The Fifth Quarter (TV series) – The original closure is endorsed by consensus (with a small amount of dissent). The more interesting element here was what to do next, and there were a number of options presented below and how to best go about this moving forward. My summary is that there is no significant objection to restoring this to draft, which I will do so to Draft:The Fifth Quarter (TV series). From there, some things can happen using 'normal' editorial processes:
The draft can be left to stagnate and deleted per G13 after the period (this would be a shame, in my personal opinion); or
An editor can try to incorporate (merge) the content into 10 Sport#Australian Rules Football (with the appropriate restructuring), then move the draft back to mainspace and redirected to 10 Sport#Australian Rules Football to preserve the history behind the redirect for attribution purposes and as an AtD; or
The draft could be improved with suitable (GNG-contributing) sourcing etc. to a point that it doesn't meet WP:CSD#G4 (what this standard looks like, is not a question from this debate - but there might be a need to have a conversation at WT:CSD more generally, perhaps, given the disagreement below on this fact and previous DRVs which have also had significant disagreement).
If an editor does this option, I would encourage them to utilise WP:AFC for secondary review, although there was no consensus below to make this mandatory
If it is moved back to mainspace following these "improvements" to a point that it doesn't qualify for CSD G4 per administrator's opinion, any editor who thinks that it does not meet our GNG criteria still is free to nominate at AfD immediately
This was a difficult debate to summarise and find consensus in due to the multi-faceted options and discussions occurring, I hope the above captures a rough consensus of practically how to move forward. I think a bigger and more general conversation about CSD G4 needs to happen given this discussion and other recent DRVs, but this is definitely not the venue for that. Daniel (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
"Delete No sources for the article." is not a policy based argument when there is sources for the article. I provided 5 sources during the afd, pretending they don't exist does not negate them. Summarily dismissing coverage because it is not currently in the article is not a policy based argument. "this stub is just an essay" is meaningless to an afd. Notability is based on the existence of sufficient sourcing, not on their presence in the article or on their ease of access. AFDs are not head counts. Meaningless throw away close does nothing to explain why this was closed delete. (Bypassed discussion with the closing admin as they state on their talk page that they carefully consider their mistakes and one should go straight to other means such as here.) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a temp undelete please? The discussion is about sources in the article. Hobit (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The discussion was correctly decided - the problem with "no sources" arguments after sources have been presented means that there were no sources which got this past GNG, not that there weren't any sources at all. I think the correct remedy here is possibly a refund to draft space if actual GNG-qualifying sources do exist (I know this isn't AfD part two, but I did a review of the sources in the AfD which were linked and I don't think they're good enough for notability.) SportingFlyerT·C 18:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Do you have access to the first three sources listed? @Duffbeerforme: do you? If so, can either of you find a way to share those (link, cut and past and email it to me or post it)? It sounds like you both have access as you've both appeared to evaluate them and come to opposite conclusions. But I don't know how anyone could have reasonably !voted on this in the AfD or here without those sources. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: I don't - can only easily access the two linked ones, but I also didn't treat this like a full AfD, just noting that neither of those are quite there IMO. SportingFlyerT·C 23:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, I've emailed you all three (and am happy to do the same for anyone else who's curious). Personally I don't see any of them as contributing too much toward the GNG (the first two are mostly interviews, and the third only has a paragraph of coverage), although it's not really my job to make that argument when the delete !voters haven't done so. Not quite sure what the right outcome is here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I'm thinking endorse, but allow recreation of a draft. There was a clear consensus and I'm not convinced a mistake was made, but it also doesn't seem completely impossible to write an article about if additional sources exist. SportingFlyerT·C 07:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - There was no error by the closer; Delete was a valid conclusion, and the best conclusion. "No sources" meant that they were no sources in the article, and that is so a policy-based argument because verifiability is a non-negotiable policy. Is the appellant saying that the closer should have supervoted? Is the appellant asking for AFD round 2?
Comment - Maybe participants in AFDs who find sources should put the sources properly into the article, rather than providing a URL Dump. Maybe, after an article has had no references for years, the Heymann criterion should be to insert the sources. The AFD banner doesn't say not to edit the article, and editing the article to improve it is encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While a good idea, I get the resistance to working on an article that may be deleted shortly. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that an AfD discussion would be influenced by the current state of an article is both depressingly realistic and entirely against policy. "It sucks", even if true, is entirely not consistent with WP:DEL#REASON. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation, either in draft via AFC, or in article space subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, precisely per SportingFlyer and also concurring with Robert McClenon. Contested text that isn't supported by an inline citation to a reliable source can be removed. Therefore when a whole article doesn't have an inline citation to a reliable source, and the whole article is contested at AfD, policy says we have to delete it. That's not notability or a SNG. It's WP:BURDEN: core content policy.—S MarshallT/C 08:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I've been sent the sources and while they aren't great, arguments like "no sources" are just wrong. We evaluate articles on the sources that exist, not the ones in the article. I'm trying to be careful with copyright/fair use and highlighting selections from the articles.
April 18, 2004 | Herald Sun/Sunday Herald Sun/Home Magazine (Melbourne, Australia) Author/Byline: JACKIE EPSTEIN | Page: X12 | Section: TV Guide' is 355 words solely on the topic. "Introduced this year to follow the night football coverage, the show concentrates heavily on the stories of the day and bringing footy fans all the latest and most up to date information.", "They arrive in the studio at about 7pm to watch the rest of the day's matches and organise the show's content."
March 11, 2004 | Age, The/The Sunday Age (Melbourne, Australia) Author/Byline: Caroline Wilson | Page: 10 | Section: Sport. It is not solely on this topic but includes "A new program from 10.30pm will wind up the long Saturday schedule. The Fifth Quarter will be co-hosted by former Collingwood footballer Michael Christian and Ten's new boundary commentator Andrew Maher and will review the five games of the opening two days of the round, including those telecast by the Nine Network and Foxtel."
