion discussion, there is an article for the 2016 Montenegrin coup allegations. These allegations obviously do not have the geopolitical significance as the Ukrainian ones. I would appreciate a review of the article. Perhaps another deletion discussion would be helpful? Thriley (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorce, Allow draftification. It was properly deleted per WP:NOTNEWS, but the content and reference in the history could be used in another article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not expect undeletion to draft to lead to fruit, but to satisfaction for User:Thriley, to be sure that no worthy information is being lost.
    Alternatively, list the reference(s) used here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The last revision cited The Guardian, Washington Post, Security Service of Ukraine, Reuters, and Financial Times. —Cryptic 11:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Thriley’s three sources offered in the AfD, I suggest that he looking to whether mention of this announced coup rumour can get a mention at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Prelude. I’m not sure it can, I think sources independent of the Ukrainian President are needed, commenting on his comments, to beat NOTNEWS. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I would not be opposed to a draft, but I think it'd be a waste of time. This was a nothingburger, and no sources since then have covered this in any meaningful light. Curbon7 (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I see no indication that the AfD was closed incorrectly and people there did raise legitimate arguments that a) it doesn't need a separate article and b) the sources are just repeating the same announcement. There is an ongoing war, that doesn't mean that every little thing that happened in it needs its own article. I am not explicitly opposed to a draft, but don't support it either per Curbon7's point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse draftification The information at the very least could be rescued and merged into the main invasion article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, a correct close.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the right close of the discussion (without having seen the original article), without opinion on any draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thriley, I think you neglected to inform the AFD closer about this discussion which I believe is part of the process of Deletion Review. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 February 2022[edit]

  • Saints Row: Undercover – Procedural closure. Redirecting a page is not a deletion, but an editorial action than can be reverted and should be discussed on the article talk page. It is therefore not subject to review in this forum. Sandstein 07:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Saints Row: Undercover (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article about this specific game was deleted and turned into a redirect to the main series article without any discussion. Several references to articles specifically about this game at sources listed as reliable sources at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(video_games) were given (IGN, Eurogamer, Kotaku, The Verge, and Polygon), which, I believe, established independent notability for this specific game, which is a game in a popular series that has been officially released by its developer, and had received significant coverage beyond mere mentions in these reliable sources. 2019UKUser (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It wasn't deleted, it was just redirected, so this is the wrong venue. Any user can undo that redirect. Given the sources in the article, it probably meets the GNG. Hobit (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Because a redirect is a quasi-deletion, coming here was a reasonable error by the appellant. Because redirecting is considered a normal editing action, it can, but should not, lead to edit-warring, which should be avoided by dispute resolution. Is there any special process for resolving a redirect conflict, or should that be resolved by RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has only been blanked & redirected once, so per WP:BRD and WP:ATD-R, revert the redirect, and then anyone can take it to AfD if they feel strongly about it. Jumpytoo Talk 07:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with the above advice and clarification that a redirect created by a regular editor is not an action that needs to be reviewed here. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York)‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There were significant procedural errors: the discussion was closed early and also by an editor who was clearly involved in the discussion. It was also closed as merge instead of redirect, thus forcing a merge when the article had existed as a redirect for 10 years. Rschen7754 05:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about an article which was put to AFD in 2009, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York), which closed "no consensus". Then later Rschen7754 and everyone else in 2012 Talk:County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York)/GA2 discussion decided it should be merged to List of county routes in Onondaga County, New York. That was the obvious consensus, by five !votes to no other votes, by my quick reading of the discussion. The merge was not implmented, as I happened to notice recently when the 2009 AFD discussion was edited (by Malnadachbot; aside: why is a bot being allowed to alter such old AFDs?). I was at the moment without energy to do the proper merger and also was not up to speed in how to put on "merger required" tags myself, and I restored the article with an edit summary calling for merger to be implemented. I suppose that was technically incorrect to do that, I am sorry if that bothers people. I guess I had hoped someone would help take care of the problem. Then, instead, Rschen7754 opened a new AFD, to which I objected. I sorry if I have offended Rschen somehow, if that is what has happened, by my objecting to their opening a new AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York) (2nd nomination). Indeed I think their action was unnecessary and unhelpful and was just causing drama. I asked Rschen to please just drop it, and then they open this deletion review.
I am not sure what Rschen wants from this, besides to chastise me for not following some rules perfectly. Suppose that is done. Then what else does Rschen want? Does Rschen want to insist that nothing can be merged from the old article? Would they edit war against stuff being merged? I don't see point to having a big deletion review being done, unless others feel it is actually productive to attach blame to me or to Rschen for no purpose affecting actual content of mainspace Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - this closure is a complete abuse of the AfD process. This dispute started when Doncram restored an article which was previously redirected, arguing that a previous discussion supported merging it, that no merge was done, and that the article should remain until that happened. (This doesn't make a lot of sense to me - if you think something should be merged, just merge it. There's no need to restore an article nobody thinks should exist.) Doncram then participated in the AfD [1][2] and then closed it as Merge after it had been open for two days [3]. Doncram is now saying that the page should be merged because that's what the AfD decided [4]. Non-procedural AfD closures should be done by uninvolved editors, which is essentially the opposite of what happened here, and there wasn't any particular reason to close the debate five days early. Probably the best outcome here would be to redirect the thing and let anybody who is interested (including Doncram) merge any content they think is appropriate. Hut 8.5 08:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (speedy close SK#1). Should never have been at AfD. Revert the bold recreation, back to the long standing redirect, simple WP:BRD. Discuss at the talk page of the redirect target, Talk:List_of_county_routes_in_Onondaga_County,_New_York. Keep as a redirect subject to consensus on that talk page to recreate the page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SLAP the AfD closer, User:Doncram for the blatant WP:INVOLVED close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn, closed by someone who was not independent. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn - You can't be a partipant, and then (badly) close the AfD. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn obviously. For one thing, when most people say redirect and there is no uncontested & overwhelming argument for merge, I'd expect a redirect. Secondly, you don't close a discussion in which you participated in - WP:INVOLVED usually applies to nonadmin closes as well. Three, I don't see a reason for a speedy close. Also, not so much about the merits of the close itself but I expect that closers refrain from making comments like Gee, I am sorry to have given Rschen an excuse to cause drama, by their creating this unnecessary AFD. in a discussion they closed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, it was a non-admin closure. I'm vacating it per WP:DPR#NAC. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kuraudo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Kuraudo is the Hepburn romanisation of the Japanese name of Cloud Strife, a character in a game that was developed and published by Japanese companies. The first line of Cloud Strife contains both the katakana クラウド・ストライフ and the Hepburn romanisation Kuraudo Sutoraifu in a parenthetical, indicating that the Japanese version of the name is "orignal or official". According to Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English, this would fall under Original or official names of people, places, institutions, publications or products, and is not, as described by Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting§8, a page whose subject is unrelated to that language.

Additionally, the argument that a first name cannot be an official name is not correct, as the character is often referred to in official, original sources, not to mention the Cloud Strife article, as simply "Cloud" or クラウド/Kuraudo. "Official" also does not mean "not colloquial", as Lightning (Final Fantasy)'s "official" in-universe name may be Claire Farron, but the redirect policy cannot reasonably be assumed to refer to a fictional character's birth certificate rather than any name officially used by the creators of the fictional work. 93 (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletion review is a venue to address issues where the deletion process has not been followed. It is not a location to get a "second bite at the cherry" by re-arguing points that were (or could have been) made at the original deletion discussion.
    Keep deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion was closed as delete contrary to existing policy at WP:REDIRECT quoted above. My interpretation is that since no reference to the policy was made, significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. 93 (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:REDIRECT is a guideline, not a policy, and is subject to interpretation and application by consensus. The consensus at the discussion was clear, and you don't get to come to DRV to try and get a more favourable answer (see WP:OTHERPARENT). Stifle (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERPARENT is irrelevant as I never participated in the original deletion discussion back in 2019 and this is the first time I am raising this issue and the first time anyone is referencing the WP:REDIRECT guideline on foreign language redirects. According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion was improperly closed...you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The closing admin properly determined consensus, but I do get to come to DRV as per WP:DRVPURPOSE 3 and because the closer applied improper judgment as there was, as per the deletion process guideline, Conflict between the views expressed and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and he should not have closed. 93 (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The right close, and a correct application of the guideline on foreign redirects. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: can you explain how the redirect fails WP:FORRED? 93 (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse consensus was clear and within policy grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 20:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The clear consensus of the discussion was that (a) "Kuraudo" is the romanisation of "Cloud" not "Cloud Strife" (c.f. Kuraudo Sutoraifu), so the target was wrong, and (b) clouds have no particular affinity to Japanese so fails WP:FORRED. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 February 2022[edit]

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

Another attempt to whitewash the article by deletion by a bunch of SPA accounts. Jain is notable many times over as shown by the many high-quality references that cover him in great depth. Hipal (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woah woah woah, calm down. Accusing people of whitewashing isn't doing anything. (That close was def ridiculous though. I was in the middle of an IAR unclose when you posted this to DRV, but since process is process and you beat me to it I'll let this run it's course.) casualdejekyll 02:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a substantial history of whitewashing attempts by employees and family members of Jain. --Hipal (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COIN reports include: WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Naveen_Jain, WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_46#Naveen_Jain, WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_67#COI_editing_at_Naveen_Jain_yet_again, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Sleep_Country_USA, WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_128#Just_odd --Hipal (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized I never did any proper !voting.. so, for the record, I'm all for Relist at AfD to generate a less scuffed consensus. (Maybe not overturn, though.) casualdejekyll 03:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note as closing admin: The deletion consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain (2nd nomination) was clear. Only one other than Hipal voted to keep it. Including the nominator, that makes 6 to 2, for deletion. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a vote, all the SPA accounts should have indicated something is amiss, the mention of substantial coverage by major press should not be ignored, the history of PAID and COI editing in order to whitewash or delete the article indicates more care should be taken evaluating the AfD, and even the most basic attempt at checking shows the subject is notable. --Hipal (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, and as of right now there are more users that agree it should be deleted. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to disparage your counting abilities, but I see only two editors who opined to delete. —Cryptic 03:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist OK, this is a very weird AfD. The nominator, appellant (at least initially), and one delete voter copied their rationales from the previous AfD, and 3 of the delete voters seem to be SPAs that might be sockpuppetry (won't make a SPI though, leaving that to someone else if they want). I also have my suspicions against one other !delete in the AfD. With these suspicions, I don't think there is a true strong consensus to delete, and a relist to get more opinions is needed. Jumpytoo Talk 04:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or relist - there is clearly sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry or external canvassing going on here. Of the 6 people who supported deleting the article, 4 had very small edit counts (17, 17, 19, and 56 edits). Abukakata05 (talk · contribs), for example, has no other edits apart from writing a draft about a digital media company. Any consensus which relies on these is going to be deeply suspect. The article had plenty of references to decent-looking media sources, some of which are obviously mainly about the subject, and I would have expected delete comments to present some kind of analysis of these sources, but instead they either made general statements or cited WP:SNOW (which is clearly not applicable here). Hut 8.5 08:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The deletion process has not been followed correctly, in that the closer failed to give appropriate (low) weight to delete arguments that were from very new accounts or that cited WP:SNOW, which manifestly did not apply either at the time of deletion or at any other time. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Due to the suspicious activity from multiple of the delete !votes possibly stemming from sock or meatpuppetry, as well as their claims that the 34 sources do not address the subject directly without any source analysis presented, I'm not seeing how the arguments were adequately weighed based on their merits. I see no benefit in immediately relisting if there is a current coordinated effort to remove its contents, in light of Hipal's links above. ✗plicit 13:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There are multiple delete votes that reference WP:SNOW, which makes no sense in this context. This has to be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Something very hinky here. The SNOW votes are bizarre - both the keep and the deletes. The number of low-edit contributions is concerning. The lack of policy-related arguments. Need a thorough SPI check too, and a wider participation in the AFD. Nfitz (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn 5 delete votes were cast. One incorrectly applies SNOW. Two claim a general lack of any sources, but as per this discussion, 34 sources had been included in the article. That leaves us at only two relevant delete votes, which claim that only the companies have notability. In fact, they are repeats of the arguments used in the original nomination, using no source analysis, which was closed as keep. Taking into account that no new well-grounded policy rationale has been advanced to delete, the close should be overturned to keep. Dege31 (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting immediate, temporary undelete as this is worked out because of the extremely troubling problems around this, and the need to reference the article to demonstrate how deep the problems go. --Hipal (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What "extremely troubling problems"? Admins are humans too, they screw up. Though screwing up after many years of doing it right may be a little concerning. casualdejekyll 19:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That a well-established, well-written, well-referenced, well-reviewed article was deleted due to paid editors making vacuous deletion arguments. --Hipal (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There appear to be numerous in-depth sources in the deleted article, which most can't see, because the article is deleted. Can the article please be temporarily restored? Hipal doesn't do themselves any favour by turning a simple routine request into a rant. Nfitz (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And right on schedule, a new SPA has appeared to create a new article whitewashed of the original content--Hipal (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a temporary undelete, however there isn't much point as this discussion becomes eligible for closure very soon and the deletion will almost certainly be overturned when it's closed. Hut 8.5 17:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and semi-protect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain (3rd nomination), without prejudice to it being renominated for deletion by an editor in good standing (a mildly unlikely scenario though that may be). SN54129 17:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the socks slept long enough to be well past the autoconfirmed speedbump. —Cryptic 18:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great, create-protection then. After all, if the hypothetical aforementioned respected editor does present a case for deletion, that's easy enough to action. But our priority should be not to have our time wasted like this. SN54129 18:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since this hasn't been mentioned here so far, Draft:Naveen Jain was created today at 16:19 by User:Mokorow1122 (another editor with few contributions), and the draft was moved to main space by User:Vikuvshah and later deleted as purely promotional at 18:16 by User:Cryptic. BusterD (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist It does not appear that there was enough knowledgeable editors commenting to reach any consensus. --Jayron32 19:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate adding this very late in the DRV discussion, but we could just pretend this incredibly odd AfD never happened. There were very few participants who seemed like they are acting in good faith, including the nominator, and the remaining votes would be a no consensus or relist. A relist would benefit the SPIs and a no consensus is probably correct, but I think vacating is a stronger result - I have no idea if he's notable, but a no consensus sort of implies notability is marginal, when we should be implying this was just a bad AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 20:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (no prejudice to Vacate) Now that I've seen the article itself, I'm beyond shocked at how this AFD was closed. Many of the references in the article easily met GNG. Both Keep votes noted that it had good references, while the deletes argue the opposite. But really - I only looked at four, and three meet GNG: 2003, 2010, 2017, and we have significant coverage, in major media outlets, over a period of about 15 years. Nfitz (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Definitely a mistake on the part of a well-intentioned closer not examining the quality of the arguments. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Only known sketch of the Little Red-Haired Girl by Schulz.webp (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This and other files were speedily deleted as copyright infringement, but they were from the Peanuts Wiki, which states at the bottom of every page that "Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted". Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid. Uploading a copyrighted image to Peanuts Wiki, or any other site which makes its content available under a free licence, doesn't automatically make it available under a free licence. The original copyright still applies. This sketch was done by Charles M. Schulz, who died in 2000, so it's practically guaranteed to be copyrighted. Hut 8.5 19:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 February 2022[edit]

22 February 2022[edit]

21 February 2022[edit]

20 February 2022[edit]

  • American Party of Labor – This discussion concerned the speedy deletion of an article about a minor US political organization. By longstanding convention, DRV construes the speedy deletion criteria narrowly. In this discussion DRV finds that WP:G4 did not apply to the recent version of the article, and restores the deleted content accordingly.
    In this case the method for restoring the article was to move a draftspace copy into mainspace. Andrei Zhdanov is politely asked not to keep a duplicate copy of the article in draftspace in future, because the way this practice interacts with our terms of use can, in some circumstances, necessitate a history merge. This is a laborious and time-consuming procedure that's entirely avoidable if we stick to one version of the article at a time.
    The fact that DRV has reversed a G4 speedy deletion does not necessarily mean the article passes all of our inclusion criteria. Nothing about our decision here inoculates the article against our community deletion discussion process. If any editor still feels this content should be deleted, they are at liberty to nominate it for deletion.—S Marshall T/C 13:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
American Party of Labor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It was mistakenly nominated for speedy deletion despite the page being recreated from scratch and accounted for the previous complaints. I ask for the deletion to be reverted until a consensus can be reached. As I have stated, I am more then happy to attentively listen to any criticism regarding my work, but I cannot improve it when my work is being deleted due to its name. Sincerely, Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not remember the changes made to the final draft. It is very demoralizing to have my article deleted on incorrect grounds, then be told I cannot recreate it due to a criticism I can correct.
    By reading the criteria the page was deleted upon; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G4._Recreation_of_a_page_that_was_deleted_per_a_deletion_discussion,
    it becomes clear that the policy states that new articles which differ in substance from the deleted one, or one that has accounted for the original reason for its deletion, should not be deleted.
    This article demonstrates notability with multiple nontrivial independent sources, and I intend to add more. For that, I need to access the latest revision.
    I am very much okay with having someone revert the edits I make. That way, I can at least continue improving it and discuss it in talk if necessary; instead, the article was speedily deleted.
    Sincerely,
    Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting case. Definitely not a snowball because the decision to delete out of mainspace is very much defensible. You should use fewer references to the Red Phoenix magazine because it's not independent or neutral; use references that point instead to some other source. Personally I would want to see another properly independent and disinterested source that's written by an accredited academic or a professional journalist with checkable credentials before I felt it was ready for mainspace. For me, a red warning flag is that the organisation's membership is not stated, which makes me think it could well be a very small group. Do you have trade union affiliations, or whatever the US equivalent might be? Or are you funded purely by member donations?—S Marshall T/C 09:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should use a 'proposed deletion' process before deleting this article.
    I have not invoked the snowball clause because this article is beyond criticism. Quite the contrary, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia and understand that no good work can come out of my time here if I don't get corrected.
    I invoked the snowball clause because the original reasons for the 'speedy delete' are objectively inappropriate.
    Once the article is back, I will take measures to address all the criticism you presented; Then, if you still think the article should be deleted, the normal process is the one that should be used.
    Defending an erroneous deletion of an article without allowing the author to address the criticism is counterproductive.
    We must judge an article based on its merit, not because it was mistakenly deleted. Evermore so, when the page is a work in progress whose improvement is being hindered due to an oversight.
    The APL does have trade union affiliations, for example, with the IWW.
    I do not understand the implication that I am affiliated with the APL. I live more than a continent away and don't even have an ICMLPO related organization where I live.
    Although the article already had many independent sources, I added more of them to the draft and removed multiple affiliated ones, as you requested.
    There are thirty-seven references in the current version of the article; five (13.5%) are from academic sources. Only seven are affiliated with the Party, which amounts to only 18.9% of citations.
    For comparison, the article on the Israeli parliament (The Knesset) has twenty-three references, out of which fourteen (60.8%) are directly affiliated to the Knesset itself, and only one (4.3%) is academic.
    The State Assembly of Estonia (Riigikogu) article, which has only six references, out of which 3 (50%) are affiliated to the institution, and one (16.6%) academic source, which is cited twice (33.3%).
    The article on the Democratic Party's Democratic National Convention (DNC) has forty-two references, seven (16.6%) are directly operated by the Party, and only six (14.2%) are academic.
    I can improve the article further when I am allowed to access it, have the public discuss it, and share their input in the appropriate fields.
    Sincerely,
    Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the admin who deleted this article, I'm sort of at a loss here. Andrei Zhdanov asked me to revert my CSD deletion and at the same time opened a Deletion Review. So, once this discussion was opened, I didn't feel I could simply revert my deletion decision until this deletion review can to a conclusion. Once an editor has opened a noticeboard discussion, it's not a matter of what I should do or not do but what the consensus of this discussion is. I can admit that I might have erred on the deletion (although I believe it was justified) but now that this discussion has begun, I defer to the editors who are participating here to come to a decision over what to do about this article. I'd recommend returning it to Draft space but there is already an existing draft that is pretty similar to what existed in main space. Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most recent deletion, a speedy deletion by Liz, must be overturned. The quoted speedy deletion criterion CSD:G4 did not apply as the deleted article was not substantially identical to the version deleted at AFD in December. As such, deletion process has not been correctly followed and we must put that right.
    Regardless of where we go from here, however, I would urge User:Andrei Zhdanov to be considerably more concise in his submissions here and to any future discussions. We're already approaching WP:TEXTWALL territory and it is a tendency of Wikipedians, rightly or wrongly, to dismiss or disregard prolix arguments regardless of their merits. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This discussion is a train wreck, largely because there seem to be two trains, one in draft space, and one that was speedily deleted, whose deletion is being appealed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - What would the effect be if I were to Accept the draft version into article space? Would it be possible to resolve any differences between that version and the invisible version by normal editing? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Accepting the draft seems like the least confused way to do this, unless it is considered procedurally important to maintain the trainwreck (perhaps to do a post-wreck analysis on the trains). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent suggestion.
    It will have identical effects to an overturn while combining the trains to solve the trainwreck.
    To avoid the loss of my work, it is also best to do a history merge so I can incorporate the deleted additions.
    Sincerely,
    Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have accepted the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without action – the draft has been accepted, so any further discussion about whether the G4 was correct is academic. The article can be renominated at AfD if anyone feels it to be necessary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can indeed close it without action iff the terms of use have been complied with. A sysop has to check that because they can view the deleted revisions. They need to work out whether the userspace version was a copy-paste of the now-deleted mainspace version, and if it was then they need to check whether the contributors were the same. It's possible that there might need to be a history merge to preserve attribution.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding S Marshall's point, it looks like the mainspace version deleted in the AfD is quite different from the current mainspace text. The version deleted as G4 by Liz is identical to the current mainspace version but both were written by the same editor. So I don't think a history merge would be needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 February 2022[edit]

