I believe there was a clear majority consensus that the article should be deleted due to a failure of WP:SIGCOV. There was consistent comment that the sources did not meet the standard of that guideline per WP:ROUTINE, and there was no rebuttal of that argument. As such, I believe this close should be overturned in favor of deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Without attempting to restate all of the arguments, and everything else about, IMO the close was clearly incorrect and should be overturned. On one new point, that closer argument was in essence an argument by the closer, and was for a synthesized topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A very poor close regardless of where you fall on the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum. This close was basically, "I have disregarded every single vote and comment in the AfD and have therefore decided it is no consensus." It should be overturned. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The closer substituted her own view, which could and should have been expressed as a !vote, for a proper assessment of the consensus of the debate. This is a failure to follow correct deletion process. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by closer
To clarify, I did not "disregard every single vote and comment in the AFD". Nom statement was that this was an "intersection of two roads", that there is no practice under wp:outcomes to keep intersection articles, and that there was no indication of notability under GNG. The first delete comment (by Trainsandotherthings) echoed that "It would have to take something extraordinary for a road intersection to be notable." The second delete comment (by David Fuchs) was also based on it being about an intersection - "it's extremely rare for any intersection articles to exist because the content makes much more sense in other places..." The third delete vote (by Doczilla") indicated that it was a "barely-sourced item about a street intersection, of all things". However, as the non-delete comments pointed out, this article is not just about the intersection, but about the neighborhood around and named for the intersection. This tells me that the first three delete comments did not adequately engage with the content of the article or the arguments that had been made earlier in the discussion. The later set of delete comments all actually cited policy, either WP:SIGCOV or WP:ROUTINE, however Ms. Snoozy Turtle's comment again cites it being routine "for a road intersection." None of these commenters provided explanations as to how they felt it violated WP:SIGCOV and WP:ROUTINE, and none of them engaged with the sources found by 3 kids in a trenchcoat.
Regarding the keep arguments, the first two argue that the focus of the article is or should be the neighborhood, rather than just the intersection. However, the first two do not provide sources indicating that the neighborhood meets notability. 3 kids in a trenchcoat is the only commenter in the AFD who provided a substantive attempt to engage with sources. However, they were hampered by their lack of fluency in the language, and those sources have not made it into the article. Lerdsuwa did do some independent evaluation of the sources found by 3 kids in a trenchcoat, but did not go into detail as to how they did or did not meet the requirements of GNG.
The closer's job is not to merely count votes, but to evaluate the arguments. I did not find either the keep or delete arguments persuasive. Thus I closed it as no consensus. I added the clean up tag to the article as the title of the article causes confusion (at least as far as was apparent in the delete comments), and it does need more sourcing.
I disagree with the assertion that my closing statement was "in essence an argument by the closer". I was not making an argument about the article, I was not substituting my own view (I have no view on the article). I was merely summarizing my reading of the comments made in the discussion and the weakness of the arguments on both sides, which lead me to close as no consensus. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue."
Right now I feel like a meme of some one who keeps running back going "and another thing!" but if the commenters in a discussion cannot even reach a consensus about what the article under discussion is even about, how can there be consensus about what to do with said article? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The failure to deliminate a topic is a result of the poor sourcing to support said topic. If we had sources addressing this topic "directly and in detail" we wouldn't be having problems with delimitation. It's not surprising that in a case without significant coverage that issues like this exist. To my mind this is further evidence of a lack of notability in support of deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as no consensus. The closing admin correctly pointed out most of the delete votes lacked policy-based rationale. FrankAnchor 19:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseWP:ROUTINE is part of Wikipedia:Notability (events) and thus isn't applicable to an article about a junction. This weakens the delete argument. The closer's statement seems like a reasonable explanation why they closed as "no consensus". NemesisAT (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete If I view the initial relistings are reasonable in terms of consensus, followed by one "marginal" keep (lean), one "debatable" delete (considered it just to be the intersection) and three deletes - perhaps the deletes weren't comprehensive but their meanings were clear - how many more delete opinions would be required to move from not a clear consensus? clearly a perverse outcome relisting was essentially meaningless. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It seems like the burden of proof these days has fallen disproportiontely on those editors who want to keep an article to find and demonstrate that there are reliable sources that prove notability while those seeking deletion can simply say that a subject isn't notable or say that they can't find any sources (which can't ever be confirmed). I think the closer was correct in discounting Delete "votes" that just reflect an editor's opinion on whether or not an intersection should be considered notable. LizRead!Talk! 02:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is indeed what WP:BURDEN states. If you feel you'd like that to change, do feel free to gather a consensus for your proposal in an appropriate talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually WP:BURDEN applies to content within an article, not entire articles. Jclemens (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" or say that they can't find any sources (which can't ever be confirmed)." - it may not be able to be confirmed, but it can be rebutted by finding those sources, which is exactly the point, no one can prove the negative here, I can't show a picture of stuff I couldn't find because well I couldn't find it, or are you proposing I have to record in someway all the searches done and prove to the satisfaction of those opining to keep that the searches were comprehensive somehow? Of course those saying the sources exist, can point to them and demonstrate it which would seem a much easier standard. 81.100.164.154 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have spent time looking for sources and failed to find any, then say "despite searching, I've not found any sources", rather than just "there aren't any sources". Better still say what you did find, e.g. if you found a sources that mentioned it in passing, say "I found an article [link] that mentions it but nothing more.", if you searched the archives of a particular newspaper and failed to find any coverage, say that. If you can't even verify that the place exists, say that. Mention what search terms you used, especially if you used multiple ones. In other words - be specific about what you did and what the results were. Not only does this make it clear that you have spent time looking, it helps other people with their searches and reduces duplication of effort and can explain differences in results (someone searching for "Place, Country" is going to see different results to someone searching for Place, Province). Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So as one of the delete opinions states "The obvious caveats about searching for foreign language subjects applies, but I wasn't able to find any evidence that there's significant coverage of the intersection itself" seems to meet much of that. Regardless it makes little difference the objection is coming for the form of expression of the opinion expressed but not the substance. The stuff about being helpful to others is of course well taken, but not really the terms of the original complaint - and frankly I'd expect those of the opposite opinion to want to search and examine for themselves rather than take my word for it. 81.100.164.154 (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find any evidence that there's significant coverage of the intersection itself is only partly relevant given that the article is not solely about the intersection. I'd expect those of the opposite opinion to want to search and examine for themselves rather than take my word for it and well they might, but that's their choice. If you say "I've searched X and Y for Z" then someone else with limited time can start by searching different places and/or using different search terms, and it is better all round to see "I found nothing when searching X and Y for Z" followed by "I found the following sources in X and Y when I searched for ZA and ZB" than "There aren't any sources" followed by "well you can't have done a proper BEFORE as I found sources within 5 minutes". Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse I think there were two threads in this AfD, was the intersection notable, and was the neighborhood that contains the intersection notable. The consensus to the intersection was a clear no, while the neighborhood question is closer to a yes. While I feel the best close would of been to draftify to change the primary topic and discuss the title, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is a valid argument, so I'll weakly endorse this. JumpytooTalk 05:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete I believe that participants in a discussion have an expectation to discuss the sources found in the article if another participant points toward additional sources that may meet GNG. In this case, the four delete comments after 3 kids in a trenchcoat's keep comment all suggested the sources found were not sufficient to meet GNG. And looking at most of the comments favoring deletion, there is a suggestion that the coverage is not significant. I do understand where the closer was coming from, as many of the comments also referred to intersections not being notable . --Enos733 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse - This was a poorly written close that reads more like an !vote than a close, but it was a close that properly reflects the lack of consensus. It is a waste of time to say that the closer should have drawn a conclusion from the discussion when the conclusion was not there. The conclusion did summarize the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It's clear from the AfD that there is consensus that the road junction alone is not notable, but there is no consensus about the wider neighbourhood of which the road junction is a part. As the article is about both neighbourhood and junction and not every topic covered in an article needs to be notable enough for a stand-alone article, we're left at no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: May I suggest that those arguing to overturn and delete take a look at the present article, now at Khae Rai, NonthaburiKhae Rai, which has since undergone major restructuring and expansion, and confirm that their positions still hold? Cc: 4meter4, Stifle & Enos733. PS Also North8000 and Trainsandotherthings. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)–14:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So now there are two questions. Review of the close and the future status of the expanded and renamed (and possibly new-scoped) article. On thee latter question I would try to learn if the surrounding neighborhood truly has an recognized identity as such and my answer would follow that. Perhaps the pragmatic answer here should be to reopen a new AFD. North8000 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Major changes during the course of a DRV are difficult to usefully address. I would also suggest a new AFD. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a new AFD would be preferable. --Enos733 (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete The consensus throughtout the article was for delete. There was two editors who who were pushing for a keep, but that consensus was never sustained throughout the article. The large comment in the middle presented a whole series of newspapers in Gbooks, that mentioned as its an address and stuff is being done, without any deep analysis or anything of significance. The supposed argument about their many articles in the category is false, because they all lists. Nobody is creating intersections articles. Editor ONUnicorn completely ignored the consensus for deletion. scope_creepTalk 15:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reference that caused editor Paul_012 to move to keep stated: The traffic at Khae Rai intersection is critical. They are going to build a tunnel. The second reference "Police station ready to dust the Khae Rai tunnel to solve traffic problems ". Typical road and car for this mediocre and generic article. That is why the consensus for delete. There is currently 40million road junctions in America, making for about 300-500million across the world. Is that what we are aiming for. scope_creepTalk 15:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Scope_creep, there seem to be typos in your comments that prevent me from understanding what you mean. I guess you meant discussion rather than article in the first instances, but I can't figure out what "The supposed argument about their many articles in the category is false, because they all lists. Nobody is creating intersections articles." means. Also, there's no reference that "caused [me] to move to keep". I offered the news report in addition to my main point, "The sources already cited in the article go in-depth into the junction and neighbourhood's name and history" (emphasis added). Frankly no one in the entire discussion bothered to argue why those two sources (DD Property and the Royal Society) were inadequate for establishing notability. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My spelling and grammer are woeful. The DD Property is real-estate company who has prepared a profile on the area for investors, as they investing in area because they are talking about possibly putting a tunnel in and building a electric train station. The Royal Society talks about the area. The rest of the articles, "History of Nonthaburi Municipality" an investment newsletter, "Police station ready to dust the Khae Rai tunnel to solve traffic problems Waiting for villagers to understand the benefits of the project" the tunnel, "Dust off and restore the Khae Rai Tunnel.", a video that 1200 people watched, a pdf that even can't translate, so its non-rs, Ref 9 details building a train station, ref 10, 48billion for the train station, and so on. The whole article is a brochure article/advertisement for the upcoming tunnel and train station. That was the reason why the consensus was consistently for delete. scope_creepTalk 08:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's your reason personally, but I can't assume it is for any of the delete !voters in the AFD as none of them cared to comment on the sources individually (DD Property and Royal Society were the ones that were in the article during the AfD). --Paul_012 (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep an article not being in English and not being machine translatable does not mean it isn't a reliable source, it means speakers of that language cannot determine whether it is reliable or not. It might be reliable, it might not, but we can't write it off as not-reliable until we know. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Thryduulf: How goes it? I managed to get it translated. It is a hand-written proclamation by Field Marshall Plaek Phibunsongkhram dated December 1945 and contains a list proclamations renaming certain roads and bridges in honour of certain individuals. It doesn't add much really, the most cursory information. It is a passing mention, more reason for deletion. The presence of the article is an advertisement, due to the electric train station and tunnel being built. Any decent train station if its done properly, brings masses of investment. Who would write about an intersection in any case. It has to be most boring subject in the world. scope_creepTalk 19:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All this isn't relevant for deletion review. Maybe if another AfD is made as some have suggested above, you could present the case there. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who would write about an intersection in any case. It has to be most boring subject in the world. Well the article isn't just about a road intersection (it's also about a community) but even if it were then your opinion about how interesting a topic is is completely irrelevant. Documenting the existence of transportation infrastructure in a place being advertising is (as Paul_012 correctly notes) irrelevant for DRV but also an argument that I've never seen before (and frankly find absurd). Finally, some intersections are notable and people write about them (e.g. Almondsbury Interchange, High Five Interchange, Berenkuil, Eindhoven, Glorieta de la Palma). Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Bhumika Gurung – Procedural close, as the nominator has been blocked and so is unable to participate here. This is without prejudice to a new nomination after the block has expired. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The afd is rejected simply everytime without any logical reasoning. The actress has clearly passed WP:NACTOR with her multiple lead roles in the shows Nimki Mukhiya, Nimki Vidhayak and Mann Kee Awaaz Pratigya 2. She is currently playing the lead in the show Hara Sindoor. So she is eligible to have a Wikipedia article with the four lead roles she has played. I don't understand what is wrong with afc reviewers that they are constantly rejecting this draft without any logical reasons when Gurung has everything required for an article. Commonedits (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I request a proper review of the draft by a good capable reviewer unlike the ones who have reviewed till now because the xfd: [1] is no more valid. The xfd[2] happened in 2018 when Gurung had got her first lead role in Nimki Mukhiya. Now Gurung has four lead roles, so she has fully passed WP:NACTOR so why are the reviewers not allowing the creation of her article?Commonedits (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just here to note Draft:Bhumika Gurung, and that the nominator just got blocked for a month (for something entirely unrelated, to all appearances). —Cryptic 17:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close because the appellant is blocked for 30 days for personal attacks. But this is an "interesting" case. The title is create-protected, admin-only, due to a history of sockpuppetry in 2018 and 2019, and the protecting admin said that any request to unprotect should only come via Deletion Review, so here we are. The appellant has created a draft, Draft:Bhumika Gurung, and is requesting that it be reviewed, and so has come here. Another reviewer declined the draft two weeks ago, and then I Rejected the draft, largely because the submitter was being disruptive by accusing everyone else of being disruptive. What the blocked appellant mostly does is to insult other editors and accuse them of stalking. (This is not a block review, but I concur with User:KrakatoaKatie in blocking the appellant.) However, the draft as written does not support acting notability, but the subject does now appear to satisfy the conditions for notability. I was hasty in Rejecting the draft, and a draft submitted by a reasonable editor may be reviewed at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Cryptic - The block is only mostly unrelated. The block is for having a modus operandi of insulting other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close per Cryptic so that the nominator can fully participate when their block expires. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 28 June 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 list was deleted under WP:LISTCRUFT, however there was nothing indiscriminate about the list. It was a straight up factual list of players who had won this specific cup. The information was straight forward and clear. Some argument was that the list violated WP:SYNTH, which is bizarre, as lists can't be a conclusion of information. Lists are a collection of information. From List of Star Wars books or List of PlayStation games (A–L) or List of James Bond films. This list just needed work to bring it up to standard, which no one had done. I suggest over-turn to draft space for improvement and put a hold on this AfD. Govvy (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin I do not have time at this moment to re-evaluate my close so no comment on that until I can. However, if @Govvy or another editor would like it for draft space, I'm happy to provide. StarMississippi 16:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and read through the AfD. I don't see any other way that I could have closed this. But still fine with draft space incubation. StarMississippi 13:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if this is an appeal of the close. The close is a valid conclusion from the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Re-Creation of Draft if that is what is being requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is no need to overturn the close to create a copy in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, closure is valid. I don't support creating a draft version, as the circumstances of the article mean that it is very unlikely the reason for deletion can be resolved; therefore, the only possible outcomes would be the draft going stale, in which case we are back where we are at the moment, or it being moved to mainspace in an end-run around consensus, which is undesirable. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 17:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - there was clear consensus. GiantSnowman 17:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - no issues with this closure - it reflected the consensus from the participants Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a 'per nom' is only half a !vote when one of the two arguments put forward in the nom is a clear misunderstanding of WP:CLN. I can't see the sources to opine on those, but I think the deletion arguments are structurally weak; seeing the sourcing would help me opine further. Jclemens (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I disagree with deleting the article and tend to agree with nom's arguments. However, consensus says otherwise. It was quite clear that the "Delete" close was correct, as much as I wish it weren't so. DRV is not for relitigating arguments expressed in AfD - I've made that point in DRV when I've been on the prevailing side in these kinds of AfDs and it's only fair that I point that out when I disagree with the outcome as well. Smartyllama (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation I think a deletion of the article was a hasty decision. To be honest, I totally regret that I started a talk page in WikiProject Football which resulted in this deletion. It was a mistake to trust it for solving edit disputes for the article. Instead of solutions for the article's edit disputes and problems, we got a total eradication of it. It did not have WP:SYNTH as it was not a case of an original research. I think that the article can exist in Wikipedia. It just needed a little improvements. I support Govvy's suggestion even though many will disagree with me. NextEditor123 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It seems cut and dried. I understand a lot of work was put into the article, but the pertinent thing would have been to inquire about the article's validity prior to creation. Seasider53 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
