The Upstairs Downstairs Bears – restored to draft space. The AFD in question was lightly attended, but unanimous for deletion, and such closes are usually routinely closed as "delete". There is no consensus that Daniel erred in so closing. However, several participants in this DRV did agree with the nominator that the factual basis for the arguments were deficient, and that removing the article was probably a mistake, and the case is made well enough that I believe there is a consensus for restoring in some form. Included in this are people who called for reclosing as "soft delete", since that option means that it can be restored upon demand. The options are to restore directly to article space, or to restore to draft space. This comes down to editorial discretion, and having looked at the deleted article, my assessment is that it is a start, but falls somewhat short of truly being an encyclopedia article since it is dominated by an infobox and episode list, and the main body of the article is very short. As such, I believe it should be worked on in draft space before being moved back to article space. The draft is at Draft:The Upstairs Downstairs Bears.Sjakkalle(Check!) 10:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Where to begin with an AfD where just about everything was wrong? Let's start by looking at the !votes:
The nominator claimed that this was a driveby creation by someone whose other edits were limited to adding categories etc. This is substantiallyfalse. The article was "created" as a nearly-empty stub by such an IP user, yes, but it was substantially written by a long-standing editor (myself). This !vote should have been disregarded as so misleading, it can simply be considered incorrect.
Another user claimed that this series is Teletoon 'between full shows' filler. This is blatantlyfalse. This is a standard-length series of 13 half-hours, or 26 half-episodes. Teletoon's actual filler shows have "episodes" of something like 2 minutes each, sometimes even less. Once again, this !vote should have disregarded, this time as utterly wrong.
The remaining contributor to the discussion simply claimed the show is non-notable without making any arguments for that. This !vote should have been disregarded as... an actual vote, contrary to deletion policy.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. There was no attempt whatsoever made by any of the discussion participants to look for sources, which should have been a gigantic red flag for the closer... but apparently wasn't. Here are the sources I've found:
The following source was already used in the article as I recall, but I'm adding it here for completeness as it is an excellent non-primary source full of information about the series (one has to wonder why it was conveniently, I mean completely, ignored in the AfD): http://www.toonhound.com/upstairs.htm In case anyone is wondering about its WP:SPS reliability, here's a quote from http://www.toonhound.com/aboutme.htm: I've been quoted on DVD releases and popped up on a couple of "extras", I've written for the BBC and others, and I am often contacted by the media for cartoon comments and info. [...] Best of all, the site is recommended reading for a number of academies, colleges and courses. Also note the author's industry experience, and the "PC Press" images on that page for the website itself.
That's actually already sufficient per WP:N, which requires multiple reliable sources, i.e. a minimum of two. But let's go on:
A number of articles in trade publications with production details of the series. Again, many similar shows (especially the true "filler" the other editor mentioned) do not have this!
And all of this is in addition to the numerous primary sources with detailed information about the show, which one of the discussion participants tacitly acknowledged by incorrectly describing them as "unacceptable" and implying they were used to show notability rather than... detailed information about the show. Modernponderer (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:McClenon mobile, every word that I've written here is highly relevant to the question of overturning the AfD. The first part covers the deletion discussion itself, while the second part is a list of sources and explains how they show notability. If you have a suggestion for how this could be condensed without losing valuable information, it could be implemented, but otherwise I ask you to please actually read what I have written as your current response seems highly unconstructive. Modernponderer (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
relist This was very much TL;DR, writing this much causes more harm than gain to your cause. That said, we have sources worth discussing and no !votes, including the nom, that really addressed our inclusion criteria. Now that we have sources to discuss, we can move forward in a more reasonable way. Hobit (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hobit, I ask you the same question about your TL;DR claim: what do you think was superfluous in the above, and could be removed without making a weaker case? (Frankly, WP:TLDR is ridiculous for an encyclopedia of all places.) Modernponderer (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You just needed to say "I'd like this reviewed, the nominator and the !votes didn't address our inclusion guidelines and had factual errors (e.g. this wasn't 'between full shows' fillers, it is a standard-length series of 13 half-hours, or 26 half-episodes.). Further, there were good sources in the article and I've found some new sources ([1], [2]). Based on that, I'd ask that the deletion discussion be reopened so a fuller discussion can be had." would have stated 90% of your argument in about 20% of the space. And recall this place is staffed by volunteers--long things just tend to not get read. If you really wanted, you could have gone with your full argument in a collapsed section and something like what I wrote as non-collapsed summary. Hobit (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to restore, no prejudice against a new AfD. Basically the same as the "treat as soft delete" I'd missed how old the AfD was. As always, I believe requiring the use of draft space should never be a part of a required process (it's broken, slow, and is designed to be optional). Hobit (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Daniel should wait the full 168 hours before closing low attendance discussions.