  • Amudhey – "Delete" closure endorsed, but all are free to recreate the article with new sources. Sandstein 07:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Amudhey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed on the basis of no sources when there are sources. The film has many spellings including Amudhae, Amudhe, and Amuthe. There are sources about production here, here, here, here, here, and here. There is a Sify preview here, a Sify review here, The Hindu review here, a review by New Indian Express critic Malini Mannath here, and a review by film portal BB Thots here. Would like to recreate the page preferably without the 'y' because no sources use it and the title credits say Amudea here. Amudhae is the most common spelling. DareshMohan (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow Re-Creation – Is the filer appealing the closure, or requesting to create a new version? There is nothing wrong with the closure, but a new version can be created in draft space for review, or in article space (after six months) at risk of a new AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation: In the draft space so the references can be cleaned up before moving to the main space. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation: per newly found sources. The outcome of closure was correct but these sources weren't considered in the discussion. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Hong Kong (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The template redirect was deleted and then protected from creation for repeatedly created with the reason being said as "redundant". However, having Template:City_Name for a city's navbox would be consistent with navbox template of other cities, such as those in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Capital_city_templates. The original deletion discussion seems to be treating Hong Kong as a country and forgot Hong Kong is also a city and is thus within the scope of WikiProject Cities, hence following the conventional template naming of other city navbox is useful, contrary to what the original discussion claim. C933103 (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The deletion discussions are here and here. In the redirect discussion, this was a redirect to either Template:Districts of Hong Kong and later a redirect to Template:Hong Kong topics. It was subsequently resurrected as a "namespace dependent frontend" for either {{Hong Kong topics}} or {{WikiProject Hong Kong}} which was seen as confusing. In the various deletion discussions it was mentioned that {{Hong Kong}} had been confused with {{HKG}}, {{Hong Kong topics}}, and {{WikiProject Hong Kong}}. I don't think that has changed, nor how this is any different from {{Macau}} which was confused with {{MAC}}, {{Macau topics}}, ... I don't have a really strong opinion here, but I don't see the problem with using {{Hong Kong topics}} instead to avoid confusion. If keeping this deleted solves a problem and doesn't create any significant new problems, then not restoring it seems like the best solution to me. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The TfD discussion was unanimous. No procedural error is alleged, and DRV is not a forum to re-argue a deletion discussion on the merits, as the appellant attempts to do. Sandstein 12:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 February 2022[edit]

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

Closed as "redirect and merge" despite nobody in the discussion finding evidence that this person ever existed. There was never any "Laodice" who married Mithridates II of Commagene, the whole thing was the invention of a single user who misread a source (so it was claimed in the nomination). Nobody at all rebutted this: there were two voters (1 keep and 1 merge) who took verifiability for granted and mistakenly assumed that the discussion was about notability, but they showed no evidence that WP:V was met, and 5 other participants (not all of whom voted delete) found no evidence that this person existed either. So, shouldn't topics who can't be verified to exist be deleted on the spot, or am I missing something? Avilich (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the closing administrator for an explanation. It was established (without dispute) in the discussion that no Laodice is known to have been married to Mithridates II of Commagene, and so I cannot see what possible good can come from redirecting Laodice (wife of Mithridates II of Commagene) to Mithridates II of Commagene. Surtsicna (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's baffling that he reached the exact opposite conclusion: from my reading of the AfD everybody seemed to assume that she was indeed the king's wife. Avilich (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am... surprised... that anyone can interpret my comments in that AfD as "assum[ing] that she was indeed the king's wife". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. Nobody even attempted to refute the nominator's assertion that the subject doesn't exist. The fact the person doesn't exist means it's not an appropriate search term and any merge would be a very bad idea, and core policy places the burden of proof on those who claim the subject does exist. I don't see how you can possibly read that AfD and conclude that everyone thought the subject existed and was the king's wife. The article only cited this source, which does not support the assertion that the subject existed: The first family member named in the inscription is Mithridates, son of Antiochos (line 4)... The names of Mithridates and his father recall those of king Mithradates II and of his father Antiochus I. Furthermore, Mithridates’ wife Laodike (line 6) carried the same name as the mother of king Antiochus I. This only says that Laodike/Laodice was married to someone called Mithridates, but that Mithridates wasn't king Mithradates II. Hut 8.5 12:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I attempted it. But as I reported I kept turning up a different person instead. Uncle G (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I meant more that nobody tried to argue in the AfD that the nominator was wrong and the subject does in fact exist. Hut 8.5 12:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and start a talk page discussion. There is clear consensus to not have a standalone article. There is an ongoing dispute about whether the Mithridates of the inscription is in fact Mithridates II of Commagene. Relisting would have been fine, although I'd think that an immediate RFD listing might be a permissible place to seek further consensus on the second issue. Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing dispute about whether the Mithridates of the inscription is in fact Mithridates II of Commagene Uh, no there isn't? Point me out a single person who argued that he is, or there isn't. Avilich (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, did you mean a scholarly dispute? Because I certainly do not see one among editors. Either way, please point it out for us. Surtsicna (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comment: I was not notified of this discussion. In my view, the AfD resulted in consensus against keeping the article, but not in sufficiently clear consensus to delete it. If it cannot be verified that there was a wife of this king with this name, WP:RFD would be the next appropriate step. Sandstein 10:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is really not how it should work. A discussion has already found that the existence of the subject cannot be verified. Her (non-)existence was the very subject of the AfD. Not a single user in the deletion discussion argued (let alone proved) that she did exist. I do not see how this should not have resulted in the deletion of the article under WP:DEL-REASON #6 and #7. Surtsicna (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)As the closing admin you are expected to make sure your close is compliant with core content policies, which includes verifiability, regardless of the content of the discussion. THe verifiability policy is clear that the burden of proof is on those seeking to add or retain content. If the subject's existence hasn't been verified then Delete is the only valid closure. Hut 8.5 11:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the AfD, Peterkingiron argued for merging because "we know next to nothing of her, only a name". That's an argument for her existence, and not a baseless one: the article cited a paper by de:Michael Alexander Speidel, a professor of classical studies, who makes reference to "Mithridates' wife Laodike" in an altar inscription on p. 9. It's only on a closer reading of the source that I agree with the AfD nominator that the source makes clear that the Mithridates mentioned in the source is not the king and therefore the Laodike mentioned was not the king's wife. As an editor, I agree that this means that deletion would have been the correct outcome, but that's an editorial assessment arrived at after reading the sources. Doing that and making editorial decisions based on it is the AfD participants' job, not the closer's. On this basis I still can't say that the AfD established consensus for deletion, even though that's only because the "keep" and "merge" participants didn't read the source. Sandstein 22:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
not a baseless one But it is baseless, since he based it on nothing (on a misunderstanding rather than an actual reading of the source) and was explicitly corrected by Caeciliusinhorto afterwards (that alone should've been enough). even though that's only because the "keep" and "merge" participants didn't read the source. But WP:DGFA and WP:NHC mandate that you discard arguments that show no understanding of the matter, or that contradict policy – obvious and straightforward. The consensus of those who read the source and understood the issue was unanimous, and nobody needs you to do the same thing now to arrive at the same conclusion. I also don't see how consensus is lacking with a supermajority of 3 delete votes against 1 merge "vote" (who evidently didn't spend any time understanding the discussion in the first place). Avilich (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the outcome in this case is unsatisfactory, but I must reject on procedural grounds an obligation for the closing admin to read and analyze the sources of an article for themselves and to determine who among the AfD participants has read and understood the sources correctly. This would be a massive amount of work, and it would also oblige the closer to cast a supervote - to determine the AfD on the merits for themselves. That's not a closer's job; they are there to determine rough consensus in a discussion. Thats why I as closer limit myself to evaluating the prima facie plausibility of AfD opinions, without necessarily reading either the article or its sources. This will sometimes lead to the wrong outcome, as it did here, but in this case a new discussion can always be had at XfD. Sandstein 09:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all true, but it's completely irrelevant to this AFD because you didn't have to do it. No editor opining for an outcome other than deletion of this article addressed the nominator's arguments in the least. And no editor suggested a merge or redirect or anything of the sort to Mithridates II of Commagene. We can't "merge/redirect to her husband" as Peterkingiron suggested because, as even the most superficial reading of the nomination shows, we don't have an article on him. This isn't even a close call. If this isn't a correctable error, then we should stop falsely claiming in DRV's header that discussions that resulted in outcomes other than "delete" are reviewable. —Cryptic 11:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, only reading the actual source made clear that Peterkingiron was mistaken in their "merge" proposal, but as I said it can't be the job of the closer to engage in source analysis. For the reasons mentioned above, I don't think I would be procedurally correct in reverting my closure: deleting this mistakenly created article is an editorial decision, not an administrative one. But I've now done what the DRV filer should have done to save us time: submitted the redirect to a forum authorized of making such editorial decisions, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_21#Laodice_(wife_of_Mithridates_II_of_Commagene). Sandstein 17:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, only reading the actual source made clear that Peterkingiron was mistaken Anyone who reads the discussion can see that is flat out untrue, not only from Peterkingiron's failure to meet WP:BURDEN (this in itself should already have been enough), but also from this comment which explicitly pointed out how he was wrong. Did you even bother reading the discussion? Your statement at the beginning (from my reading of the AfD everybody seemed to assume that she was indeed the king's wife), and your refusal to acknowledge the other relevant parts of the discussion which make the central point clear without need to recourse to the source itself, pretty much shows you didn't. Avilich (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, others pointed out Peterkingiron's mistake in the discussion, but, as a closer, there was no way for me to determine whether what they said was a mistake was indeed a mistake without reading the source at issue - which, again, is not a closer's job. Avilich, you are coming across as aggressive and uncollegial both in the AfD, on my talk page and here, which are not good qualities in a Wikipedian. I advise you to drop the stick and accept that you will not always get what you want in AfDs - and that your chances to do so will increase if you follow process (in this case, a follow-up RfD) and try to convince colleagues rather than to bludgeon them. Sandstein 20:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm baffled by this comment. You are surely not suggesting that if someone !votes in an AfD claiming that the subject is covered in a particular source, then it must be closed as keep or no consensus, but that seems to be the logical conclusion of this line of argument. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, but taking into account both Peterkingiron's and Moonraker's opinions (very poorly argued though the latter was), I concluded that this specific discussion did not quite reach the required consensus for deleteion. WP:DGFA instructs administrators: "When in doubt, don't delete" (bold in the original), and in my view there was sufficient doubt to let further editorial process determine the existence or not of the article subject. And that's quite enough of this badgering for me; I'll not respond further here. Sandstein 21:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete I gave the closer some crap earlier, but I'm inclined to cut some slack here. It wasn't clear from the discussion that there really is no debate that this isn't a queen, but rather someone else with a husband who had the same name as the king. Closing as a redirect was plainly in error IMO (and you won't hear me say that too often) but it's an easy error to have made. And if the target article said even a bit about the error made by the historian, then this would be a fine redirect. But it doesn't. So until it does, this redirect shouldn't exist. Hobit (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. There was no need to go to the article's sources, all the relevant information was already given in the AfD. The argument was made that the subject of the article doesn't exist, it wasn't countered by anyone, and it was in fact missed by some of the participants. And the fact that the argument was missed by those arguing against deletion was in turn missed by the closer (and as far as I can see, by one DRV participant as well). Even the most experienced editors make omissions like this one. I think that out of this I'll take a note to myself to make the effort to be absolutely sure I know exactly what is being talked about before closing or participating in any discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete- I gave this a bit of thought as I think Sandstein makes a lot of good points. However, ultimately I am against writing articles, or even redirects, based on misreading source material. I think the delete !voters therefore were correct. When you get down to it this is just an elaborate variation of the Stupping Ton. Reyk YO! 00:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've just realised that the article should be archived at WP:HOAXLIST, as an inadvertent hoax that survived for over 13 years. – Uanfala (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 February 2022[edit]

16 February 2022[edit]

  • A Lawrey – Endorsed. While a relist might have been possible, its comments against policy that count and the keep arguments advance no sources and don’t really address how GNG isn’t an option. Spartaz Humbug! 18:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC) Spartaz Humbug! 18:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
A. Lawrey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The close did not reflect the clear majority (four keep votes against one delete vote and the nomination itself) and the participants in the discussion disagreed with Sandstein's interpretation of NSPORTS. WP:N contradicts the suggestion that NSPORTS requires GNG to be met, stating It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right (emphasis mine). When faced with inconsistent rules, I feel the local consensus should prevail. The closer also did not consider the possibility of a redirect as an WP:ATD. Overturn to keep or no consensus NemesisAT (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support close The sports SNG explicitly says it abides by GNG and subjects must pass GNG. No one prevented any significant coverage that would add towards passing GNG. Plus the keep votes ignored the reality that the "silver medal" was one in a 2 team competition. When silver medal means you come in last place it should not be treated as a medal demonstrating winning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse WP:N says it's either GNG or SNG, but the SNG (NSPORTS) also says that GNG must be met. A valid case for keeping would have had included rebuttals to the nominator's original statement that the sourcing is insufficient to establish notability. Avilich (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). Sandstein's close is based on the wording of NSPORTS; it is appropriate to give less weight to arguments that are not aligned with policy. BilledMammal (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (involved) I agree with NemesisAT, although I think that a relisting would probably have resolved the issue. Given what NemesisAT has highlighted (greened?) and emphasized, I do not believe that its safe to say that NSPORTS is as clear as the delete votes make it seem, and that keep votes can therefore automatically be weighed less. Canadian Paul 22:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The arguments were weighed appropriately by the admin. The SNG for WP:NSPORTS requires GNG to be met as well. The Keep voters ignored that and did not present arguments to actually support notability. Hence, their votes were ignored, as is appropriate. SilverserenC 23:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It's up to the !voters to apply guidelines, and the closer to read consensus, not to interpret guidelines themselves. The !voters chose to apply the WP:NOLY SNG. The following are applicable guidelines to consider (emphasis added):
    Wikipedia:Notability:

    A topic is presumed to merit an article if:...It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...

    WP:NSPORTS:

    The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.

    WP:NSPORTS#Q1:

    The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it.

    WP:NSPORTS#Q4:

    Q4: What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources? A4: There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time...

    Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators:

    Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.

    Both WP:N and NSPORTS allow meeting the SNG to be a presumption of notability. Nowhere does it say GNG must be met now, else we delete now. !Voters are free to choose to delete now, but it was not the consensus here. While GNG should eventually be met, !voters chose to exercise the SNG to allow time. Considering the numerical vote was 4–2 to keep, it's inexplicable why—if the close rationale was that the arguments truly "do not address the sourcing situation"—a relist wasn't at least chosen, given the !vote gap. The close ignored the general judgement of the participants, and moreover misinterpretted guidelines to discount !votes. While the WP:DGFA guideline allows the close to override !votes to comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable, none of those policies were raised as an issue here.—Bagumba (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article had presumably existed for a while already, and so 'eventually' was reasonably interpreted to mean now. Even if it was a recent creation, this dubious interpretation of 'eventually' cannot override WP:ONUS. Avilich (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, !voters are competent enough to write Delete if they meant now.—Bagumba (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's that supposed to mean, and why does it even matter? The article had existed for a while and so "eventually" no sources were found -- that is all that matters. Just how long does "eventually" need to be by your standards until the "keep per NSPORTS" spam becomes insufficient an argument in its own right? Avilich (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't matter what I think eventually means. I didn't !vote at the AfD and DRV is to assess the points already in the AfD, not for any of to discuss the specific merits (or not) of that page.—Bagumba (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If what you think 'eventually' means doesn't matter, then your opinion that the outcome should be overturned because the guidelines say that sources may 'eventually' be found also doesn't matter. Avilich (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you thought it was enough time, but the guideline left eventually open-ended, it's up to the AfD !voters to answer "when", not anyone in a DRV.—Bagumba (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except they did not answer "when", so the default rule here is WP:ONUS, which in any case supersedes any wikilawyer-ish interpretation of 'eventually'. Avilich (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" means do not delete now per SNG (and per WP:N).—Bagumba (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You keep mentioning WP:N, so I presume you noticed it says "notability requires verifiable evidence". If you wish to argue properly, you need to say that keep voters should have shown verifiable evidence that the topic may "eventually" meet GNG. If you can't understand that your logic allows groups of people, as long as they have a numerical majority, to keep articles indefinitely without having to give a single source (in violation of WP:N [RV] and WP:ONUS, among other rules), or that it's a bad thing, then I'm done here. If this article underwent another AfD and DRV 10 years from now, you'd no doubt still be saying that "the article must not be deleted now" is an argument worthy of consideration. Avilich (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...you'd no doubt still be saying that "the article must not be deleted now": I didn't !vote in the AfD, and never said that. I'm sorry if you don't understand that a DRV is not an AfD do over. We'll agree to disagree. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was obviously referring to voting on DRV (in the sense of endorsing arguments of the like when they are made in an AfD), not AfD. Avilich (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or relist With a 4-2 vote count, with 2 keeps making some reference to the NSPORTS/GNG argument, and all voters citing or alluding to some policy or guideline, I don't see a case to use closer discretion here. If this many editors are consistently making such "fatal" errors with NSPORTS, it probably means the guideline needs to be fixed. But the closer shouldn't be trying to fix this in local consensus, rather fix it in an RfC first. Jumpytoo Talk 05:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as yet another Sandstein Supervote. Ignores WP:DGFA. Ignores WP:ATD-R. Ignores WP:NHC. Inexplicably declines to relist. I could go into more on any of these, but it seems I do at least every month on one of these deletions. We have an admin here who is neither following policy nor accepting gentle correction when his failings are pointed out. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It's clear from NSPORTS that GNG should generally be satisfied. In this case "common sense" says that a man, whose name we don't even know, is not notable, especially since it seems no significant coverage has been found. Nigej (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Clear to you, perhaps. But this is a DRV, not AfD: Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question (Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting in a deletion review). The closer could have instead !voted that way to help make it clearer, and left it for someone else to close.—Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I would have supported deleting/redirecting this, but the close doesn't reflect the discussion. NSPORTS is an SNG and arguments based on the subject passing an SNG are reasonable and shouldn't be discounted. There are various proposals open to remove or gut NSPORTS but it's not appropriate to try to implement those through individual AfD closures. Hut 8.5 08:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Hut, and Jclemens. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. NSPORTS is explicitly subordinate to the GNG. Many years ago, the community had a discussion that was pretty closely balanced but, seen in exactly the right light with a following wind, just about shaded into consensus to promote NSPORTS to guideline. A central part of the negotiations to promote it was the rule that NSPORTS shouldn't overrule the GNG, without which NSPORTS wouldn't be a guideline at all. I very much approve of any decision that enforces this.—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NSPORTS is explicitly subordinate to the GNG: Can you provide the specific excerpt? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, with pleasure: The closing summary at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4 § RfC: Promote Notability (sports) to a guideline, confirmed by the community at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 8 § Applicable policies and guidelines, Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 9 § Relation to GNG (again), and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 16 § Second sentence. I realize that awareness of this among sports-focused editors is very low.—S Marshall T/C 16:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You linked a lot of past talk page discussions. However, we can only go off what is the current implementation in the actual text of the NSPORTS guideline. I see nothing in the guideline about NSPORTS being "explicitly subordinate to the GNG".—Bagumba (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think discussions from 2010, 2011, and 2013 shoydtake precedence over WP:N which today states that a subject only needs to meet either an SNG or GNG for presumed notability. NemesisAT (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that those discussions are old. If the community has changed its mind, then please could you link the discussion in which it did so? I want to say that that's a very dramatic change, because if NSPORTS could actually overrule the GNG, then the practical effect of that would be to shift the burden of proof onto the delete side. In other words, the only way you could ever delete an article about a sportsperson would be to somehow prove that significant coverage doesn't exist. That's an extraordinary burden of proof: how could anyone ever meet that? It makes sportspeople articles practically undeletable. And where the sportsperson is still alive, how do you think that interacts with our rules on biographies of living people where we have to remove unsourced or undersourced information on sight?—S Marshall T/C 23:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere does it say GNG is "overruled". NSPORTS works in conjunction with GNG. From one of the quotes listed above (at my 04:56, 17 February post), per WP:NSPORTS#Q1 (emphasis added):

    The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it.

    —Bagumba (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I note you don't link a discussion where the community agreed that NSPORTS can be an alternative to the GNG. May I take it that you concede that point? I'm also confused by the idea that NSPORTS stops an article being "quickly" deleted. In practice it is used to stop an article being deleted after a full seven-day AFD during which, I would have thought, the keep side might be expected to turn up a source or two.—S Marshall T/C 00:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NSPORTS#Q4 regarding the timing. WP:N says either GNG or an SNG provides a presumption of notability. NSPORTS says it can be used to stave off deletion, but GNG should eventually be met. If AfD participants say keep per NSPORTS, "eventually" is decided to not mean now. The assumption is that (most in) the community are learned enough to not game the system. So we AGF, or otherwise change the guidelines. I dont accept closers enacting their own set of rules that dont reflect existing guideline nor what the participants discussed.—Bagumba (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it really does seem to me that this means that if I nominate a sports biography for deletion, you can say, "No, sources probably exist and someone will produce them eventually," and if you do say that, then the article can't be deleted. This seems very lax indeed, and hard to reconcile with our rigorous rules about undersourced biographies; although it does explain why nearly half the biographies on Wikipedia are about sportspeople.—S Marshall T/C 16:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My one !vote wouldnt have that much weight. We operate on consensus, and others would have to assess the situation similarly, unless the closer decided to supervote based on my minority position.—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We operate on rough consensus, in which the closer gives people's !votes weight according to their basis in policy. Policies represent the wider community consensus and it's the closer's job to see that they're followed. In the case of this debate, I feel the !votes that are wrongly grounded in the mistaken idea that NSPORTS can overrule the GNG are actually counter-consensus and therefore deserve little weight. I feel that community's intent, underlying our content policies and expresed most clearly in WP:V, is that when someone makes a reasonable complaint of poor sourcing, the only acceptable answer should be to add new and better sources, and when as in this case the sources don't appear, the disputed content should be deleted.—S Marshall T/C 18:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The top of Wikipedia:Notability reads (empasis added):

    A topic is presumed to merit an article if...It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...

    I don't understand the frequent accusation, not just from you, that GNG is being nefariously "overruled". The guideline left GNG/SNG decided on a per-case basis. If a guideline is open to interpretation, the closer should 1) leave it to the !voters' to interpret 2) consider !voting instead of closing 3) get consensus to clarify the guideline pages, is needed.—Bagumba (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but the whole point is that the criteria of NSPORTS is ultimately the GNG. So, let me translate that: it's either the GNG or, ultimately, the GNG. That's what the argument is. Dege31 (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In cases where something that doesn't pass the GNG is nevertheless deemed "notable", I think it's entirely fair to say that the GNG is being overruled. At some point in the past few years someone has edited WP:N to say that SNGs are coequal with the GNG. I view that edit as incredibly poorly thought through and I am currently researching to work out who did that, when they did it, and whether there was a proper discussion advertised on WP:CENT to support their change.—S Marshall T/C 13:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the exact diff where the wording was introduced, but this diff from 2007 indicates that a subject has presumed notability if it meets either the general notability guideline or an SNG. NemesisAT (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That pre-dates NSPORTS. Three years later, the discussion in which NSPORTS was promoted to guideline clearly envisages that it's subordinate to the GNG. The most recent consensus I've been able to find about this is here, where we find There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. [and] There is a general unhappiness with the permissiveness of some NSPORTS criteria, but no consensus in this discussion on any specific changes to any of them. I agree with the closers' analysis of that debate and am sad that the community can't converge on a fix.—S Marshall T/C 16:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly after skimming that conversation I'm not seeing the "clear consensus" quoted above but I don't see any point arguing with youa about it. If the consensus was so clear, why was WP:N never updated? NemesisAT (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, because there wasn't consensus for any specific change. As I said, in my view the situation is that the community knows NSPORTS is out of alignment with the rest of the encyclopaedia but can't converge on a fix.—S Marshall T/C 17:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So as the guidelines haven't yet been changed and SNGs still have equal weight to GNG, the closing statement was incorrect (or personal opinion) and the result should have been "keep" given there were four "keep" votes in keeping with our WP:N guideline, vs one delete. NemesisAT (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The community doesn't think SNGS have equal weight to the GNG at all, though. Someone's stuck that in the text of WP:N but, as demonstrated in the five or six discussions I've linked so far in this debate, that wording doesn't reflect the community's real view. The "delete" close was correct because the "keep" side just !voted when what they needed to do was produce sources.—S Marshall T/C 18:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Sigcov was established by any of the editors. scope_creepTalk 14:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question (the same for below) was his first name ever found? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Arthur?[5]—Bagumba (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep, per NemesisAT and Bagumba. Sandstein's close seems to be a supervote (just like he did at Pete Vainowski). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or relist Even if we completely disregard all the keep !votes (which we shouldn't), a single delete !vote plus the nominator amounts to a WP:SOFTDELETE at most. As multiple people have indicated a preference to restore the article, do so, and potentially relist at AfD to try to get more participation and build a better consensus. Smartyllama (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Relist I simply don't see consensus here. Their was sole Delete response to the AFD. The close appears to be a super vote, that cherry picks NSPORT, ignoring the section Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb. Long-standing consensus in the project is that players from a century ago are going to be hard to find sources for. If there were to be supervotes, then I'm not sure why redirect to Rugby union at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Great Britain (Cornwall) wouldn't be a more suitable outcome. Nfitz (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No rebuttal was provided to counter to the GNG failure argument, which is paramount when NSPORTS pass is challenged at AFD, so the pure SNG-based keep arguments were rightly given very little weight. Successive discussions and RFCs have long established that NSPORTS does not supersede GNG, but it's evident that many editors will continue to ignore this standing consensus. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. In my experience sports editors do have access to some of the best sports bio sources and will post them at AfD and add them to the article if coverage can be found, so if they looked and didn't find any then it's safe to say that GNG coverage can no longer be presumed. I'm not sure what type of offline/hard-to-find sources would exist for this since newspapers from that era are widely digitized. –dlthewave ☎ 21:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If this is relisted, it may be best to wait until the NSPORTS omnibus RfC is closed since it aims to clear up some of the confusing and conflicting guidelines which led to this DRV in the first place. –dlthewave ☎ 17:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, AfD is not a vote. While closing against a seeming majority sentiment certainly requires a strong reason to do so, it is not forbidden. In this instance, the AfD rationale challenged meeting GNG, not something else, and the "Keep" arguments failed to even much address, let alone refute, that claim. "Meets an SNG" is not relevant when that wasn't even what was challenged to start with, and of course closers are expected to discount weak and irrelevant arguments. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:N, meets an SNG is a valid argument to keep (or at least, it's equally as valid as saying something meets GNG) NemesisAT (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not. Passing an SNG is guidance for when GNG will likely be met, not a substitute for actually meeting it. While passing an SNG gives a presumption that GNG is passed, that is a rebuttable presumption if an editor makes a genuinely good effort to find GNG-quality sources and comes up empty. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NSPORTS already says: ...meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept; it's a given that it's rebuttable. I'd expect more than a minority !voting to delete when an SNG is verifiably met. There's a growing lack of AGF in applying an SNG. If an SNG is unreliable, fix it or get it delisted. There's something wrong if the closer is interprettng guidelines and not just !voting themselves.—Bagumba (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is. WP:N bullet 1: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and. If you read WP:GNG, you'll see it is also a presumption of notability, just like the SNGs. NemesisAT (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- AfD is not a vote, and arguments that don't address the nomination are often about as useful as "Keep- I like pie". Reyk YO! 22:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I accidentally put some of my !vote reasoning for this DRV in the other DRV instead: And the claim that WP:N somehow elevates an individual sport-specific guideline above that of NSPORT itself and therefore abolishes the need for GNG is absolutely specious. JoelleJay (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst SNG was met and is a reasonable argument to keep (a rebuttable presumption), if so little is known about a person that we cannot even discern his first name, I have grave doubts that we could consider him notable. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was mentioned in the AfD that the name was updated. It appears to be Arthur.[6]—Bagumba (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    and his surname was actually Lawry. Rather embarrassingly we have the wrong man mentioned here 1907–08 Rugby Union County Championship. It was Arthur who played in this match and not Dr Lawry. See [7] which clearly shows Arthur in kit (seated left) and Dr Lawry not. Nigej (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or relist Closing as delete when four of five participants presented valid keep arguments is a supervote. It's clear what side of the fence Sandstein is on in the interminable GNG vs SNG debates, but if he wishes to express his interpretation of the notability guidelines he should do so as a participant, not close the discussion.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that a !keep editor was canvassed to the AFD. BilledMammal (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note canvassing to this DRV by an AfD !deleter here.—Bagumba (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the village pump, not a partisan editors talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The message however was not neutral at all. NemesisAT (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes that's problematic and procedurally irregular. Could the closer of this DRV please consider having a word with that editor?—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse None of the keep arguments address or even attempt to address the reason for deletion, instead going off on the usual fallacy of automatic notability, which is at odds with the community guidelines as written (which require evidence, not unsupported assertions, of notability); despite an obvious (and invalid) WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to the contrary by some sports editors. The closer correctly disregarded the invalid arguments. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:N reads A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right while WP:NSPORTS reads The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. Thus the keep voters citing WP:NSPORTS are doing so according to our guidelines. NemesisAT (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is very clearly WP:WIKILAWYERING which is at odds with the guideline as applied in practice and which is also at odds with every other policy (including WP:NOR, WP:NOT and WP:V). Your own personal misinterpretation of this does not mean that you can override wider community consensus. WP:NSPORTS also says, and quite friggin obviously too, that meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. You selectively ignoring this is not my problem, but if it continues it might very well become one for the wider community to address. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If reading and following two separate guidelines that are consistent with each other is wikilawering, why bother with guidelines at all? If you disagree with them, request that they're changed but until them I'm following the guidelines. NemesisAT (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express; and doing so by applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives (or, in a less verbose form, cherry-picking). The underlying principle these policies express is that there should be sufficient sources from which to write an encyclopedic article. The guidelines as written are indeed consistent with each other, in that none overrides the need for evidence of notability (WP:NRVE) or for sources being shown to exist when challenged (NSPORTS FAQ no. 2). You going for a narrow reading of WP:N, when NSPORTS explicitly states it does not override the requirement for GNG (a view which was affirmed in a 2017 RfC), is indeed rules-lawyering of the worst kind. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. I haven't cherry picked sentences from deep in the guidelines, I'm referring to the lead section of both. After accusing me of cherry picking, you've cherry picked two sections from within the guidelines! I don't see any point in arguing further, I stand by my opinion that the keep votes are in keeping with our guidelines and shouldn't be discounted. NemesisAT (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not quoting anything particularly obscure (NRVE has a big header for itself, so hard to miss; and the quote is from the lead of NSPORTS). On top of that, the very first sentence of NSPORTS is This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. [emphasis mine]. If a guideline is used to "help evaluate" whether something "is likely to meet the general notability guideline", it's clear that any interpretation of it which comes to an opposite conclusion (that GNG is not required) is either A) wrong or B) willfully wrong. Multiple editors having the same misunderstanding does not mean that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can override this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) You are correct in that the keep votes should not be discounted, however they have rightly been given very little weight here because they did not address the lack of secondary, significant coverage, and instead just kept repeating "meets SNG" without ever presenting a single instance of significant coverage or even a claim that any might exist. Also, as has been pointed out, successive RFCs (in addition to countless other discussions, including AFDs) have reaffirmed the community's view on the relative standing of NSPORT with respect to GNG; i.e. GNG must be met (eventually), which means (and includes) when challenged at AFD. As stated, keep !voters failed to even attempt to address that here. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or Relist - The policies and guidelines are sufficiently complicated and confused that we should ignore the existing rules and apply what the rules ought to be, which is that either GNG or an SNG should apply. The SNG does apply. Anyway, when the rules are in doubt, let the consensus rule. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This goes directly against WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The rules are not in doubt, and they are not confusing for anyone who actually tries to understand them. That there is a vocal subgroup of sports editors who happen to !vote in nearly every athlete AfD but refuse to acknowledge longstanding broad consensus is immaterial to what that wider consensus is. The applicable SNG is NSPORT, which states in at least 5 places that GNG-level coverage is required to merit an article and must eventually be demonstrated. Selectively ignoring those sections of the SNG contravenes WP:N. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The real WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is this mistaken notion that an SNG can be dependent on the GNG. All other SNGs are independent of the GNG, and yet people keep trying to argue that stricter SNGs can exist--NSPORT, PROF, NORG--when there exist a large number of Wikipedia editors who reject the notion as simply a category error: to the extent that an SNG says the GNG AND SNG must both be met, that text is against longstanding Wikipedia consensus and disregarded. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens: Have you ever read NSPORTS? The very first sentence defines what it is. It is not an alternative to GNG. It is not an inclusion criteria by itself. It is a guideline used to help evaluate whether a topic is likely to meet GNG. Says so right off the bat. People of course can be excused for not quite having the same opinion as the written guidelines, but the guideline documents the existing commnunity consensus, and individual editors coming to a conclusion that somehow GNG can be ignored is very hard to justify as anything but motivated reasoning based on a few select snippets, and the best description of it is indeed it being a LOCALCONSENSUS which is at odds with that of the wider community. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If NSPORTS is an SNG and claims that GNG must be met, then it is at odds with other SNGs and the longstanding understanding that notability is GNG or SNG. No SNG can say "must meet the GNG and..." and at the same time be consistent with notability as developed over decades. A LOCALCONSENSUS to try and make NSPORT some sort of a zombified SNG that can't be met without the GNG already being met is aberrant, rather than normative. Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens: why would being at odds render an SNG invalid? We have countless exceptions to policy - SNGs are, by their very nature, exemptions to the default PAGs and there is zero obligation for any PAG to match the general trend of rules. In the D&D world, you'd call it the "specific rule trumps general rule" use-case. Should we also prohibit NPROF, because its notability methodology is such an outlier? NSPORTS is not a local consensus, because it was formed as a full PAG by the broader community. This DRV could claim to override NSPORTS and that would be a LOCALCONSENSUS. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the SNG, just the clauses that said that the SNG was dependent on the GNG being met. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) @Jclemens Have you ever read "all the other SNGs"?
SNGs with GNG criteria
  • WP:NASTRO: Astronomical objects are notable if they have received substantial attention and coverage in reliable sources ... Coverage must be specific and substantial: notability is not ensured just because an object is listed in a scientific paper or included in a large-scale astronomical survey. To establish notability, the astronomical object must have significant commentary in reliable sources, such as being one of the primary targets of a study with in-depth discussion (beyond discovery and basic parameters). In the section titled "No inherent notability": Notability is determined solely by coverage in reliable sources, not whether editors personally believe an astronomical object is important. These requirements are clearly equivalent to GNG. The astro-specific criteria indicate a subject is presumed notable, but given the above quotes are in the instructions for establishing notability, NASTCRIT are clearly only intended as supplemental rules-of-thumb to predict GNG.
  • WP:NEVENT: Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. Re: lasting effect: Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. This is the only part of this SNG that could be interpreted as "alternative to GNG", however "noted and sourced" historical significance pretty much precludes any event that doesn't have GNG coverage, especially when the guideline asks us to evaluate based on these other factors: An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. ... Wikipedia's general notability guideline recommends that multiple sources be provided to establish the notability of a topic, not just multiple references from a single source.[3] A series of news reports by a single newspaper or news channel would not be sufficient basis for an article. This is a restatement of GNG.
  • WP:NFILM: Directly defers to GNG in almost all cases, but contains some criteria for inclusion that presume GNG but don't immediately require GNG sourcing.
  • WP:NNUMBER: Requires professional articles about the subject, or "obvious cultural significance" and listing in specific published books. So, even more rigorous than GNG.
  • WP:NORG: No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it. Restatement of GNG.
  • WP:NWEB: Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any web content that, despite meeting the rules of thumb described above, for whom editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content. Ultimately requires GNG, even when meeting the single non-GNG-restated criterion The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
Fully half of all SNGs have criteria that are at least ultimately identical to or presume GNG. Several explicitly state they predict GNG, including NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I think you've made my point for me--that various efforts have been made to erase the alternative nature of SNGs--but I'm guessing that's not what you intended. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: you'll have to talk us through the reasoning here. Firstly you're saying the "alternative nature" as if it is a global, all-cases, standard, that specifically prohibits the possibility of the SNG itself using GNG as a standard. Secondly, even if there had been various efforts to erase it (and that's not what I believe is happening, as it was clearly never intended for SNGs to be outright prohibited from using GNG), that still wouldn't be an issue because the SNGs are discussed at a community wide level. They'd be perfectly entitled to narrow down a previously broader scope. That's what community decision-making can do. If you want to change either individual SNGs to be broader, or even re-write WP:N to specifically prohibit SNGs calling back to GNG, that's fine, but you need to get the community to actively sign on to it. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, I don't have to justify my reasoning why I find the current wording uncompelling. I did anyways, but the fact that you don't find my reasoning compelling isn't an issue I find demands my further time and repetition. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Sports SNG do not override GNG and the subject failed GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. None of the keep !votes addressed that fact. Alvaldi (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to relist If you are closing against numeric consensus of reasonable people citing reasonable guidelines and there has been no relist before, it's best to relist. I suspect this should be deleted (or more likely redirected), but not with that discussion. Hobit (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • E. J. Jones (rugby union) – Endorsed. Basically as before but a clearer consensus. While arguments rage about whether GNG or NSPORTS win, the fact is that keep arguments do not resolve the inadequate sourcing Spartaz Humbug! 19:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
E. J. Jones (rugby union) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer cited their own close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Lawrey as the reason for this delete close. As that close is now under review, I feel this one should be nominated to. Overturn to no consensus NemesisAT (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support close SNGs cannot overcome GNG, and no significant coverage was offered.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is incorrect. WP:N says presumed notability if a subject passes either GNG or an SNG. NemesisAT (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sports SNGs specifically require a passing of GNG, and this has been endorsed through RfC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). Sandstein's close is based on the wording of NSPORTS; it is appropriate to give less weight to arguments that are not aligned with policy. BilledMammal (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (involved, copying my rationale from other discussion) I agree with NemesisAT, although I think that a relisting would probably have resolved the issue. Given what NemesisAT has highlighted (greened?) and emphasized, I do not believe that its safe to say that NSPORTS is as clear as the delete votes make it seem, and that keep votes can therefore automatically be weighed less. Canadian Paul 22:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse As with above, the GNG is required to be met for sports player articles. Their SNG specifically states this. If Keep voters don't actually advance an argument showcasing support for GNG on the article subject, then their votes are appropriately summarily ignored when determining consensus. SilverserenC 23:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist While unlike with the other DRV, a 3-3 count can be subject to closer discretion. But 2 of the keep votes made some reference the GNG/NSPORTS argument, and I feel it is better to relist AfD's that are evenly split. Perhaps the additional time could of found sources or determined there were no sources to meet GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 05:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for all the same reasons as A. Lawrey's DRV. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist It's up to the !voters to apply guidelines, and the closer to read consensus, not to interpret guidelines themselves. Some !voters chose to apply the WP:NOLY SNG. The following are applicable guidelines to consider (emphasis added):
    Wikipedia:Notability:

    A topic is presumed to merit an article if:...It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...