Endorse. It was unanimous agreement to delete. Now, post AfD deletion nearly a year later, if someone disagrees, follow advice at WP:THREE. It only takes two to demonstrate notability, maybe three, but throw lots at us and more than likely you are wasting the time of anyone who gives you their time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:SmokeyJoe, WP:THREE is almost exactly what I did here with the first 3 sources. The trade publications provide additional detail, but obviously aren't the focus of the source list. (Speaking of wasting time, I really feel like I'm being trolled at this point...) Modernponderer (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I count eight sources. With the fourth, you have failed WP:THREE.
Start a draft use the best three sources. If you can’t help but add more sources, then use the draft talk page to list the best three. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On reviewing the article at the time of the AfD, change !vote to overturn, defective AfD. The article had good sources, and not a single participant spoke to the sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Too long, didn't read. I have changed the provision about use of the alternate account so that I can make an immediate entry on a mobile device. I have not yet read the appeal. I have read the AFD, and I endorse the closure. I will read the appeal within 48 hours, while it is still open, which almost certainly will not change my opinion on the closure. If the appellant wants to submit a draft for review,
Allow Review of Draft, but only when there is actually a draft rather than a speech. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert McClenon, did you read the part where I mentioned that I had already written the initial article? Why not support WP:USERFICATION if you want to see a draft? Or are you seriously suggesting that I should start over simply because... my "speech" was too long for your sensibilities? Modernponderer (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to draftify as that was a defective AfD, plain and simple; it should have been relisted instead of deleted right off the bat. I expected better than "this is not notable!" and virtually nothing else as a deletion reason. However, since it is too old to reopen this specific discussion, I think draftification would be a more appropriate remedy to allow the article to be rebuilt with better sourcing. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from being closed 3-4 hours, it was not defective, and there was no good reason for it to be relisted. Although only three participants, all three were clear and strong reasons to delete. Based on their comments, the sources were not GNG-compliant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only comment in that AfD I'm seeing that addresses sources is "TV listings and network sites for the show are unacceptable". The nom and other other !vote don't mention sources at all AFICT. I tend not to read "it's notable" or "it's non-notable" as policy/guideline-compliant !votes so maybe that's where we differ in what we're seeing? Hobit (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I, perhaps poorly, inferred that the statements addressing notability implied the existing and available sources were examined and found to be below worth mentioning. A temp undelete will resolve this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Treat as soft delete and allow recreation/improvement. This has been closed sufficiently long ago (last year) that a relist is inappropriate, and yet this is how most under-participated AfDs go: no one bothered to look for sources, so it got deleted based on who showed up. Modernponderer, please take it under advisement that you are the biggest obstacle to this being recreated at this point. You don't need to argue with DRV participants, you just need to provide sources that the outcome was wrong and leave it at that. None of us were the ones who opined in the AfD or deleted it, we're just here to help clean up messes, so ranting in our general direction and then being irritated that you got told "TL;DR" is not winning your case: editors have attention spans, so stand up, speak up, and shut up--that is, a good DRV appeal should be about a paragraph succinctly listing why the outcome is wrong. Daniel seems to be a reasonable admin, but when he's given a lame, under-participated AfD like that to close, this is what happens, so don't take it out on him, either. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Modernponderer - The part where you said that you had written the initial article was in the content that I said I would read within 48 hours. I mean to provide a draft that will pass review. The original article was found to be lacking, and ranting won't change that. Provide a draft for review. I will read the overly long post within 36 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment/question: If any appeal over a certain length automatically comes off as a rant, I apologize though my intention was simply to make an ironclad case. But it is incredibly frustrating that both User:Robert McClenon and User:SmokeyJoe keep saying "the close was correct" when I've pointed out that 2 of the 3 !votes had clear factual errors, and the remainder of the discussion was pure voting without any argumentation or research – all exactly the type of thing policy expects closers to disregard.
In any case, would you support WP:DRAFTIFICATION? I can do a thorough rewrite of the article using the new sources, but I don't think it's fair to ask me to start from scratch with an article I've already contributed to. Modernponderer (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request temporary undeletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have read the overly long appeal at least twice. Here are my comments:
I stand by my Endorsement of the close.