    WP:NSPORTS:

    The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.

    WP:NSPORTS#Q1:

    The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it.

    WP:NSPORTS#Q4:

    Q4: What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources? A4: There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time...

    Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators:

    Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.

    Both WP:N and NSPORTS allow meeting the SNG to be a presumption of notability. Nowhere does it say GNG must be met now, else we delete now. !Voters are free to choose to delete now, but there was no consensus yet. While GNG should eventually be met, some !voters chose to exercise the SNG to allow time. Considering the numerical vote was 3–3, it's inexplicable why it wasn't relisted. The close ignored the general deadlock of the participants, and moreover misinterpretted guidelines to discount !votes. While the WP:DGFA guideline allows the close to override !votes to comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable, none of those policies were raised as an issue here.—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Same issue as in the A. Lawrey case. Absolutely no evidence has been produced that this man is notable. Nigej (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per the above comments. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per my remarks in the DRV immediately above this one.—S Marshall T/C 10:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Relist I simply don't see consensus here. The close appears to be a super vote, that cherry picks NSPORT, ignoring the section Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb. Long-standing consensus in the project is that players from a century ago are going to be hard to find sources for. If there were to be supervotes, then I'm not sure why redirect to Rugby union at the 1908 Summer Olympics#Great Britain (Cornwall) wouldn't be a more suitable outcome. Nfitz (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No rebuttal was provided to counter to the GNG failure argument, which is paramount when NSPORTS pass is challenged at AFD, so the pure SNG-based keep arguments were rightly given very little weight. Successive discussions and RFCs have long established that NSPORTS does not supersede GNG, but it's evident that many editors will continue to ignore this standing consensus. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:N should be updated, in that case. As of right now, it clearly states that either passing GNG or an SNG means notability is presumed. Thus the four keep voters were correct per WP:N. NemesisAT (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @NemesisAT, this argument completely fails as there is no statement or even implication that an SNG cannot itself require the equivalent of GNG. Passing NSPORT means a subject has a rebuttable presumption of meeting GNG based on meeting a sport-specific subcriterion, it does not mean a subject meets WP:N automatically by virtue of meeting a subcriterion regardless of GNG existing. That is the end of the story. JoelleJay (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Per Wjemather. And the claim that WP:N somehow elevates an individual sport-specific guideline above that of NSPORT itself and therefore abolishes the need for GNG is absolutely specious. JoelleJay (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As above, discussions of an SNG are not relevant when the nomination challenges whether the subject meets the GNG. Closers are expected to disregard weak and irrelevant arguments; AfD is not a vote. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:N literally says notability is presumed whether an article meets GNG or an SNG NemesisAT (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the SNG is NSPORT, which mandates GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can a guideline mandate anything? You are looking at this through a black and white lens, when you need to be using one with shades of grey. In fact, NSPORT says that articles SHOULD meet GNG. Not must. Yes, there's contradictory stuff in the guidelines - all the more reason to seek out consensus. Nfitz (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know what Q5 says by now. There is no logical reading of WP:N or NSPORT that suddenly elevates an individual SSG to SNG status.
What "eventually" means is up to editors to defend, and the closer used their discretion to evaluate the strength of their arguments. When there are no arguments along these lines the closer is within their rights to discount those !votes. JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no logical reading of WP:N or NSPORT that suddenly elevates an individual SSG to SNG status: "Suddenly elevates"? NSPORT is an SNG. Full stop. See Template:Notability guide i.e. the SNGs listed in the box on the right that the top of WP:N explictly refers to.—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, NSPORT is the SNG. Not NFOOTY or NCRIC or NRUGBY. So what NSPORT requires of its SSGs is what would be considered by the "or" sentence in WP:N. We've been over this so many times... JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- AfD is not a vote. Nominator and at least one participant pointed out that the sources to sustain an article aren't there; in response, replies of "there must be sources out there somewhere" and "SNG says we don't need sources" are about as useful as a chocolate teapot. Reyk YO! 22:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see either of your quotes, User:Reyk in the AFD - or anything close. Can you please edit review your Endorse as it seems to be based on fallacies. Nfitz (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. People treat the SNGs as though they're an exemption from the usual substantial sourcing requirements and that mindset was pretty obvious from the AfD. The closer did right not to give those arguments much weight. Reyk YO! 01:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are literally no requirements - it's guidance. Though even if it were, they are sourced - this isn't a situation where it appears to be a hoax or something. Meanwhile, we are judging the close - and there simply isn't consensus to delete. The close was premature - and I wouldn't be surprised if the consensus would end up being another option, such as redirect. Nfitz (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Whilst meeting one of the NSPORTS guidelines is sufficient to establish a presumption of notability, when so little is known about a person that we cannot even say his first name, the presumption is rebutted. Stifle (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    cannot even say his first name: That wasn't even an argument in the AfD. Some people do go by their initials. In any event, it's Edwin Jacob Jones.[8]—Bagumba (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that a !keep editor was canvassed to the AFD. BilledMammal (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "A !keep editor"? They haven't participated in this discussion! NemesisAT (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they did. BilledMammal (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note canvassing to this DRV by an AfD !deleter here.—Bagumba (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the village pump, not a partisan editors talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It was a non-neutral mention. The venue was fine.—Bagumba (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse In this case the editors were evenly divided, but strength of argument (the necessity for evidence of notability and not mere assertions that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES) was definitively on the delete side, and the keeps did not plausibly address this, hence this was a closer correctly applying WP:NOTAVOTE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep, or Relist - Could these two appeals have been bundled? I know that isn't usually done here. The same arguments apply. The rough consensus can govern when the rules are confused. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that the first is against a more obvious numerical majority. Here the !votes are evenly divided. Closers favouring the side with strength of argument when !votes are numerically evenly divided is entirely routine and frankly a waste of everyone's time to re-argue it. The other case (favouring a clear minority if they have strength of argument) is a bit rarer, but is still in line with the expectations of WP:NOTAVOTE. This isn't a case of the guidelines being confusing. As written, right from the very first sentence, NSPORTS is not at odds with GNG, despite some editors having an interpretation which is in effect a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to the contrary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And when you ignore the canvassed vote, !votes here are in favour of deletion. BilledMammal (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse NSPORTS does not supersede GNG and the subject failed GNG due to lack of significant coverage. None of the keep !votes addressed that fact. Alvaldi (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to relist per the argument I made in the above DRV. And a WP:TROUT to the closer. If you are going to make a close you know (or should know) would be contested and yet you are sure you are making the right close, let someone else close the next one of the same type. Otherwise you are indicating a pretty strong fear that some other admin will reach the opposite conclusion. Not a good look IMO. Hobit (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - while it would not be impossible to argue that olympic medals would warrant an IAR keep, that doesn't appear to have been utilised. Instead !vote reasoning was premised off the now recurring NSPORTS/GNG split, where the policy text is unambiguous. In response to @Bagumba:'s citing of WP:N, I'd point out that the key bit here is that the SNG is not satisfied because it itself requires GNG to ultimately be met (in effect, each path here leads to GNG). That's not always the case - a village could pass GEOLAND (SNG) without passing GNG and thus meet WP:N, but not with athletes. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nosebagbear: Your interpretation of SNGs like NSPORT seem to highlight WP:5P5: The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording... The numerous SNGs become all for naught if GNG immediately overrules them. But that doesnt seems to be the spirit of why SNGs were created; what use would they serve otherwise? If consensus has changed in this respect, it should be formalized with a straight-forward request to delist them, avoiding polarized and voluminous AfDs and DRVs. Until then, the suggestion that the intent of SNGs' current wording was to provide no practical benefits seems contrived.—Bagumba (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The "principles and spirit" of pretty much all notability guidelines is that Wikipedia should not have articles on every random topic, and that when it does have articles, such entries should be able to provide something more than a database entry or dictionary definition. What NSPORT seems to be (based on its very first sentence) is an attempt to help editors determine whether some arbitrary (in this case, sports-related) topic is likely to meet some criteria for inclusion. It's supposed to help editors focus their time on worthy subjects, and discourage creation of articles on subjects for which there is unlikely to be sufficient material for us to write an encyclopedic article. Clearly, in it's current state, it is not achieving that (as it seems to be leading to the opposite of this intended effect, by actually encouraging the creation of articles on topics which there is not much to say about); but that thankfully seems to be more due, inded, to a misunderstanding of the principles and spirit of the guideline (along with some ambiguity which needs to be resolved) than with the guideline itself. It's clear that SNGs can exist without being alternatives to GNGs - many of them, in fact, like WP:NASTRO or WP:NCORP, provide explicit advice on this and suggest which kind of sources are likely to be of help to writing a proper encyclopedic article and which ones not so much. I don't see why the fixation that it must be "SNG overrides GNG; or its worthless". If anything, we should be making sure all SNGs correctly predict when there is sufficient coverage on topics so as to assure we provide better quality content to our readers, not trying to make exemptions because of personal prejudice on the matter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The keep voters had some valid arguments. Namely, the possibility of a redirect, and newly added information. The closer stated that no substantial coverage was found. However, since new facts were being added the very day before the close, it's possible enough would have been added given more time. Even ignoring that, was there clearly a consensus even against a redirect? Taking these matters into account, we can not totally dismiss the perspective of the majority keep voters. A relist is needed to truly establish a consensus. Dege31 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I should note that a reasonable case could be made for a redirect close - while one !vote was specifically against it (the nom), the keeps specifically included it as part of their reasoning and the other delete was undecided on the redirect. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The keep side mistakenly thought that NSPORTS excludes GNG (FAQ#1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline), aside from also failing WP:NRV. Avilich (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you read Bagumba's comment above and you'll see that editors disagree on this point. They aren't "mistaken", they disagree with your inteperpretation of the guidelines. NemesisAT (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not "our" interpretation - NSPORTS is very clear on the need to meet GNG. Obviously they're entitled to disagree with it, but since it's clearly disputed, the correct action then is to take it to VPP with a proposed change, not just misinterpret it. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NSPORTS contradicts itself however. Under NFOOTY, it states Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG., if all football players had to meet GNG, why would this sentence exist? There is a similar sentence under WP:NCRIC, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:NEQUESTRIAN. WP:RLN even states Other players and personalities in the game are notable if they meet WP:GNG. If so, what was the point of the three bullet points above? The FAQ clearly should be changed to represent what the guideline actually says (it is clearly written as an alternative to GNG, IMO), and also to be consistent with WP:N which states either an SNG or GNG is enough for presumed notability. NemesisAT (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a fallacy. Since NSPORT only offers a presumption of notability, there is no contradiction because sportspeople not meeting the criteria simply do not get a presumption. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But GNG also works on a "presumption", yet "meets GNG" is seen as a valid AfD argument. NemesisAT (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. In the case of sports, consensus is that GNG is usually (not always) sufficient, and NSPORT is almost always not a valid argument on its own. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus isn't a guideline or policy. consensus is that GNG is usually (not always) sufficient So in those cases where it is deemed insufficient, presumably that is by a local consensus. That is exactly what we have here, a local consensus that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Lawrey should be kept, and yet you voted to endorse the close above?
    If a local consensus can delete an article that passes GNG as you suggest (thus ignoring notability guidelines), then a local consensus can also allow an article to be kept when it doesn't meet GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It could, but there would have to be very strong arguments to support that position, and we have the opposite here. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't much room for interpretation. WP:N says it's either GNG or SNG, but if the relevant SNG also requires GNG, then it's GNG or GNG. Bagumba's walls of text all fail to refute this simple fact. Just because WP:N says that meeting an SNG alone is enough, it doesn't mean that NSPORTS gets to be elevated to anything beyond a predictor of whether GNG can be met, because that is its own stated purpose. A single source would have been enough to invalidate the delete closure and cause a relist, but the keep side wasn't able to do even that. Avilich (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The FAQ is clearly incorrect and does not summarise the guideline itself accurately. NSPORTS reads The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. NemesisAT (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think there was absolutely no possibility for this to close as a redirect or similar upon relist? I don't want to come across as bludgeoning, but since the Xth GNG-NSPORTS discussion is unlikely to be fruitful, I'd like to see what some (new) proponents of endorse think about this. Dege31 (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RfD exists, and extending the discussion (relisting) would require that there be some credible evidence of notability (sources) that can be discussed. None in the keep side gave any. Do we really need more than 1 single week if no sources were found? All that a relist would accomplish is the AfD being polluted with more of this GNG vs NSPORTS stuff. Avilich (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our job here isn't to be looking for sources to extend the discussion (if it was, we'd have undeleted the article to see how it is already sourced for the sake of this discussion). Our job is to make sure there was consensus in that discussion to delete the article (and I don't see it). Besides, there were already enough sources in the article to support a redirect - so what more sources do we need for that User:Avilich; they are plausible search terms. Nfitz (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think so, then just go ahead and create a redirect...? Nobody's stopping you. In case I didn't make myself clear, I meant that a hypothetical relisted discussion would have the purpose of finding sources, not we at this DRv. Avilich (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 February 2022[edit]

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

Image shows a building from France. English Wikipedia should accept this via {{FoP-USonly}} tag. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the image and description. -FASTILY 22:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Tour Majunga.jpeg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Image shows a building from France. English Wikipedia should accept this via {{FoP-USonly}} tag. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the nominator jumped straight to DRV, this qualifies for WP:SOFTDELETE. Courtesy ping for @ShakespeareFan00. For reference, the image and description. -FASTILY 22:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: my prior request for the restoration of another file of the same name at UNDEL forum was explicitly denied, on the ground that the file was deleted via a formal discussion process (like FFD). Thus deletion review is the best option. Also, unlike Commons, enwiki does not have a feature that will mark usernames with "(A)" if those users are admins. There will be some cases where the admins who deleted some files are no longer admins today. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I was not aware you had already inquired at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion -FASTILY 04:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily: to be clear that was about a different file (image of Villa Savoye), but my request was denied. If I requested again at UNDEL for these two files (of two different buildings in the same no commercial-FOP country, my requests may be denied again on the grounds that these were deleted via FFD/PUF and not PROD. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mayonnaise Clinic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was an invalid speedily deletion under WP:G3. My creation of the article was not WP:VANDALISM but in good faith with my reasoning in the following paragraph. Additionally, it was created in 2014 while the speedy deletion was in 2018, so neither would it have fallen under WP:R3 as it was not a recently created "implausible" misnomer. I was also not notified of the nomination or deletion.

It is not unreasonable to assume that a reader unfamiliar with the clinic or Irish geography would assume that "Mayo" is not an original full word, but a commonly encountered shortened form of Mayonnaise. They would then arrive by hypercorrection at the conclusion that "Mayonnaise Clinic" is the proper, long form of Mayo Clinic. 93 (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it's a pretty silly redirect if you ask me but "one editor thinks that the redirect is silly" isn't a qualifier for WP:CSD#G3 and Google says that people sometimes use "Mayonnaise Clinic" as a whimsical reference to the clinic. Overturn deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion - roughly per Jo-Jo. It can always be taken to RfD for a proper discussion, but it certainly doesn't meet the G3 standards. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Bad deletion. This simply was not vandalism. ✗plicit 14:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn with option to send to RFD. Not vandalism, though I would say it's not a very plausible redirect. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm not sure how I would !vote in an RfD, but it certainly does not meet any speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as not vandalism, and not any other obvious CSD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:10 Commandments in Ilocano.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed as delete because no freedom of panorama here. However, the text is a text of the Ten Commandments (presumably in Ilocano language), which should automatically be public domain. Philippine language translations of the Biblical-era law were formulated in the past (likely Spanish-era), hence the original Filipino translators of the Ten Commandments in all Philippine languages are already dead for more than 50 years. Thus eligible for Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JWilz12345, I'm guessing this file was more-or-less the same as File:10 commandments in Ilokano.JPG? (Perhaps a sysop can verify.) That file has now been on Commons for several years without incident, so you should be able to use it instead; as long as it's available, we probably don't need to work out the knotty copyright issues here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ nope, the image you gave was an image by a different uploader (Filipinayzd). The image I am requesting for restoration (via DelRev since it was deleted via a PUF/FFD) is a file by Jayzl-Nebre Villafania (a.k.a. Nasugbu batangas). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I figured the one would be a decent substitute for the other. As to this particular image: a temp-undelete might be useful. The copyright issue is tricky since even if the text is public-domain, the sculpture itself could arguably be subject to copyright (example). The best choice would probably be to relist at FfD, where these arguments can be aired in the first instance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Extraordinary Writ: the deleted image is of a different plaque and is zoomed in much more closely on the tablet itself, but it is otherwise similar. The text of the commandments is slightly different (there are lots of versions in English) and there is a tiny bit of text at the bottom which I don't think is part of the commandments. Hut 8.5 08:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reviewed the deleted image; it is similar, though not word for word identical, to File:10 commandments in Ilokano.JPG, just on different colour tablets. I would undelete as I don't believe there is any original content that attracts copyright protection. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the nominator wants to withdraw, don't let my view stand in the way. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose strictly speaking I endorse the close as delete which was the consensus at the time. I'd certainly approve an undeletion now. As so often before, I'm struck by how easily and frequently FFD will rubber-stamp the removal of an image that would help us build an encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't decide whether they're supposed to represent cracks or lightning bolts, but the bits around the edges definitely look above the threshold of originality to me, not de minimis, and deliberately painted-on. The text's irrelevant. —Cryptic 09:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • These squiggles are below the threshold of originality in the US (evidence). I don't see what makes those squiggles any more original. I'm no artist, but give me a white paintbrush and ten minutes, and I could do that.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to that evidence a big part of the reason why these squiggles were denied registration is because they were part of an alphabetic system and that the squiggles were not "pictorial content not essential to the purpose of the character". Things would probably be different in the case of the image under discussion here, since it isn't an alphabet and the squiggles are not meant to work like one either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Help me understand how that matters? To my eyes, the lightning bolts seem like incidental decoration not essential to the purpose of the Ten Commandments.—S Marshall T/C 13:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's exactly the problem - if the bolts/cracks were an integral part of the typography/scripture one could say that they are not copyrightable for the same reasons that typography isn't. Being decorative makes them copyrightable, in these terms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the image and description at the time of deletion. Like Cryptic, I see no issues with the text, but the statue's background texture and lightning accents could push it over the threshold of originality. -FASTILY 09:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the tablet art is substantial indeed. I'm not sure if the art is classed as a sculpture or a graphic work, though. In any case, Red X I withdraw my nomination for file restoration. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 February 2022[edit]

13 February 2022[edit]

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

No reason for the decision was given by the closer, and I don't see how it reflects policy-based consensus because there isn't a single argument of the keep !voters that was not refuted with policy-based reasoning and in more detail than those !votes themselves. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Completely understand the frustration about this article - there aren't really any relations apart from the 1993 recognition, including a lack of embassies, and would agree that it's WP:SYNTH, but looking at whether the closer made a mistake, the discussion isn't one that I think can be easily overturned. I would carefully update the article (though how are you supposed to get a source saying there are no embassies?) and try again at AfD in six months or so. SportingFlyer T·C 20:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the zero-info close matches WP:DETCON. If one set of arguments basically ignore the relevant policies and mostly don't explain themselves when questioned, how do they ever factor into the decision? Surely we could at the very least give them time to come up with something with a re-listing? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The close was the correct summary of the deletion discussion. I do not have an opinion on whether the result of the AFD was correct, but DRV is not intended to relitigate the AFD. The nominator and appellant bludgeoned the AFD. Please do not also bludgeon this DRV. We know what your opinion is. Sometimes you are in the minority. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statements like that are making this process so frustrating. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (was keep in the discussion) - I offered a rebuttal to SYNTH and NOTNEWS and other arguments raised throughout the discussion, which I found were as a whole a foundation for a larger notability argument - so most votes were in my view correct in addressing notability, especially given that they are the most prominent part of the nomination. We don't have guidelines on whether embassies or no embassies determine the notability of the subject, although it can certainly be an indicator. Disagree with the above comments regarding the lack of relations - both countries have negotiated several agreements, and defense agreements in particular are not mundane. The fact that such an odd relationship caught the eye of The Diplomat is telling. Pilaz (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have already told you explicitly that notability was not a part of the nomination. If we're going to have apparent mob rule, it's one thing, but please don't add insult to injury with these kinds of glaring untruths. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus was to keep, same as the time before See WP:RENOM, maybe test again in another eight years. Foreign relations of the Philippines and Foreign relations of Croatia and Croatia–Philippines relations having redundancy and little content is not a serious problem requiring fixing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant endorse. I believe the keep !votes were misinformed and wrong, and that there is no policy basis for them, and that the article profoundly fails WP:SYNTH, but the consensus was clear, even if I profoundly disagree with it. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't endorse it. With very simple discussions, you can just state the result, but this wasn't that simple. I've seen quite a few of Superastig's closes at DRV in the past few weeks and I've noticed that he generally gets the results right but he doesn't summarize what was said or give any kind of method statement for his closes, so they don't give any actual closure. Joy's overinvestment in the debate was quite extreme--he correctly wrote I feel like I'm badgering the discussion here and then added several further replies afterwards. When anyone displays that level of passion a closer's job involves tact and an ability to let them down lightly that Superastig didn't display. So my view is, OK, the result was right, but it needed a summary and an explanation as well as a hat on it.—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse given the state of the article I completely sympathise with the OP's position, but there wasn't any way that could have been closed as Delete. Hut 8.5 19:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I disagree with the nominator's understanding of WP:SYNTH. If I am writing an article about the Styles and themes of Jane Austen I may draw on sources discussing individual examples of these aspects of her writing without the sources actually saying explicitly that they are writing about her styles and themes. I may combine these sources but what I may not do is put forward any claim that is not to be found in any individual source. The sources must relate to the topic, of course. In the case of the article currently under discussion, the situation was complicated by the argument that some (many, all?) sources were individually slight and so a notability issue arises. So, overall, there was a legitimate discussion to be had and the closer was right in not overriding the contributing editors' views. Thincat (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the example, sure, but somewhere out there in the real world there's probably at least some reliable sources that can be realistically described to have focused on describing styles and themes of Jane Austin, hence they did the original research on the matter and we don't have to synthesize everything - you can draw from these sources and then add maybe some worse sources (like news articles) to complement some aspects perhaps. In this case, nobody could present anything of the first sort whatsoever, and all we have is churnalism. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per above arguments. Really nothing wrong with the closure. The nom's rebuttals are just sheer bludgeoning. SBKSPP (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 February 2022[edit]

11 February 2022[edit]

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

I want to put this project page in my own namespace so that it can be used as my own essay.⸺Q28 has 5K edits *ଘ(੭*ˊᵕˋ)੭* ੈ✩‧₊˚ 13:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. The page in question implied that there is such a thing as "recommended user names" with a {{info page}} template atop that implies semi-officiality [in the sense that it's not a policy or guideline but rather intends to describe some aspect(s) of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices.]. Quite aside from the fact that this isn't the case at all and one could thus say it is a hoax and thus deletion-worthy per WP:CSD#G3, I really don't see how you would get to an useful page - even an essay - from that. Granted, removing the template and moving it to userspace might have resolved the issue but I can't object all that much to the speedy. So I'd say keep deleted. I also see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Recommend user name which was one day old and had a lot of delete voters. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This appears to be an appeal of an MFD closure (rather than an AFD closure), and I have changed the filing accordingly. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if this is an appeal of an MFD. It is not clear what issue Q28 has with the MFD. It appears that Q28 is playing games, and it isn't clear what this has to do with the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When an established editor wants to work on something, even something that's been deleted, I generally support allowing that. I'm not sure what useful user-space essay can be pulled out of this, but I don't see the harm in allowing it in user space as a personal essay. Hobit (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Bad use of speedy deletion to short circuit an MfD discussion. Userfication requires consideration, User:Beeblebrox, either speedy undelete and revert your close, or temp-undelete for review. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own close. Fist of all, thanks for the ping SmokeyJoe, since it is the only reason I was even made aware of this discussion and this is the first and only indication I've had that the decision was being challenged. I informed Q28 of the speedy deletion on their talk page three days ago and they did not reply in any way. And I think that perfectly encapsulates the mindset that was behind this ill-conceived page. It was a bunch of nonsense three-character usernames, in WP space, therefore suggesting in WP's voice that the project explicitly recommends you chose one of the names presented. Including such great examples as "bqr gqo,idq,jqd,qnf,22j,77f and 88h".While none of these violate the username policy, none of them are recommended either, for the simple and obvious reason that Wikipedia doesn't do that. In short, this user posted this in project space like it was a real thing, and cross posted it at WP:UPOL as if there was agreement it should be enacted, without any consensus to do so. Based on that I found that it violated WP:G3: "blatant and obvious misinformation" as reflected in the deletion log. I would further state that while I closed the MFD, I did so only because it was open and I had speedy deleted the page regardless of it, not because of it. In other words, my close was based on my interpretation of the criteria for speedy deletion, and being listed at MFD does not inoculate a page from speedy deletion, so I would also say I have a procedural objection in that this is the wrong forum to challenge it at all. If they want it as a user subpage, they could've just asked me instead of opening this ill-conceived challenge. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion There is nothing on the page that is recoverable as a page that should be on the project. It is blatant misinformation, and whether it is in project space or userspace it is flat wrong. Q28 might create this in their own userspace anyway. But, if there is an attempt to use it its likely it would be deleted again. I concur with Beeblebrox's actions, and find no reason to overturn this speedy deletion, and no reason to userfy the information it it were undeleted. Per WP:UPYES, it has no purpose here as it is misinformation regardless of namespace, and should not be undeleted. Q28, please reconsider what it is you are attempting to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request temp undeletion to enable review. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've described what it was and why it qualified for speedy deletion, and I've noted this is not the venue to challenge speedy deletions, so I feel WP:ADMINACCT has been more than satisfied and there is little to no benefit to undeleting it. The page was a one-sentence fake policy that made no sense, and a list of terrible suggested usernames, it was blatant misinformation and as such I will not be restoring it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      At DRV this is routine. Undelete and replace the content with {{Temporarily undeleted}} and protect. Don’t make it personal about whether reviewers should take your word at face value. NB I am leaning toward “endorse and SLAP the DRV nominator”.
      You are 100% wrong to assert that this is not the place to challenge speedy deletions. You ADMINACCT has not been challenged by anyone, indeed you did not receive courteous contact from the complainer.
      Temp undeletion is not “restoration”. Again request temp undeletion as per standard process. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: It has been moved to User:Q28/user names I personally recommend by Beeblebrox. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have seen the deleted project page, and I concur with its speedy deletion, as noted in my above Endorse. User:Beeblebrox is mistaken in saying that DRV is not the forum to challenge a speedy deletion. See WP:DRVPURPOSE2. I have no opinion on a temporary undelete, but temporary undeletes are standard in order to review the correctness of either an AFD or a speedy delete. There are exceptions to temp undelete, such as BLP violations, but this is not one of them. I repeat my statement that Q28 is playing some sort of game in requesting a restore of the stupid deleted page. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We allow people very wide latitude on userspace essays. The only real condition is that the essay has to be related to Wikipedia in some sense, and this would be, so I can see no reasonable grounds to deny this.—S Marshall T/C 13:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't dispute a word of that. What I would question is why this went to DRV at all. This isn't a valid DRV as the outcome of the discussion is not actually being challenged by the nominator. Since all that the nominator is asking for is not that the MFD be overturned but that they be allowed to host this nonsense in their userspace, I've done that, it is now at User:Q28/user names I personally recommend where anyone can peruse it in all it's nonsensical glory. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot as the deleting admin has userfied the page. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Jessica Yaniv waxing case – The recent DDOS attack on Kiwi Farms shut it down for a while, and we got an influx of bored people wanting to write about their lolcows. This is likely why we got DRVs on Chris Chan and Jessica Yaniv on the same day. Kiwi Farms is back up now guys, go and do what you do over there. Wikipedia still doesn't want this content.—S Marshall T/C 09:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jessica Yaniv waxing case (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Because Jessica Yaniv was restored, we should also restore Jessica Yaniv waxing case. Sharouser (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Christian weston chandler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article subject is very notable for 2 reasons, and there is good RS that note both these points. Firstly, as an example of cyberbullying and trolling, they are one of the most (if not THE most) extreme cases of being trolled and bullied, and I think its an important article to point out the harms of cyberbullying and trolling. Secondly, the article subject has been often noted as probably the most documented person on the internet, with both a 2000 article complete website devoted to them, and an extensive documentary on them. I had checked previous examples of the article that had been deleted, they were years old and a lot of recent RS had appeared, which substantiated the article. I work on AFD quite a bit, and this article IMHO had more than enough RS to establish it.

I'd spent quite a bit of time on this article, and I would ask at least that some editors look at it and judge it on its merits, rather than it simply be deleted unseen, without any discussion. I had contested the speedy deletion, but the article was deleted without going to AFD to allow a broader discussion (as explained by the deleting editor, due to the older articles being deleted). It would be great if someone could undelete the article, so editors can see the recent RS and judge it on that - thank you. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. No. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and speedy close per the dozens of other times we've had this discussion, and basic standards of decency. Spicy (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think editors are misunderstanding, I think its an important article to point out the harms of cyberbullying and trolling, as an example and providing information about exactly how trolling and cyberbullying happens. It's not written to promote it. This stuff can't be stopped if people don't understand how it works, and that's what this article does. It can help researchers and people writing about the area if the information is provided and the noted RS is available in the ref list in the article. Also, I hope my article creation history would reassure people I'm not a troll! I didn't understand exactly how trolling works, but I do now after researching for this article - but if it's deleted it won't help other people understand the process. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not our place, full stop. If you want to soapbox, get your own website. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'm sure you mean well, but in recent discussions from just last year there was very little appetite to let an article stand ([9] [10]). Feel free to provide a WP:THREE if you disagree, but you're going to need some very high quality RS to convince anyone. Jumpytoo Talk 09:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank Jumpytoo. The problem is- there is an article on this person online, on Encylopaedia Dramatica - however it's wholly slanderous and awful. A wikipedia article would of been neutral and a good counterpoint to that. But by people denying that, its preventing the only place a neutral article, pointing out the wrong of cyberbullying and trolling in this case could of taken place. Anyone searching for her, and plenty people do, the only place you can see an article about her is a page done by trolls. An awful page. Anyway, here's three articles that point out the trolling issues. I had about 25 RS in the article - all deleted now...
  • 1 - "Chris Chan, the online personality accused by police of incest with her mother, has been trolled by the internet for over a decade" - https://www.insider.com/chris-chan-incest-trolling-harassment-kiwi-farms-bluespike-liquid-chris-2021-8
  • 2 - "A timeline of Chris Chan's incest charge and the years long online troll interest in the 'Sonichu' creator's relationship with her mother" - https://www.businessinsider.in/thelife/news/a-timeline-of-chris-chanaposs-incest-charge-and-the-yearslong-online-troll-interest-in-the-apossonichuapos-creatoraposs-relationship-with-her-mother/slidelist/85054017.cms#slideid=85054185
  • 3- "Kiwi Farms, the Web’s Biggest Community of Stalkers" - https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/kiwi-farms-the-webs-biggest-community-of-stalkers.html* Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, Wikipedians have discussed this many times and always come to the same conclusion. That's why all the variations of Chris Chan's name are salted. The matter comes up on the administrator's noticeboard every few months and the answer is always the same. We can't do much to help Chris but we can at least refrain from doing further harm. The community's view is a reasoned, thoughtful "no". I hope that doesn't make you too unhappy.—S Marshall T/C 09:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, there's already lots of awful stuff out there for people to read. By Wikipedia not putting up an article, we are not stopping or preventing any of that. But not putting a good balanced/article to point out some of the evil that was done to her...we are missing out on doing some good. Missed opportunity :-( Anyway, as you note, the die is cast and there is no point in talking about it, it's not going to change anything. Thanks for the comment though, I do really appreciate it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you really want to die on this hill? This is a situation where any good the article does cannot outweigh the fact an article existing only furthers the harassment by forcing her into the public eye. We're talking someone who has been doxxed and been the target of persistent, nonstop harassment, and this was going on before she came out as transgender. It is not our place to proselytise on anti-bullying measures in our articles, and given the history here is the better half of two decades (I was dealing with CWC-related crap back when I was an administrator myself) I have absolutely no confidence, even if the article were full-protted by OFFICE fiat and written to be as neutral as possible, that the harassers would not hang it over her head or otherwise use it to continue to destroy her life. Think carefully about why this article has been salted for so long, and whether or not it's actually possible to create an article on someone whose only claim to fame is being the permanent victim of an unusually persistent and virulent Internet hate mob. (Full disclosure: I have also been the target of Encyclopaedia Dramatica harassment, courtesy of JarlaxleArtemis. That history does not factor into my argument except that JarlaxleArtemis was and is no different from another member of the virulent and persistent Internet hate mob.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, speedy close, and list at WP:DEEPER. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the subject is only known for internet trolls creating extensive documentation of her life as part of a harassment campaign. Creating an article on her is inevitably going to contribute to this. Much of the content is also stuff which absolutely should not be in an article about any non-public living person. Hut 8.5 12:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am confused. This is a poorly filed case. What has been or is being deleted? It appears that there are at least two titles, Christian weston chandler and Chris Chan, which have been salted. Apparently the appellant expects us to know, and apparently some of the editors do know, what this is all about. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Deathlibrarian wants permission to recreate Christian weston chandler which was created by them and deleted & salted by Liz. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Christine Weston Chandler, Christian Chandler, Christian Weston Chandler and other name variants ("CWC") refer to a tragic and depressing case of an American transgender woman who's on the autistic spectrum and I suspect might have other mental health needs. Early in the history of the internet CWC started a venture as a content creator on various social media channels. This was spectacularly unsuccessful and during this time CWC very unwisely disclosed some personal information they shouldn't have. They came to the attention of people from Encyclopedia Dramatica who thought their content was hilariously bad and their disclosures were the funniest thing ever. These people from ED encouraged them in their oversharing and built an online dossier about CWC in order to ridicule them. Some years later, CWC confessed to a sex crime for which they were arrested, attracting some media attention in the process, not because the crime was notable (it very much isn't) but because the media knew that an article about them would get page views. In other words, CWC is a vulnerable person/perpetrator, and there are also privacy concerns about a parent/victim to consider. CWC is a low-profile individual who needs criminal prosecution, social worker intervention, and very likely therapy but nothing about this case warrants publicity or attention from the general public.—S Marshall T/C 21:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the long and the short of it. Even if Deathlibrarian's plan weren't to hijack it for their own pet project on cyberbullying, this article would simply not be okay because the nature of the harassment means any article or draft would be a contributor to that harassment. We would have no power to stop that other than to delete and salt the article again, because we do not block read access even to glocked users. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow draft, following WP:THREE. Although the topic is unpleasant, and there is lots of advice from respected Wikipedians to avoid this topic, I cannot find any proper deletion discussion, and repudiate WP:AN as a forum for substituting for a deletion discussion. There is a wikipedia:Oversight history, but in the absence of Oversighter’s explanations, that history alone is not sufficient to prevent fresh creation that meets WP:THREE. If recreation is a BLP trainwreck, the use of draftspace is fair containment of the damage, however, I see sources that justify some coverage in some form. If the Oversight deletion is being challenged, see WP:Oversight for how to challenge their decisions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a nonstarter, as CWC's situation is such that any article or draft would, if not be de facto furtherance of the harassment, than would inevitably be edited to that end. There is a reason my rationale explicitly points out WP:HNE. The fact that this is still going on even almost two decades later is testament to how her only "notability" is as a victim of relentless harassment, and we emphatically shouldn't add to it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference, the deletion discussion about this subject was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Weston Chandler, with a previous DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 20. --RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and suggest a SNOW close. Due to the certainty that any article will contain BLP violations, this article must not be created. Your "there are reliable sources" literally does not matter. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and salt every imaginable variation of the name. Creating this article would be a big victory for the vile trolls who have been viciously harassing this person for many years. Cullen328 (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I did have further thoughts, but it's obvious this is not going through, and I had already stopped commenting - all good, its no big deal. From my perspective, I was trying to do some good here. My idea was to get a neutral article up, that countered some of the shit on the internet, and then heavily restrict it from BLP violating further editing. I was just proposing that as an idea - there's nothing wrong with that. I understand people's logic for not doing that - that's cool. I would thank editors for their comments here, but also I don't think there was any need for snyde comments from certain editors here...May be some people need to check out WP:AGF Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone's really baying at your blood over this (not even me). However, this is a perennial issue that crops up damn near every other month and the answer has been the same every time no matter who's offering it up. This is one of those instances where we technically could have an article, but it would come at the expense of whatever is left of the subject's privacy, and events in the real world make it perfectly clear the harassment of her hasn't abated even after damn near 20 years. WP:BLP#Avoid victimization also tells us that in situations like this (where there is a protracted and concerted harassment campaign taking place offwiki) we should not have an article on the subject. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deathlibrarian, I assume good faith and do think you might have had good intentions. The problem is is that I have seen discussions like that above us multiple times on WP:AN and knew that this was going to be the result. It was me who deleted this article after it was tagged but it could have been any any other patrolling administrator minutes after it had been seen, identified and tagged for deletion. The feeling is so strong on this subject that it was inevitably going to be swiftly deleted. I actually don't know whether or not a "fair" article could be written on her, it's just after the years I've been here, I knew the consensus of the community would be not to allow there to be an article about her on Wikipedia under any page title.
I hope this doesn't scare you from taking on other, less controversial subjects for content creation. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completely no issue thereLiz, as you said before, if you hadn't of deleted it, someone else would have...and I understand the context. This has been a sincere and for the most part polite discussion, and its reassuring that people are keeping the wellbeing of CWC in mind. In the last 16 years I've seen infinitely worse than this and kept contributing - all good. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of hip hop albums considered to be influential (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

How funny. Were interested projects and editors notified? I wrote or more probably rewrote this article, I think simply as List of hip hop albums ~12 years ago, very closely along the lines and methodology of List of prominent operas which had undergone peer review and was a featured list. The google results for searches for this sort of list in hip hop were worse than unscholarly at the time, and perhaps still are. Message threads on forums were among the *best* results. The article was rudely moved some time later without discussion by someone to the title it was deleted under. As an ip editor i could not move it back. This awful title is given by many as a reason for deletion.

No one in this Afd read the talk page 'til it was well underway, when apparently one editor (arguing keep) did. Things very deliberately done, and reasoned on the talk page, following best practice, are cited as negatives in this afd. The use of specialist *and* generalist sources, for instance, was quite deliberate. The selection of the sources was carefully reasoned and justified in the talk page. They are better sources than Paste magazine was then and probably is now, yet it is called "overlooked". The rap-specific Pitchfork list mentioned came out many years later, yet i put it and other worthy new sources on the talk page, and suggested or asked for ways to incorporate them. Discussion of albums mentioned in this afd like All Eyez on Me and so on is all in the article's talk page, rigorously connected to sourcing. (I can't read the Talk page so this is all from from memory).

"comments lifted straight from the sources, and the sources seem pretty arbitrary as well" This is a complete falsehood, because it was painstaking work paraphrasing the sources concisely, and mixing paraphrase with sparing use of direct quotes (*in* quotes, of course). Not all of this work will have survived in the deleted version, which i cannot read, but it's apparent much of it did.

One thing that is true is that the page was a nightmare to maintain. A popular google result, it attracted dartboard editing, and everyone wanted to include their favourites immediately. I was under the impression that this was not a valid reason for deletion by policy or consensus.