The appellant states that factually erroneous statements were made by the participants. I don't see that as a reason for an appeal, and I don't see a guideline that the closer is required to verify the accuracy of the statements made by participants. A requirement that closers verify the accuracy of statements would make it much more difficult to close AFDs. If the appellant wants to impose such a requirement, they can discuss this at a talk page or a policy page, rather than in this Deletion Review. I don't see a guideline that says that factual errors by participants are a basis for appealing a close, although significant new information is a basis for recreating a deleted page. The appellant has not shown any error in the close, and their arguments to that effect seem to be just an unfocused diversion.
The appellant says that the participants did not look for sources. They are not required to look for sources. The appellant says that the failure of the participants to look for sources should have been a concern by the closer. I don't see a guideline to that effect, and such a guideline would be a bad idea.
The appellant is providing a list of sources that amounts to a URL Dump, which is insulting to the reviewers, saying that they are too important and busy to put the sources into a reviewable draft.
The appellant has the right either to ask for undeletion into draft space at Requests for Undeletion, or for temporary undeletion, which will have the same effect. That wouldn't have required 568 words.
This reply is long because the appeal was overly long and the appellant wanted me to read and assess it.
Maybe the appellant wants to change the procedures to put more of an obligation on the community to find sources. That not only would be a bad idea, but also isn't relevant here.
The appellant does seem to have a reasonable case to request the deleted article for rework, and the handwaving and blowing of smoke distract from that request.
Weak Endorse there was unanimous support for the deletion of the article at the time. While I think a relist would have been more appropriate with only two delete votes plus the nom, I don’t see the purpose of reopening the AFD almost a full year later. I also vote to allow recreation of the article. The AFD had barely more than the WP:SOFTDELETE threshold, so I think a recreation should be granted whether through this DRV or through WP:REFUND. Should the recreated article not have sufficient sourcing, then it can be sent to AFD again. FrankAnchor 17:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In reviewing the temporarily undeleted article, I now see that the appellant has a reasonable case either for a relist or to recreate, subject to another AFD. The appellant didn't state that reasonable case, and instead had a lot of irrelevant or unreasonable issues. The reasonable case is that the appellant was one of the authors of the article, but not the originator, and so was not notified by Twinkle, and was on a wikibreak of a few months at the time of the AFD, and therefore did not have an opportunity to dispute the statements made by the other editors. That is the real issue, not that the closer should have discounted their !votes. The appellant should create a draft based on the temporarily undeleted article and any sources, with appropriate additions to the text, and we, the DRV editors, can review it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The close was the correct close based on the input from the editors, and the original statement by the appellant was too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to draftspace. I agree with Jclemens that we can't really fault the closer here: when there's a quorum and everyone agrees that the subject isn't notable, the discussion is, for better or worse, going to be closed as delete. That said, the AfD was clearly flawed and additional sources have been provided, so Modernponderer's request for draftification strikes me as reasonable; feel free to move it back to mainspace once you're satisfied with it, although anyone is of course welcome to start a new AfD at any time. (As implied above, WP:REFUND is generally willing to restore deleted articles to userspace or draftspace, so if you find yourself in this situation again, you may find that making a request there is easier than making a request here.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse but allow recreation: Sorry, I am not buying into this screed. However, I do see potential for an article on this subject, so we should allow the creation of a new article on the same subject. NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've struck out User:SmokeyJoe's duplicate !vote, which may confuse the closer. Pinging for full disclosure... Modernponderer (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Modernponderer, nobody who has any business at all closing a deletion review would be in the slightest bit confused by this. I can see that you care a lot about the outcome here but I'd love it if you'd consider not trying to manage the discussion.—S MarshallT/C 22:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, as a defective AfD: the close was in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus was a poor fit for the evidence, as can occasionally happen with poorly-attended deletion discussions. Dronebogus, the nominator, hasn't always edited attentively and hasn't always shown the best of judgment. I have a lot of sympathy for Daniel who closed the discussion in accordance with the consensus which was exactly what we expect.—S MarshallT/C 22:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About the original close: A number of comments here have been made to the effect of "the closer had no choice but to close as delete". I absolutely disagree – the only correct "close" for an AfD with two !votes besides the nominator's, all with very short statements showing a lack of thorough investigation, is to relist as many times as permitted by policy. Doing otherwise is precisely the type of action that leads to "defective AfDs". (And yes, closing several hours before the AfD period ends just adds insult to injury.) Modernponderer (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are overly emphatic. The nominator, User:Dronebogus, might take on board the advice to improve the quality of their deletion nominations or not do them at all, and the closer, User:Daniel might accept the advice be more discerning on low quality nominations and !votes.
You would do better to politely ask the closer, and if rebuffed by the closer, to request userfication and follow advice at WP:THREE (8 is not almost exactly 3). SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