I honestly don't care if this and other articles along similar lines are deemed not to fit. I just find it interesting what survives and what doesn't, and why. Polls about films are superior to works by experts in the field! Opera is static! Other stuff exists! And so on. It certainly could not be any kind of anything else. 78.18.237.81 (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse only because there doesn't seem to be such a thing as a Speedy Endorse. This doesn't appears to be an appeal or to cite any error by the closer, and the close is the correct close. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That the methodology followed that of a peer-review featured list article which still exists is intended as a refutation of WP:SYNTH. Additionally this was brought up in the review yet the close says it went unrefuted. :) 78.18.237.81 (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also say the careless and out-of-process page move, which i could not easily undo, clearly influenced afd attendees arguments and made the page easier to delete, which seems like a failure of Wikipedia to me 78.18.237.81 (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this isn't supposed to be a second round of the AfD. Deletion review normally only overturns discussions if there was a mistake made by the closer, some kind of procedural error in the discussion, or perhaps a new argument or changed circumstances which might have made a difference in the discussion. I don't see anything wrong with the close and there aren't any procedural errors claimed. The comparison to List of prominent operas was made in the discussion and apparently didn't change anyone's mind. It's worth noting that this is a former featured list, it was delisted three years ago as a result of similar concerns to the ones raised in this AfD, and you could reasonably argue that hip hop doesn't work the same way as classical music. The main reason for deleting the article given was that it was that is constituted synthesis - it amalgamated a bunch of different sources, many of which aren't focusing on "influence" or on hip hop, to create a meta-list not found in any of the sources. Any attempt to recreate it or rewrite it will have to address that concern. Hut 8.5 08:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deletion reivew is a location to handle cases where the deletion process was not properly followed. It is not a venue to raise or re-raise arguments that belonged at the original discussion; DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 February 2022[edit]

9 February 2022[edit]

8 February 2022[edit]

7 February 2022[edit]

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

The article is full of unverifiable news articles, the fact is that this person is using this wikipedia page as self promotion, despite never playing at a professional level and even self professing 3 and a half years of no active football. Hannibalhamilcar (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was previously kept at AfD. If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elie Charbel Lelo Sejean (2nd nomination) were to be created, then it would likely be closed as "keep" again. So, this DRV should be speedily closed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The closer correctly assessed the consensus that the subject passes general notability. It isn't up to DRV to decide de novo whether the subject passes GNG, but the article does make an adequate case for GNG. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Could not have been closed as "delete". The article is horribly WP:Reference bombed, including with many bad sources. Unfortunately, this makes it hard work to assess. I suggest stripping the article of the poor sources, and looking at what is left. Deletion arguments need to address the best sources. Look at the three offered by Joseph2302 (08:53, 30 November 2021). Read the advice at WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am concerned by the article history at Lelo Sejean and its previous salting. If this should exist, we should have it at WP:COMMONNAME, but that would require unsalting, so the very creation of this article appears to have been under avoidance of presumably appropriately applied create protection. I could be wrong, but based on what I can see of the logs and past discussions, that's what it looks like to me. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, could not possibly have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have started a requested move discussion at Talk:Elie Charbel Lelo Sejean#Requested move 9 February 2022. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse since there's a consensus to keep on GNG grounds but the article itself is absolutely ridiculous and needs WP:TNT to remove the self-promotion, as the vast majority of it is about a football career that fails our football notability guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 20:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 February 2022[edit]

  • Lowepro – Relist. Opinions are fairly evenly split here, and the fact that the DRV is longer than the original AfD is a good indication that this would benefit from additional discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lowepro (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion with closing admin:

Extended content

Hi Spartaz. I do not see consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowepro (2nd nomination) that "an article on a brand should be sourced to coverage of rhe brand not individual products to avoid OR". There is no original research in discussing in an article about a brand the products that make up that brand. There is no original research as the reviews say the products are part of the brand. Please revise your close from "delete" to "no consensus". Cunard (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don’t agree. You explicitly referred to GNG but the argument was that either NCORP applied or that this was a brand and an editor specifically raises the risk of OR. So either NCORP applied and this fell to be deleted as the standard for NCORP is higher or this was a brand and sourcing needed to be about the brand and not individual products, otherwise the article becomes Synth, which is a form of OR. Spartaz Humbug! 23:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I presented in the AfD were sufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services in establishing that the brand was notable. There was no consensus to adopt the closing admin's view that the sources were insufficient.

Overturn to no consensus.

Cunard (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Properly deleted; Cunard's source analysis was critically flawed.
Cunard offered three sources, which I presume are the best sources for demonstrating notability.
1. "Just about every serious photographer in the world knows about Lowepro. Lowepro camera bags are sold in more than 60 countries. They have been lugged up Mount Everest and hiked into the Alaskan back country. And most of them came from an unimpressive warehouse on Guerneville Road in Santa Rosa. Lowepro is one of the biggest camera bag dealers in the world. Its parent company is based in Toronto, but since the early '90s, all of the design and distribution work has been done by about 25 employees based at the Lowepro headquarters in Santa Rosa."
This is puff writing from a very close perspective. Not independent. For coverage of a for-profit company and its product, I expect dispassionate distant-perspective writing. How does the author know the mind of every serious photographer? How does the author define "serious". How does the author know the company staff numbers since the 1990s, unless the author directly interacted with the company or its staff in writing this story?
2. "Backpackers and nature photographers have relied on Lowepro's versatile and rugged camera-bag systems for 30 years. The packs' hooks, loops and malleable partitions make them adaptable to any trip, and their nearly bulletproof nylon skins and cushioned compartments are both protective and lightweight - perfect for the trail or mountaintop."
Again, promotional puff. Not a chance that this was produced independently of the company or the company's promotional materials.
3. https://web.archive.org/web/20220131081237/https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/industry-news/petalumas-lowepro-seeks-sales-boost-with-drone-carrier/
The writer's perspective is inside the head of the company, the writer knows the company's strategic manoeuvring to partner with a drone carrier, and this is a primary publication on it. The writing is puff promotion of the drones, and the company's packs and cases. Such excitement over the routine! In the 2nd paragraph it is giving price information and where to buy it from, with a quote from the CEO. Blatant non independent.
All three fail the GNG due to non-independence. Wikipedia does not want this material that is re-churned promotion.
Source searching from the AfD links reveals saturation promotion of the company products.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as the wrong standards were applied. Lowepro is a brand, not an organization. There are dozens of reviews for different Lowepro products on Google News, for example CNET, and Wired. While glowing reviews of a high-end product may look like puffery, that is not a guarantee of editorial non-independence. Page through the lists of Google News results for reviews in various photography, tech/geek, or other print media over the years (Wired link is from 2009), and it's clear that this is not a non-notable brand. Full disclosure: My wife has one of these. It lasted longer than her photography habit did. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • More sources: NYT from 2003 and 1992. Does anyone seriously suggest that the NYT is going to review non-notable brands' products multiple times (You can go find the others easily with the links in the AfD) over four decades? Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The 2003 article is promotion, and even contains explicit quotes from the vice president of the vendor company. If these brands are notable, why is it so hard to find independent comment on them? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So anytime an RS quotes a company employee, it's automatically an advertorial? The reason you can't find independent comment on them is that anything that comments on them, even the New York Times, you are deeming to be non-independent and/or promotional. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, afraid so. If the author of the article has gone to a company source for the material that they publish (product details, product description, product price), and what they write is all positive, and they include zero contextualisation that involves history or similar products, then yes, the article is the churning of promotional material and is not a suitable basis for an encyclopedic article. While it may be true that this reputable newspaper would only review Wikipedia-notable products, their articles, if they meet my description, are not GNG/NCORP compliant sources.
      If the topic were notable, why is there not an article at Camera bag? This generic article would contain a list of notable camera bags. It would cover the history of camera bags, and the variation in styles. It would not be telescope-focused on one particular bad, based on sources that only describe that particular bag, in positive terms, before winding up to tell you how much and where from to buy it.
      Compare Trousers, and Kidoriman the top hit for my google search for "buy trousers".
      If Lowepro is a brand, why are the proffered notability-attesting sources reviews for their products as opposed to reviews of the brand? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      A brand is made up of products. Lowepro products, of various kinds, have been getting RS'ed reviews for decades, so while an individual well-reviewed product might well be notable, covering the brand makes far more sense per WP:NOTCATALOG. The premise that any quotation by an associated company official taints an otherwise RS coverage of this or any product smacks of anti-business bias. Sure, we don't want paid placements counting towards notability, but when they NYT is lumped in with them, I think you are making an untenable argument, or one that if applied consistently would result in other unhelpful outcomes. Why hasn't anyone profiled lowepro as a brand? Heck if I know. For all I do know, someone did, but none of us can find it among decades of glowing reviews for their products. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Jclemens, I make no suggestion that NYT reviews are not RS-es, just that they may not be independent RS-es, as required by the GNG, and as emphasized by NCORP.
      When you say "taints an otherwise RS", do we understand that we are talking *only* of compliance with the "independent" clause of the WP:GNG?
      I am pretty sure I am not being stupid when I observe that these NYT etc single-product reviews have a distinct pro-product POV that smells strongly of non-independence. Compare this single product review with this this multi-product review. In one, the pros are calm and objective, and in the other they are over-the-top glowing. In each review, are the cons are things that will turn off some buyers, and are multiple brands are easily and fairly compared, or have you been cornered by a salesman?
      Single-product reviews featuring company quotes and description, and unverifiable first-person personal-experience testaments, do not make for a good start to an WP:CORP article. In contrast, similarly-RS multi-brand reviews for a generic topic do make for a good start, and I have started one at camera bag. I have reviewed the references in the deleted article and decided that *none* of them are suitable references for Lowepro content at camera bag. In the context of a generic topic, they are obviously promotional.
      A brand is made up of products? No. Products are a brand's output. A brand is made up of people, employees, customers and financiers, and it features a history and a reputation, and a brand values and manages its reputation, which includes establishing and managing relationships, including with NYT review writers. Inadequately disclosed influencer marketing is a thing, eg, and as disclosure is not mandatory, to protect Wikipedia from native advertising, if the publication does not declare independence from the brand, then Wikipedia should not assume they are independent. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You are correct, your terminology is more precise than mine was, and the issue is indeed of editorial independence rather than reliability as a whole.
      While I grant that guerilla marketing is indeed a thing, and indeed something we need to protect Wikipedia from, the fact is that this brand has been around and covered in otherwise touchstone sources for four decades. In 1993, no one knew about SEO, because there wasn't really much of an Internet yet. I understand that you don't see it this way, but I view the conduct of the New York Times as a hallmark for what Wikipedia should emulate. I mean, we could use Consumer Reports if we want to arrive at impeccability rather than actual coverage, but Wikipedia independence should not be expected to exceed the usual and customary conduct of the internationally reputable press. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I feel a bit that I am fighting an honourably for the wrong side. I'll agree that the NYT review is a very reliable indicator of notability, and I agree that Lowepro is a notable brand worthy of inclusion. However, the article was terrible, and the AfD couldn't justify it, and the NYT reviews were not in the picture. The Cunnard-supplied three references are not GNG-compliant sources that are good to use to start off an article in the right direction. I have now reviewed the references in the deleted article:
      1. Company's expansion announcement
      2. Internal company document, headered "NOT FOR RELEASE" !!!
      3. Company's own chronological history document.
      4. Marketnews reference for company trademark registration, yet the link doesn't mention the company.
      5. Another internal company document headered "NOT FOR RELEASE".
      6. A broken link, referencing a promotional statement.
      7. A CNET single product review. If you buy the product, the CNET editors "may get a commission".
      8. Broken link, fixable, same as #7 but for a different single product review, again with the declaration: If you buy the product, the CNET editors "may get a commission".
      As an example of how to establish a NCORP page, references 1-5 utterly fail, even G11-worthy. References 6-8, supporting the "Products" section, are not suitable sources because they are commission-generating single product reviews, not objective, no contextualisation with similar products and similar brands, and no history only recentism.
      Textbook WP:TNT. My suggestion is to get quality sources into camera bag, including sources that mention Lowepro, amongst other brands, and leave it to later as to whether a WP:SPINOUT is justified.
      Your NYT sources are better. However, they were not in the deleted article, and were not mentioned in the AfD, and so are not a basis to overturn. An advertisement for Lowpro was deleted, and properly so. This does not mean that a NCORP-complaint article can't be written. WP:TNT.
      -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This is en excellent evaluation of sourcing. Great points, well made. But why? This DRV is turning into an AfD. HighKing++ 11:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think as I am uninvolved in the AfD, I have more leeway to analyse the participants’ analyses. The question at hand is whether the closer overreached in dismissing Cunard’s proffered sources, and the sources in the article are a big part of the picture. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    High-end product reviews, that are glowing, describe intimate personal experience, and contain not a word of historical or other brand contextualisation, and read like puffery, do create an undeniable feel of non-independence. The 2009 wired article is a personal testament and recommendation finishing with "This size costs $55, and is the baby of the range. There are two larger models, and the chest strap costs another $10 (plus the cost to your dignity)". It is standard advertorial. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. The closer gave inappropriately low weight to the keep !votes which gave good and policy-based reasons for the article to be retained. (Aside: Lowepro is absolutely notable in photography as a major gear brand. This isn't a contribution to the DRV as it would be a point appropriate to the AFD, but I'm quite surprised it managed to get deleted.) Stifle (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closing admin correctly identified the nub of the issue. If the Lowepro "brand" is, in fact, notable, then where are the references which discuss the "brand"? For those that point to an article that discusses "camera bags", just be aware that the "brand" appears to cover a lot more - for example, the website lists the current products (I assume there were others in the past that are no longer available) which includes 13 different types of "bags and backpacks" as well as Laptop/Tablet bags and drone cases. There are also 22 (yes 22) different "collections" on the website. The closing admin correctly identified that in the absence of reliable third-party sources discussing the brand in a way that met our guidelines and with enough in-depth independent content to enable an article on that topic, then the entire article is WP:OR and synth. It must also be noted that if we examine the sources as if the "brand" is a "company" (which makes sense in this case IMHO) then they all fail the criteria for establishing notability as discussed at the AfD. HighKing++ 12:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also wish to add that there are two Keep !voters, one of which is NemesisAT. It is notable that according to their AfD stats, Keep !votes are made 98% of the time but only matches consensus 62.3% of the time (compared to Cunard at a whopping 95.2% and my own at 88%). That is one of the lowest I've encountered (with the exception of Eastmain - another problematic AfD contributor with consensus at 55%) and strongly indicates that NemesisAT's participation at AfD is disruptive and with an ulterior motive or undisclosed agenda - put simply, editors who have participated in hundreds of AfDs and show stats that low clearly don't understand our policies and guidelines and shouldn't be !voting at AfDs at all. HighKing++ 12:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • You do realize that while not particularly nasty or vitriolic, what you have just done is a textbook ad hominem argument, right? Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • The intent was to rebutt the opinion right above mine which claimed the closer gave an inappropriately low weight to the keep !votes. Don't see why a statistic on an editors !voting patterns could or even should be taken as ad hominen especially when it influences decisions at AfDs. HighKing++ 20:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            It's also inaccurate, firstly because the equivelant figure for HighKing is 84%, not 88%, and secondly as both figures ignore "no conesnsus" results. I'm also a bit miffed neither I nor @Eastmain: were pinged in this conversation. NemesisAT (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as per User:SmokeyJoe's analysis of User:Cunard's appeal. This appeal is a relitigation of the AFD. User:SmokeyJoe and User:Cunard appear to have entirely different concepts of what Wikipedia is meant to be for commercial products, but the closer and SmokeyJoe and Wikipedia policies and guidelines all appear to be looking at the same view. My own guess is that an article on Lowepro that is compliant with Wikipedia neutral point of view and other policies probably can be written and approved, but this was not it. Treat this as a Soft Delete, and allow submission of a new article, but relitigating the deleted article is the wrong answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Reviews of a company's products are not the significant coverage required to establish notability. I realize at least one of the sources provided in the AFD is not a review, but that is still not enough to establish notability. (For what it's worth, I disagree that the sources presented above are advertorial in nature or contain puffery.) Calidum 18:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. I think I am seeing GNG compliant sources in the context of searches for camera bags. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and redirect (maybe a bad idea per replybelow) to Camera bag, and encourage creation of of the section Camera bag#Popular brands, to which content can be merged from the history behind the redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RFD would delete that redirect in a New York minute. Not only is it not mentioned at the target, we never redirect specific products, brand names, or company names to the article for the generic item they're selling. A section like you propose might possibly work if it were in an already well-developed and very well-maintained article; in a barely-watched stub like camera bag, it's just begging for spam. —Cryptic 23:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True. I can find lots of independent multi-brand review articles, so the section can be written. There are also many other camera bags with articles that can form a bluelink list. If the section is not written, draftify instead. I have just been reading through the references in the cached version of the deleted article, and while I read the corporate history as interesting, I am not impressed with any of the deleted article's references. So maybe I should say instead: Advise interested editors to add content to camera bag. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources 1 and 3 mentioned by Cunard in the AFD appear to be independent, and the coverage is significant. The fact that a journalist has read a press release, spoken to someone from a company, and possibly visited their premises, does not make that journalist non-independent. A journalist writing about businesses in their local area is likely to have researched the more important companies locally, including any with well known brands such as Lowepro. If there is a reason they don't contribute much to notability, it is WP:AUD, because they are local coverage. On the other hand, product reviews show that the company's products are of interest to a wider audience, and some may demonstrate notability - if they do, it would be more reasonable for any article based on this coverage to be about the company - the sources in the AFD are enough for WP:NOR and WP:GNG, just not WP:NCORP. A865 (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you planning to answer my question about what other accounts you have edited with? Spartaz Humbug! 20:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Replied on my talk page. A865 (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist If this AfD hadn't been relisted twice already, I'm fairly sure it would of been to try to find more consensus. However, no discussion of the AfD occurred until after the second relist, so I would treat this as an AfD with 0 relists, and per that fact relist once more to try to determine a consensus. Jumpytoo Talk 02:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hang on a second. The entire purpose when relisting is to generate further discussion in order to see if a consensus can be reached. So that happened. The 7 days from nomination had elapsed, multiple editors were involved and a consensus was reached to delete the article. What's your point again? HighKing++ 11:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Whether a consensus was reached (two keep votes and two delete votes) is debateable which is why this discussion is taking place. NemesisAT (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      To clarify, I also do not see any sort of consensus in the AfD. The only vote before Cunard's was a WP:TNTeque vote which Cunard said he resolved, and the two votes after Cunard's were 1 keep and 1 delete. There is no consensus to delete over WP:TNT grounds, nor there was any consensus that Cunard's sources are not enough to show notability. Jumpytoo Talk 04:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to NC or relist no consensus was found for deletion. As noted, it seems to meet the GNG pretty easily and I don't think it needs to meet WP:CORP. And yes, the fact there was no discussion early probably justifies another relist. Hobit (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you doubt that it needs to meet NCORP? It is an actively trading and advertising for-profit company. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a company (at this point) it's a brand, yes? WP:CORP applies to organizations, not brands? I agree it's screwy, but IMO that's not close to the most screwy part of WP:CORP. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It most definitely falls under WP:CORP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus or relist, because there very clearly wasn't any in that discussion. There is no agreement about whether NCORP applies (so there is nothing "most definitely" about it) but regardless of whether it does or it doesn't the only sources that matter are those about the topic of the article - so in this case the absence of coverage of the brand owner is completely irrelevant as that was not the topic of the article. Two people felt the article demonstrated notability, two people felt the article didn't, the arguments that it didn't were not significantly stronger than the arguments it did. Indeed given that topics that meet the GNG are notable regardless of what a subsidiary guideline of disputed relevance suggests I'd actually say the keep arguments were the stronger, but not so much that they had consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Astounding to hear multiple normally sensible editors doubt whether NCORP applies. Lowepro is a company (it is a manufacturing company, it makes photo bags and backpacks; in 2017 it was bought by Vitec) . The article described the company, using company documents, and described two of its products that are currently being advertised, with the references supporting the product content being to promotional sources.
    WP:NCORP beings: "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services ..."
    How is that even ambiguous?
    "Two people felt the article demonstrated notability". This is not true. Cunard did not argue anything based on the article as it was, but argued notability based on other sources not in the article (it was a fair argument rejected by the closer, and my analysis supports the closer's rejection, maybe the rejection was a bit supervotey). NemesisAT's feelings that Cunard had demonstrated notability makes no claim that they thought anything about the state of the article and its astoundingly poor sources (company documents).
    At best, the keep !voters were arguing WP:TNT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not, you are right. I'd missed the "or any of its products and services". But that's utterly unreasonable. Every book, song, and sports team would fall "products and services". So that's another reason I have for thinking WP:CORP is a hot mess and should be depreciated. Hobit (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not unreasonable at all. Every book, song or sports-team than is featured in promotion, for profit, is a potential abuse of Wikipedia WP:NOTPROMOTION and should be treated with the stringency of WP:NCORP. Note that NCORP does not really introduce new hurdles, but emphasizes a black letter reading of the WP:GNG. It is laid out clearly at WP:SIRS. When push comes to shove, it consistently is borne out by consensus, that promotional commercial topics are not given leeway in passing the GNG. As per DGG (07:12, 31 January 2022) in the AfD: "[The article] is an advertisement". Every source in the article failed the GNG, unambiguously per the clarifications at NCORP. Leeway is appropriate for historical culturally significant books and songs, but not for latest releases being simultaneously advertised and written into Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a WP:NBOOK. I think the folks that work on and use that would be shocked to learn that books need to also meet WP:NCORP. I'll go a step further and say that such a view would not have consensus. Hobit (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not very hard to see where a division between NBOOK and NCORP. Read them, read at least the nutshell and lead section (which you didn’t do for NCORP).
    It the book historical, or the basis of a movie, or a cookbook, or an online contract freelance book writing product? NCORP should definitely apply if there is a current advertising budget.
    Books may cross fields, but camera bags? In what way is a camera bag like a book? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things: #1 I'm not seeing anything about "products" in the nutshell for NCORP. #2 My comment was the having NCORP include all "products" is overly broad and would reach far into other SNGs, including NBOOKS. Again, I think NBOOKS is controlling wrt books. I think most folks would agree with that, advertising budget or not. Hobit (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. 1 Logical “and”, means read both.
    2. 2 A topic is usually only expected to meet one SNG. If it meets NBOOK, it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t meet NCORP. And that’s just for indicating likelihood of passing at AfD, where the unltimate test is “consensus”, exactly as Thryduulf was saying.
    Lowepro doesn’t meet NBOOK. The deleted page didn’t meet NCORP. Arguably, other sources may pass NCORP, but I suggesting adding coverage at camera bag. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that it doesn't matter whether NCORP applies, but no guideline is relevant to a discussion unless there is consensus that it does (otherwise someone could rock up to an AfD discussion about a church and argue for deletion because it doesn't meet PORNBIO or NFOOTY, which are arguments that nobody could refute). Based on similarly strong arguments an equal number of people argued that this topic is and is not notable - a textbook no consensus close. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I now need brain bleach after envisioning the AfDs for religious organizations where either SNG might also arguably apply. Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    SNGs tend to be permissive, you generally need one to permit the article, not all of them.
    If a commercially sold camera bag company and two of its products are not covered by NCORP, then by what? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, whether it is covered by NCORP is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Thryduulf, it may be irrelevant to your argument that there wasn't any consensus in the AfD.
    It is relevant in that "NCORP" featured heavily in the discussion, and here my input it that NCORP is definitely an applicable guideline to helping assess the notability of a brand of commercially-sold camera bags.
    I think your input "Overturn to no consensus ... because there very clearly wasn't any in that discussion" is reasonable input,
    but I think "There is no agreement about whether NCORP applies" is absurd and I think that we should reject this statement of yours.
    You give a rationale "the only sources that matter are those about the topic of the article - so in this case the absence of coverage of the brand owner is completely irrelevant as that was not the topic of the article", but I struggle to make sense of that part. "the only sources that matter are those about the topic of the article" says nothing to NCORP, and what are you saying about the brand owner? The brand is owned by the company Lowepro, and Lowepro is now owned by Vinten (aka Vitec). Are you saying that NCORP doesn't apply because Vinten wasn't covered? The article covered a company and two of its products, and so WP:CORP definitely applies. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Interesting DRV. I think Spartaz got this absolutely right. Trying to distinguish this as a brand is critically flawed and nevertheless doesn't rebut Spartaz's either-or situation. In the alternative, if we assume this doesn't, then that would imply subsidiaries wouldn't fall under NCORP since they're owned by a parent company. Lowepro seemed to have unique employees as recently as at least 2011 if it doesn't now, appears to have started as a company, and any normal individual looking at their website wouldn't know they weren't their own company. That being said, this could be salvaged as a stand-alone article if additional sourcing is found. SportingFlyer T·C 20:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 February 2022[edit]

  • Jeong Yein – No consensus. Opinions vary between keeping this deleted, allowing recreation in draftspace, or in main space. The gist of the discussion is that people are free to attempt to recreate the article directly or in draft-/userspace, but they better make sure that it is sourced sufficiently to escape speedy or regular re-deletion. There is no consensus here as to whether that is possible. Sandstein 12:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jeong Yein (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Page was nominated to redirect to Lovelyz page in 2015. Things have changed since then and I've tried to open a new page yesterday with more information but was reverted by another admin. Said member is currently already a soloist under a separate label with various achievements and has already released her own single. Authority Control for the page was accurate as well with substantial information. The page already has various languages, Korean, Mandarin, etc. So the English one should stand. Loveujiae (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow standalone article SEVEN years later, consensus can surely change. I have some sympathy for the re-redirection, in that the "in process" state of the article was poor and had been left that way for several hours, but I'll also note that the 2015 AfD was a delete-and-then-redirect outcome (boo) which forced this editor to create a new article from scratch. Drafting might be helpful, but is not required. Likewise, a new article needs to be able to pass AfD, and I suspect if the article had been left in a more thoroughly and appropriately sourced state (YouTube is not a source for a BLP) the redirect would not have been made. Conversation between editor and redirector likely could have precluded this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No evidence that anything has changed. Use talk:Lovelyz to see if anyone agrees, otherwise just improve content at Lovelyz. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Searching online for sources, I find nothing reliable when excluding "Lovelyz". Therefore, everything reliable about this person is connected to Lovelyz. Therefore, the notion is to WP:SPINOUT Jeong Yein from Lovelyz. To do this, seek consensus at talk:Lovelyz; it is not a DRV matter. Do not use draftspace for spinouts unless done with consensus established on the talk page of the parent article.
    Lovelyz disbanded in November 2021. Fans or editors want to track the directions of the members post disband. Sure. Add it to Lovelyz#History. The article currently does not confirm that it was disbanded. This should be added, and sourced comment on future directions for the members can be added there. I think there is no case for the member spinout pages, not yet anyway. This history (undeleted) at Jeong Yein contains very little prose, and what there is belongs at Lovelyz.
    DRV participants advocating for encouragement of use of draftspace are doing a disservice to the quality of mainspace. Draftspace is not good for WP:Spinouts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest draft. The subject going solo doesn't automatically grant her the right to a separate article, nor does the existence of pages on sister Wikipedias hold any weight here. As of this writing, her debut single charted at #52 on Gaon Music Chart's Download Chart, but that is a component chart of the national Gaon Digital Chart. This alone is not sufficient. ✗plicit 01:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow standalone article New sourcing (such as this and this) has become available since the 2015 AfD. As the sourcing available is substantially different to what it was seven years ago, I feel the article may be recreated and should go through AfD again before being deleted again. NemesisAT (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Both sources provide material for Lovelyz#History#Epilogue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources have been identified as unreliable, see WP:KO/RS#UR. ✗plicit 03:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, thanks User:Explicit. At best, the information could be in the Lovelyz article, but not sourced from these sources. I am sure that there are good sources for the disbanding of the group, but I suspect the information on ongoing activities for the ex-members could be no more than conjecture, or stated interests. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Creation of Draft subject to review. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation for the reasons stated by Jclemens. I am not inclined to enforce draftspace on anyone, although merit-wise a userspace draft seems like a smart idea here; the sourcing used in the article during its time in mainspace is substandard and could possibly have used some more time to be worked over into a BLP-compliant, mainspace-friendly state. I don't believe moving to redirect "per AfD" is a good move for an AfD this long ago, and have broader views on the haste of some NPPers to redirect pages where this may or may not reflect current best practice. Vaticidalprophet 05:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Vaticidalprophet appears to note that NPPer User:Onel5969 may have been hasty in reverting to the redirect per the very old AfD.
    An acceptable response to this may be been for User:Loveujiae to revert that edit, and attempt to discuss (as they did) at Talk:Jeong Yein. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • An AfD that old should not be considered binding. But you'd better have some decent sources or it will be redirected again. I too don't like DRAFT space much, but starting there (or in your user space) might be wise and have someone review it (you can ask me). Hobit (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't restore it to draft. AfC is chronically backlogged. According to {{AFC status/backlog}}, there are 2,429 pending submissions awaiting AfC review, and for the time being it's simply unreasonable to force content creators to use it. Put it back in mainspace or someone's userspace.—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ++++ I will always be opposed to requiring someone to use WP:DRAFT for exactly that reasoning. However, I'm agreeing to look it over (and move it out of draft space if it's ready IMO) if the OP wants to go that way. Hobit (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have deleted/voted to delete the last live version of the article, so while I agree this could be re-created, I don't want to guarantee that it would pass an AfD at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 20:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Captain Flag – No consensus, relisted. A majority of DRV participants would endorse the "keep" closure, but there is no consensus for this outcome. If a DRV results in no consensus, the DRV closer can relist the AfD. I'm doing so here because the AfD was not all that long (compared to most fictional elements AfD I'm aware of), and there was not much discussion of the sources at issue. Sandstein 09:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Captain Flag (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I concur with User:Avilich who raised concerns with me at my talk page. While a simple tally does support the keep side, I remain concerned that they do not represent our best practices. The first speedy keep by an anon is half-gibberish, half violations of AGF/CIV and IMHO can be classified as trolling. The second keep vote points out a source, but as both I and Avilich pointed out, that source does not go beyond a plot summary/catalog entry, our criticism was not replied to. The third keep is a simple WP:KEEPER "the reasons those who want to keep this article" (which suggests that the poster didn't even read their arguments, since only two people voted keep before and one was likely trolling). The last keep vote is a variant of THEREMUSTBESOURCES, arguing that the sources are good (the voter did not even specify which ones), but again, me and Avilich pointed out why there are not, and the criticism has not been replied to (outside the statement that "we don't have access to the sources cited, I'm happy to assume they do have the coverage required" - which is incorrect as we do have access to those sources and they don't have the coverage required, a fact pointed out but not replied to in the AfD). Despite repeated requests by me and Avilich, not a single editor pointed out a single source that contains anything beyond a plot summary and publication history. Even though I explicitly warned against this in my nomination, the keep voters and the closer appeared to be misled by the sources cited, which call themselves "encyclopedias" and sound "scholarly", but de facto include Kickstarter-funded picture books (ex. [11]). IMHO this should not have been closed as keep, but either relisted for further discussion or deleted, given the low quality of the keep votes which IMHO fall under WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES/WP:KEEPPER. IMHO out of the four keep votes, only the one by Toughpigs meets our standards, but his source has been criticized, and the other three keep votes do not meet our standards, so we have 2 valid delete votes (including my nomination) vs one disputed keep and three totally invalid votes (trolling, keeper, theremustbesources). The closer claimed he is following consensus, but Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and the quality of the arguments needs to be considered as well. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as you might be able to get to no consensus, but overturning it to deletion is simply not supportable. Avilich's mistake is assuming that there is such a thing as a non-WAF-compliant independent, reliable, secondary source. A plot summary is necessarily transformative, rendering it secondary, in that it picks what to highlight and what to delete, even if it doesn't include detailed scholarly analysis. Thus, the indictment of the sourcing falls clearly within realms debatable, where reasonable editors can (and did) differ, rather than something non-policy-compliant that should have been thrown out. Note that I saw but did not participate in this AfD, as I have no special knowledge of this topic. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your standards render WAF essentially useless. Omitting parts of the text of a primary source do not turn the remainder into a secondary source, because no analysis was added. Restatements of plot information are no more secondary than interviews. Avilich (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WAF does not apply to anyone else's content but our own. RS'es are allowed to write about fiction however they see fit. WAF is a content guideline for how we present such sources, and nothing else. Jclemens (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant or incorrect: how the sources are presented or can be presented is the only thing that matters to begin with, and besides, WAF very clearly links to and supplements the relevant policy on fictional topics, and says what is and what isn't acceptable as a standalone article. Not all of these "reliable sources" will be adequate for inclusion. Avilich (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try this one more time: WP:WAF is a part of the Manual of Style which describes how Wikipedia should present fictional topics that we do have articles on. It says nothing about which sources can be used to establish notability of fictional topics, and really nothing about which fictional topics are or are not notable. Are you with me so far? Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It says nothing about which sources can be used to establish notability of fictional topics". Yes, it does. And you can't dissociate presentation of content from sourcing anyway. Presentable content will necessarily have sources to back it up, and it can be assumed that those sources are the WAF-compliant ones. Avilich (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAF's subsection MOS:PASI is the closest I can find in that page to supporting your statement, but it says, "This section deals with the incorporation of information in articles about fiction" (emphasis in original). It's not some back-door way to discount secondary sources as not contributing to notability, but simply describing how they may be used best in our presentation of that information. To put it a differently, no MOS ever affects notability, only our preferred presentation of notable topics. You're free to continue thinking that an MOS could even do that, but neither formal logic nor common sense would support that. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the part where it says "editors should establish the subject's real-world notability by including several reliable, independent secondary sources" (and no, plot recaps aren't WP:WAF#Secondary); "Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary"; and that "the impact it has had in the real world" should be included. You can keep on talking about how "RS'es are allowed to write about fiction however they see fit" and how WAF is just a "content guideline", but that's nugatory. If any given source doesn't translate into content that complies with the content guideline, it is effectively useless. Avilich (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or relist No evidence was presented to refute the nominator's claim that policy-compliant coverage is lacking. No keep voter even claimed that there were "scholarly" sources (indeed, NemesisAT seemed to think otherwise), and so the closer didn't follow consensus when saying that they existed. Plainly, closers shouldn't be allowed to lie in their closing statements. Avilich (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per McFarland & Company, "McFarland & Company, Inc., is an American independent book publisher based in Jefferson, North Carolina, that specializes in academic and reference works, as well as general-interest adult nonfiction." While I'm sure it's arguable whether Secondary Superheroes of the Golden Age is truly a scholarly work, Toughpigs pointed out this specific work and it is plausible that the closer relied on the publisher's reputation in making that statement. Accusing Doczilla of "[lying] in their closing statements" is horribly rude, inconsistent with the evidence in the AfD itself, and should be retracted as uncivil. Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was pretty clear that this source had only plot information + publication history, with no critical analysis. Since no rebuttal whatsoever was offered, the default conclusion was the source did not contribute towards notability. Relying on a publisher's reputation is rather than the discussion itself is nothing short of supervoting. Anyway, "scholarly" is a very specific qualifier which nobody used to describe any source, and so such description was unwarranted in the closing statement. For the purposes of the discussion, it is an untrue statement, not done unintentionally -- which takes us to definitions. Avilich (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you believe you stated in the discussion may have been clear to you, but it's unreasonable for you to believe that no one else could possibly not see it your way. You need to hone your WP:AGF skills, and debate in a more collegial and principled fashion. Piotrus can probably give you pointers--he and I disagree about many (most?) Wikipedia topics, and yet can speak to arguments rather than throwing accusations around. That kind of opposition forces one to think better about one's own arguents. Calling people liars doesn't do that. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
re: "Plainly, closers shouldn't be allowed to lie in their closing statements." As the closer in question, I would prefer to stay out of this. However, I must say that accusing people of lying simply because you disagree with their POV is not civil, logical, appropriate, or conducive to working together to produce this online resource called Wikipedia. I actually own a couple of the sources we're talking about here and have seen some of the others in our library, but so what? I happen to think of them differently regardless of how I know about them. A difference of perspective should not evoke an accusation of lying. This just teaches me that I should have stuck to "delete per consensus" without any elaboration. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't think you were lying, and accusing you of that is not appropriate (and I'd recommend Avilich to strike those claims out), but I do believe you misunderstand what 'scholarly' or 'reliable' mean. Also, it's important to explain your understanding of consensus, so we can have discussions like this. In that, you did follow what I think are best practices. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any "difference of perspective", you should share it while the discussion is ongoing, not impose it on the closing statement (supervoting). Since nothing in the discussion supports your perspective, not even any of the keep votes, you effectively stated an untruth on the closing statement. Dismissing serious AfD arguments on basis of untruths is surely much less conducive to working together to produce this online resource called Wikipedia than people complaining about it. Avilich (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the sourcing is sufficient to demonstrate beyond a doubt that a comic book character of this name existed in 1941, and the nominator does not dispute that. There are also books discussing it. While I agree that some of the books may not be more reliable than a fan blog, there is not consensus that this is insufficient for a stand-alone article, and there may well be consensus that this is sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article. Just because the nom doesn't like this doesn't mean we should overturn the outcome. However, I don't see any reason why a merge couldn't be proposed. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Good close. Do not allow renomination for at least months from the close of this DRV discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The closer correctly assessed the consensus. The appellant may be saying that the closer should have supervoted. There are rare situations in which a closer should supervote. This was not one of them, but one of the more common situations in which the closer should describe the consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or relist - The close seems like a bad supervote, with the closer focusing on some unspecified scholarly sources which may or may not exist at all. I also concur with the analysis of votes by Piotrus. The closer's supervote can be converted to a regular keep vote if they wish, but this should not have been closed. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I am far from certain of why our sources on fiction have to include more than information of a work's plot and publication history. That is not a criterion we use when discussing most modern books. The nominator's proposal is an effort to dismiss real-world reference works in favor of Wikipedia's increasingly arcane and arbitrary rules. And most reliable sources on the topic of narrative art tend to be "picture books". Dimadick (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a policy WP:NOTPLOT which says precisely that. Avilich (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBOOKS disagree on books. If Captain Flag was a book, he wouldn't be notable :P Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus or relist. Publication history can be more than plot. I don't know if the coverage is significant, but WP:GNG is now effectively the only relevant guideline even for most subjects with SNGs, and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is not a requirement (as was claimed by the nominator), or even an SNG. Whether it meets GNG was disputed - it does according to one participant, and another assumed good faith, but two editors disputed it. This looks like a supervote or a misunderstanding of something in the AFD. It was already relisted, so if overturned would it be relisted again or closed as no consensus? A865 (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse WP:FICTION is an essay. WP:BOOK doesn't apply. As far as I can tell, that leaves us with WP:GNG which this seems to pass with the sources in the article. Given the strength of arguments and the numbers, I can't see any close other than keep being reasonable. Hobit (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You must be trolling with your "strength of the arguments" argument, especially in view that one of the keep voters was just now topic-banned from AfD for ridiculously stupid comments in discussions. It's very telling that the closer, and you for that matter, so readily accept a spam of the sort of "Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article" as a valid argument. Avilich (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Na. We have at least one multi-page source and several others that are significant. Some folks don't like that the coverage is mostly about plot, but that doesn't really matter to the GNG. It's still significant coverage. Hobit (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not what WP:NOTPLOT and WP:WAF say. Avilich (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are about how we write, they are not inclusion/notability guidelines. There is enough to write a short but reasonable article that meets the style guidelines. Jclemens said it quite well above: [That is] not some back-door way to discount secondary sources as not contributing to notability, but simply describing how they may be used best in our presentation of that information. Hobit (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the complete opposite of how it works: WP:N itself says that it doesn't apply if WP:NOT is being violated. WP:NOT obviously includes rules on what not to include, and how not to include content. If the sources fail to present any "reception, significance, and influence of works", then there's no way you can write anything in the way the policies explicitly mandate. Jclemens has no idea of what he's talking about, but even he said nothing about NOTPLOT working that way. Avilich (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite the part of WP:N you are referring to please? Hobit (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that you'll change your mind, but. "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia"; "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: ... It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy"; "evidence must show the topic [is not] unsuitable for any other reason". Avilich (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that doesn't do it for me as you predicted. We can certainly manage more than a "Summary-only descriptions of works" here. In fact the current article does that just fine. The sources do more than that and thus so can we. We don't discount a source as meeting the GNG just because the source focuses on one aspect of the topic. If you'd like to add that to WP:N, start an RfC. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't have any evidence of real-world impact, however, which makes it quite unacceptable I'm afraid. It's all clarified in NOTPLOT and WAF, nothing needs to be added to N at all. Avilich (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's agree to disagree. I believe if it were the intent of WP:N to exclude certain sources, it would be clearly spelled out there. Hobit (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus I don't see the !keep votes here actually rebutting the argument, given there's no sources that clearly passed GNG in the actual discussion. I also think the closer messed up in focusing on the online/off-line sources argument, as the nom's argument was that no sources qualified towards GNG, not that they were online. I know some people don't think a no consensus/keep distinction matter, but this would allow for a faster and less potentially political renomination. SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There was a robust discussion of the sourcing. No consensus would be a stretch of the closer's discretion and the reason for a relist does not exist. --Enos733 (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • LMBO – Restored by deleting admin and nominated for deletion by the tagging editor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
LMBO (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted per WP:G14 as an unnecessary disambiguation page. I can't see what the page looked like at the time, so no opinion if it was G14 eligible. However, if it was a dab page, it became one recently, as it used to be a redirect before that. A page shouldn't be speedy deleted if there are revisions in its history that don't meet any speedy deletion criterion. If this page is eventually restored, then so should Lmbo. – Uanfala (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored this page as I don't relish another visit to this noticeboard. My last visit here was very contentious and I don't feel that strongly about a disambiguation page. I have informed Discospinster who tagged the page for speedy deletion in case they wanted to comment here. Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Discospinster has taken this to AfD, I think we have nothing further to do here and this can be closed. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 February 2022[edit]

  • Pitobash Tripathy – page restored. There is a clear consensus that the original AFD was tainted by the nominator Dixicu, who has since been blocked as a sockpuppet, gutting much of the article prior to AFDing it. As Dixicu is the sock of a banned user, all edits made are to be considered null and void and I have looked at the last version before that of 13:53, 24 August 2021. While all Wikipedia articles are permanently "works in progress", that version looks like a complete article, and not just a draft. As such I don't think sending this to draftspace is a necessary intermediate step, and I will therefore restore the page in its 24 August 2021 version to article space. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Pitobash Tripathy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Notable actor (known by media also as simply Pitobash). The actor has played the lead role in Kalira Atita that won the National Award and was considered for submitting to the Oscars. That film is also screened in Cornell. He has played significant roles in notable films such as I Am Kalam and Shor In The City (for which he won several awards, a critic here said that "But above all, Pitobash Tripathy's city cheapster, wannabe cool act deserves all the shining glory. He is so terrifically convincing, you beg for more of his screen-time"). For his role in Shanghai, a critic said here that "Pitobash Tripathi as a herd-following morchawaala, Bhagu, stands out". His role in Total Dhamaal is significant (in terms of screen time) and he is mentioned in a review here. Several sources exist here, here, here, here, here, and here. DareshMohan (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The afd nominator's SPI is quite relevant, and they removed almost half (by bytecount)/about three quarters (prose) of the article before taking it to afd. I'm inclined to throw it out on that basis alone, without even looking at the subject's merits. —Cryptic 00:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to Draft for review, based on statement by Cryptic that nominator, since blocked as a sock, had butchered the article before nominating it. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored the history of the article so that folks can see what happened & it's not so easy to analyze changes in the deleted page read form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as Draft so that newer sources can be added to the article to meet NACTOR / GNG requirement. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to draft/allow recreation: for whatever reason, these sources clearly weren't adequately considered at the AfD, so it's fair to give them a chance to be evaluated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Discourage drafting, because the nominator throws up a great many thin and non-independent sources. Draftspace should not be used to collect below standard sources. Refer to WP:THREE, maximum three worthy sources or we think your throwing dust into the air. In the meantime, improve his IMDB entry at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3329873/. Wikipedia is not a directory of all actors, but IMDB is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 21:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Overturn, due to the article being gutted prior to nomination, all by sock Dixiku (talk · contribs). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as draft per Cryptic Happy editing--IAmChaos 04:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate past AfD, Restore to mainspace we have 1) more sources identified which at first read through seem more than sufficient, 2) a sock nominator in the AfD, and 3) decimation of the article by the AfD nominator before the nomination, presenting it in a significantly worse light. Having said that, I would expect no prejudice against speedy renomination based on the vacation of the tainted AfD. A week should be plenty to fix this for a motivated editor, assuming that anyone even desires to take it to AfD right away. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate past AfD, Restore to mainspace per Jclemens' proposal. What we have here seems to be someone vandalizing an article and then nominating it for deletion. The vandal's efforts had nothing to do with the subject's notability, they were simply abusing Wikipedia's tendency to keep destroying articles on a daily basis. Dimadick (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate and restore per above - the SPI's gutting of an article pre-AfD is enough to have tainted the discussion without needing to dig into the merits of sourcing. Anyone who thinks this could be deleted can create another AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 February 2022[edit]

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

The article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathan (film) (2nd nomination). There was unanimous support for deletion among the six AfD participants who offered an opinion on a course of action. One of the "delete" participants made a WP:REFUND to draftspace request with the statement, "I do not intend to move the draft to mainspace yet (I !voted to delete on the AfD) but I believe the pre-redirect version of the draft can worked on to meet the NFILM / GNG guidelines in the future. Please note that the film is still under production and new information / sources keep coming, so it may notable as the time passes."

The closing administrator responded, "Following up since I just saw the ping of my username. Normally I would be happy to consider restoring a page like this as a draft, but this one has already been deleted twice at AfD, so I concur that a DRV discussion is the appropriate thing in this case."

I found this discussion from this post, and I consider the "delete" close to be an accurate assessment of the consensus. I consider the request for restoration to draftspace to be reasonable and will improve the encyclopedia. I ask the community to restore the deleted article draft to Draft:Pathan (film). Cunard (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting restoration of Draft:Pathan (film) (if it is the correct draft after all the page moves) instead of Pathan (film) per Ab207's comment below. Cunard (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the deleting admin: As indicated in the quote provided above, I do not oppose restoring this as a draft, but because this was deleted twice by consensus at AfD, I prefer that restoration be reviewed by the community rather than just by myself. --RL0919 (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for clarifying that you are fine with restoring this as a draft if the community approves as this makes it easier to obtain consensus for restoration. Cunard (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the participant: Hello, all. Clarifying my position, I requested a refund of the promising draft that was boldy redirected to the subsequently deleted article, not the content of the deleted article itself. I !voted delete at the AfD on the assumption that an earlier draft can be worked on until it meets NFILM / GNG guidelines. Though I haven't edited the draft myself, I felt it's unfortunate that hours of work went in vain due to a technical deletion (G8). In all likelihood, a Shah Rukh Khan-starrer would eventually get its own article but someone has to it all start over. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I'm not sure why this is here, to be honest:
  • The fact something has been deleted at AfD twice doesn't mean restoring it to draft space is controversial, and nobody has objected to it being restored to draft space.
  • The reason given for deletion is based in large part around the fact the film hasn't been released, which isn't a good reason to permanently deny recreation requests. If it is ever released then the AfD result will clearly no longer stand.
  • The decline message a REFUND is the one which is given to requests to restore AfDed articles to mainspace, it isn't applicable to requests to restore them to draft space or to restore drafts. In this case the draft was deleted under G8 because someone redirected it to the mainspace page and then the mainspace page was deleted. G8 deletions are not controversial and can be undone at REFUND.
  • The copy at Draft:Pathan (film) looks nothing like the version most recently deleted at AfD - it was far longer and had far more references (45).
Hut 8.5 13:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle, it's not unreasonable to ask for caution in restoring an afd-deleted article as a draft, but in practice that caution's usually applied at the move-draft-to-mainspace step. If there's reason to think it might not be reviewed in the context of prior afds, stick a {{AFC comment|Reviewers should be aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathan (film) (2nd nomination) before accepting this.}} or similar on it, though that's not usually necessary unless the draft has a different name than the former article. If there's real reason to think it might be abusively re-mainspaced, you can salt the mainspace title. I don't think either of those really applies in this case, nor that there's reason to deny the initial draftification. —Cryptic 13:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support restoration to draft for incubation by established user, but also understand why this wasn't unilateral restoration, so also support the process. There was no issue with anyone's actions so technically nothing to review. Star Mississippi 17:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Hut 8.5's reasoning. Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Restoration to draft or Overturn CSD of Draft, as nominator of AFD. I nominated the article, which had already been deleted once, for deletion as an unreleased film that is in development limbo. I did not request that the draft be deleted. The article did not belong in article space, and is not now in article space. Planned films should be in draft space. Draft space has various uses, including for planned films. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete all versions to draft. A future film that doesn’t meat WP:NFF is the most obvious case for something that belongs in draftspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow refund to draft The problem with the AfD was mostly WP:CRYSTAL - the film was not yet notable. I have no issues with a refund to draft space for something which may become notable in the short term, but is not yet notable. I'm not sure which version is the most up to date per Hut, but my assumption is that should be the one restored. SportingFlyer T·C 20:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 February 2022[edit]

  • I Am So Proud of You – No consensus to overturn the "merge" closure. Stifle's and Smokey Joe's opinions (endorse / overturn) cancel each other out, and the other two participants believe that the closure was sort of OK but that it does not prevent restoration of the article if the text about this film is substantially improved in terms of content and sources, such that a standalone spinoff is (again) warranted. Sandstein 13:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I Am So Proud of You (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is an animated short film by a two time Academy Award nominee that screened in competition at the Sundance Film Festival in 2009. It won a number of film festival awards and was released on its own DVD, a rarity for a short film.[1] The short film is the second part of a three-part story, each part released in theaters as individual animated short films over the course of many years. The discussion to delete/merge this article never even reached a consensus. A similar attempt was made last month to speedily delete/merge the first short film in this trilogy (Everything Will Be OK) and that decision was overturned. If anything, this article just needs more work. Ang-pdx (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Amazon".
  • Allow restoration with more sourcing Discounting a perfunctory nom and one pernom !vote, you essentially had one well-reasoned keep and one well-reasoned merge. That seems a very soft consensus for me, so what I would recommend ang-pdx is that you work on the article at its merge target, and then split it out again when sourcing is improved such that no reasonable editor doubts its independent notability. But at the same time, consider whether that's really necessary; all three films were combined in their final form, so covering them in one article is reasonable, even if it's not what you preferred. No one seriously argued that the content should be deleted entirely, but rather that it belonged with the other short films that ended up combined. That is, I think the decision to merge should not be looked at as negatively as you're feeling at this moment. Jclemens (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks yes I'll try and keep adding information to enrich the article. I've made this argument before but in my opinion it's like writing an individual page for a hit single; even though the song might also appear on a band's album and could be merged with it, sometimes the song is interesting enough to justify its own page. The director of "The Green Knight" called this animated short "possibly the film of the year" back in its day, which indicates to me that the short film is unique and remarkable in some way as the standalone movie it had been, when originally released. Ang-pdx (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I totally get where you're coming from, and I have the same sort of thoughts about short stories vs. novels. For example, I'd say that Dogfight (short story) is the best literary illustration of Mark 8:36. Jclemens (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment agree with Jclemens, or even incubate in draft until it can be fleshed out, but nothing has been deleted (nor should it have been). I saw this in the overdue queue and wondered whether another relist would have helped with consensus. I didn't think so, and it was ultimately closed by someone else, but there was no different outcome likely. I doubt another relist on a month-long AfD would have changed anything. Star Mississippi 22:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I as closer was not notified of this deletion review as required by the instructions; this should be done if you nominate DRVs in future.
    The article was on AFD for over a month which was plenty of time to produce sources where they exist. Therefore I endorse my own closure.
    But as is the norm, merging, demerging, redirecting etc. are editorial actions that do not under normal circumstances require a consensus, so if it later proves meritorious to split out the article then that can be done. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (speedy keep). WP:SK#1 applied, no rationale for deletion. WP:BEFORE was not done. The nomination statement was inadequate. It was not a deletion discussion. Proposals to merge were ok not compelling, and were contested, and given the inadequate start, it should not have been closed as a consensus to merge. Subsequently, the consensus to merge is shown to be debunked. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Ian Marsh (writer) – Decision endorsed, with Stifle dissenting on grounds that he feels the ARS !votes should have been given lower weight. It isn't necessary to evaluate whether Stifle is correct because the discussion was relisted twice before the ARS became involved, by Vanamonde93 and Sandstein. When there's consensus to delete, we don't relist, so we know there was no consensus to delete even before the somewhat predictable flurry of keeps from our respected ARS colleagues.
    Note carefully that in this discussion what we're endorsing is a "no consensus" finding. This means there's nothing to prevent a fresh listing at AfD which might lead to more close analysis of the sources and fewer broad, sweeping assertions about them.—S Marshall T/C 10:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ian Marsh (writer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The references in this article aren't particularly good. They are a bunch of passing mentions, blogs and sps sources that are not valid. Two independent reviews of the sources were concluded by editors in good standing, but the voters, led principally by the WP:ARS project, completly ignored the analysis. The two amounts of textual content for Ian Marsh, that are available, adds up to about eight lines of text on a A4 page. The rest is passing mentions, generally one or two words stating his job funtion. It is miniscule and not in-depth and mostly unreliable. The principle argument as being assistant editor to the magazine as being notable, wouldn't be considered as notable anywhere. The four months he as editor is a temporary position, as non-notable as well. It wouldn't be considerd in context except as a temporaty position. Certainly the magazine is notable and has an article, as do a couple of the editors, as they're is plenty of coverage. The no-consensus result has completetly ignored Wikipedia policy around BLP's, instead basing the result on the sentiment. They're is not one WP:SECONDARY sources for this BLP. Not even a profile. scope_creepTalk 19:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The two source analysis were not ignored, editors disagreed with the conclusions found. Many editors felt the sources were sufficient. I also disagree that the keep vote was led principally by ARS. NemesisAT (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse "led principally by the WP:ARS project" is nonsense. ARS was notified about the case on January 24, 9 days ago - the AfD began on January 5, or 27 days ago ie. 2/3rd way through. From what I can see, 2 or 3 people who sometimes follow ARS showed up late in the process. Hardly "leading", more like following, nor making much difference in the outcome. Even if you were to delete those votes (and why would you) it would still be a NC. Disclaimer: I didn't participation in the AfD; I monitor the ARS noticeboard. -- GreenC 20:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (Note that I had participated as well). There's a really high bar to overcome to overturn a no consensus close to an AfD. While it is indeed a BLP, the issue isn't one of V, which is non-negotiable, but N, which can be met in multiple ways. The closure accurately reflected the lack of consensus. In the process of the discussion the article was substantially expanded, such that even if under-sourced BLP might have been an initial reason to consider deletion, it wasn't by the end. Also, the assumption of ARS influence is both unsubstantiated and ad hominem and should be retracted on both grounds. Jclemens (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just want to emphasise that "no consensus" means no consensus to do anything, be it keep, delete, redirect or something else. The arguments for deletion didn't largely consider whether there was a plausible redirect to White Dwarf, though some did. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have closed it as merge, which seems to be common ground that would more or less satisfy most of the commentators, and I understand that to be the meaning of Consensus, something most people can live with. . The difference from a no-consensus close is that the no-consensus close is likely to lead to further arguments when someoned oes try a merge. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (I have participated in the discussion independent and initially unaware of any activities of the WP:ARS project.) I don't think "being assistant editor to the magazine as being notable" was the "principle argument". I don't think that policies were ignored. I think there was until the end no consensus in which way the corresponding policies applied to the sources found. Daranios (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The majority of the keep !votes came from votestacking by the ARS and should properly have been discounted. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be interested in seeing which votes you believed to be votestacking and why. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't participate in this. 13 had already participated when he put it on the ARS list. Andrew and Lightburst are banned from joining AFDs. Also most Keep votes were there before it was listed on the ARS list. Dream Focus 01:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse or overturn to keep (participated and not involved with ARS in any way). The vast majority of contributors wished to keep the article. I see little reason for a no consensus and none for a delete. If we're going to ignore what contributors to AfDs say and just let the closer decide then we may as well abandon the whole AfD process. Claims that this was only kept due to ARS participation and votestacking are completely unjustified and actually rather insulting, as editors can !vote any way they choose. Sad that editors who are supposed to be building an encyclopaedia are so desperate to delete information that they make these unjustified allegations if they don't get their own way. Why are you here again? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are all Wikipedians here. Be civil and assume good faith. Pilaz (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that WP:AOBF, as multiple editors have expressed was done by the appellant here, is also part of the WP:AGF guideline. Also note that no one has here maligned your motives for nominating the article. Would that that sort of AGF be extended by all sides in a dispute. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • CANVASS is a legitimate motive to bring an AFD close to DRV. Assuming good faith is not optional, and even if the justification for the comments above were legitimate, two wrongs don't make a right. Pilaz (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm puzzled. How is pointing out that allegations are unfounded a breach of WP:AGF? The breach of AGF was clearly made by those making the allegations, who, I'm sorry to say, just look like sore losers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (no consensus). The discussion was divided by “deletes”, “keeps” and “redirect to White Dwarf (magazine)”. The redirect looks attractive but is weak due to the subject being a mere mention at the target, and merge not looking justified. Follow advice at WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - A reasonable conclusion by the closer, given that there was no consensus. It isn't clear by the way what the appellant wants the close overturned to. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (I nominated the article for deletion) - whether the sources presented constitute significant coverage and help meet GNG is a subject of genuine disagreement. And although I find the arguments of the keep voters on sourcing a bit too light for my taste, no consensus seems to be an accurate reflection of the discussion. Let me add that I don't find the concerns raised here at DRV illegitimate: while I agree that ARS had a minimal impact on the discussion (although inclusion in the ARS to-save list by an IP address could raise some eyebrows, especially given the lack of rationale required by ARS guidelines and previous experience of the IP user with ARS), I can also see why the outpur of support for what I consider a low-importance subject could give the impression of votestacking. Most of it seems to be WikiProjects-related participation, however, so I just don't think it rises to WP:CANVASS levels, and can only endorse the close. Pilaz (talk)
    • I broadly agree with this, though I believe we need to have a discussion on whether it is appropriate to notify a partisan Wikiproject. BilledMammal (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Presumably if the article should have been deleted they would have said so. Subject matter people are capable of deleting articles, they know more about it than typical, can help generate a better consensus, and find sources. -- GreenC 15:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would we need discussion on that? That would suggest it is not appropriate to notify any relevant Wikiproject, as most members of all of them are going to be partisan in some way. Even deletion sorting pages tend to be watched by editors interested in the subject, who may be considered to be partisan for that reason. If editors who regularly propose articles for deletion would far rather nobody interested in them knew about it, that really does do a disservice to Wikipedia. These discussions are usually very poorly attended, often leading to deletion decisions based on the opinions of a handful of editors that are then quoted as consensus or precedent in future discussions; they need more publicity, not less, and any publicity they can be given is a good thing. After all, we should all be here to add to Wikipedia, not to delete from it. Anyone who is not here for that reason is obviously in the wrong place. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because for some but not all discussions, including deletion discussions, some but not all Wikiprojects are a partisan audience, and per WP:CANVASS should not notified - more publicity is a generally good thing, but per current behavioural guidelines there are exceptions to this, and more publicity in a partisan venue is one of them.
And we are all here to improve Wikipedia. That means adding prose and articles that are suitable, and deleting prose and articles that are not. BilledMammal (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To call a WikiProject "partisan" implies that for every AfD within their subject area, they can be expected to vote Keep. I can't agree. I belong to some projects and have no problem deleting articles as needed. The partisan thing in canvassing is more applicable to specific users with a known bias, or groups with a known bias such as political groups. WikiPojects don't have an inherent bias to vote Keep in AfD, it's a venue to maintain the subject area which can include deletion/mergers. -- GreenC 16:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For most Wikiprojects, you are right, and there is nothing wrong with notifying them - but there are exceptions, where the position of the WikiProject can be reliably predicted. BilledMammal (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What links here shows the AfD was linked in multiple Project articles and pages. The first one Wikipedia:WikiProject_Games lists every AfD [is it done automatically]. Some are relisted for lack of participation. Ian Marsh is by far the most active, people appear to genuinely believe it's notable. They don't for TerraDrive. I could not reliably predict from that list what outcomes will be ahead of time. These are small datasets, though. It may be when they get listed on those pages there is no guarantee of anything, but when people truly believe it's notable there will be a larger number of participants. This is arguably subject-area expertise at work, not vote stacking. -- GreenC 19:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm not confident there was an issue; I was speaking to the implication that it is always acceptable to notify wikiprojects. 01:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse It was a valid close. Dream Focus 01:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse valid close. Just two months after the previous AfD for the same article, there was yet again no consensus. Renomination should not be permitted for at least three months. Hashing that out all over again so soon was clearly a poor use of people's time and effort. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 February 2022[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_February&oldid=1068955531"