June 30, 2004 | Herald Sun/Sunday Herald Sun/Home Magazine (Melbourne, Australia) Author/Byline: DARREN DEVLYN | Page: H05 | Section: guide Title: Ten goals in Fifth Quarter. 256 words on this topic. "The Fifth Quarter has consistently topped the 200,000-viewer mark in Melbourne, a significant achievement given its graveyard timeslot.".
I think we are best off with a relist to see if these sources are over the bar. At the least the !votes for deletion were just mistaken and that's enough for a relist. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read these quotes as very thin secondary source material, if at all. I suspect non-independence, it looking like related media talking about each other, without depth. Newspapers and TV shows are the low end of quality of sources to base articles on. I don’t agree that there is a hint of value to justify more time and volunteer attention at AfD. Send the question to draftspace, where proponents carry the onus to make there case, to overturn an AfD, following the advice at WP:THREE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I would take exception to the notation that media can't cover media in an independent way (there are journalists who do nothing but that for a living) I think the rest of your argument makes good sense and I'm fine with moving it to be a draft. The sources are, IMO, above trivial, but not clearly much more. Hobit (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Media can cover media, but a weekly newspaper sports column mentioning a weekly TV sports segment is very unlikely to a good GNG-meeting source. Weekly coverage of sport is too routine. Routine media as a GNG source for routine media is unlikely to be quality sourcing, I think as a rule of thumb, but not a real rule. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple sources providing a little coverage sounds like a very good reason to take it to draft, whether for future recreation in mainspace, or as a section in another article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Properly deleted. Respect the AfD decision for six months. In the meantime, feel free to use draftspace to explore weak sources. Do not resist, the project should not spend excessive resources dithering over weak cases. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respect the AfD decision for six months. Absolutely not. If someone finds appropriate sourcing, it goes right back into mainspace with that included, and if anyone disagrees with that, another AfD is required since the improved article will not meet criteria for CSD G4. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a new argument or new sources overcome the reason for deletion, then it should be re-created, no delay. However, someone else disagreeing, or yet another weak source, is not enough to justify a relist or a new AfD, that would be disruption. When a decision is made at AfD, that decision should be respected for at least six month, with respect to unilateral recreation without overcoming the reason for deletion. What’s “appropriate” sourcing? If it’s borderline, use AfC and it won’t be unilateral recreation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the resultant article is not substantially identical, then G4 does not apply. AfC is never mandatory, except for editors with a conflict of interest. So, while you are entitled to your opinion, and it's clearly not without merit, policy does not currently support it. Personally, I favor asymmetrical rules on revisiting a deletion discussion such that it is easier to create or maintain than delete an article. At a minimum, they must be equal. Right now, there is no hard and fast rule on renominations OR recreations, although sub-normal time thresholds are given more scrutiny. This seems appropriate, in that repeated or flimsy re-creations that appear calculated to game the system--in either direction--be treated as conduct issues rather than trying to engineer process to be impervious to bad faith actions. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the reason for deletion is overcome, you may re-create immediately.
If you aren’t sure, use AfC.
Don’t disrespect a recent AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no evidence that any ATDs were considered. A merge to 10 Sport#Australian Rules Football where it is mentioned is probably superior to either deletion or maintaining a separate stub article given the state of the sourcing: even if GNG is met, WP:NOPAGE appears to apply. Jclemens (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this if and only if “The Fifth Quarter” is given at least a sentence of information. Mere mentions are not enough. If the title is not explained at the target, that is a reason to have the redirect deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would take some rearranging of how the 10 Sport page is ordered, as it currently looks more like a list of links, rather than a summary of not-individually-notable content. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the deletion was based on poor sourcing, and there was consensus in the AFD that it did not pass GNG. I support restoration of history into a redirect per Jclemens provided somewhat more than a brief mention is made at the target page (very simple to do). FrankAnchor 19:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank Anchor: The problem with this is that I'm not seeing any evidence that they did look at the sources. I mean they aren't generally available and the delete !voters made claims about there being no sources. I don't see how we can get that they evaluated the topic for meeting the GNG. Hobit (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So the message I'm getting from this drv is I should have mindlessly refbombed the article with every passing mention I could find but that's entirely contrary to the core policy of WP:N which states "Article content does not determine notability" and "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Let's all ignore the actual policies and pretend identified sources do not exist. People seem to more interested in the appearance of the article that the actual subject itself. The next lesson is if it stays deleted after this afd I should immediately create a one sentence stub refbombed with anything I can find as that is more desirable than an article which actually tells the reader anything. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the lesson at all - I probably would have still !voted delete if those references were in the article since I'm not sure they demonstrate notability. But there may yet be other articles out there we haven't identified. SportingFlyerT·C 18:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may have voted delete but at least you looked at the sources instead of just pretending they don't exist as happened during the afd and that's what some here are defending. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own closure as reflective of the consensus of the debate. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to recreation as a draft. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation, given that Liz relisted this specifically in hopes that the new sourced identified by duffbeerforme could be reviewed, but neither of the two editors who subsequently responded appears to have taken these sources into consideration, it might have been prudent to relist this, even if it wasn't strictly obligatory. The best course of action now is to allow recreation from a refund, with the references added, with no prejudice against someone sending the whole thing back to AfD if they don't think the sourcing is adequate. Elemimele (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - As I pointed out after duffbeerforme provided sources in the debate, the two online sources did not provide the type of WP:SIGCOV required for GNG. I also point out to Elemimele that for a full week after relisting, no one made any comment about the quality of the three offline sources that were identified; I presume that to mean that no one was able to locate them. How is someone supposed to comment on the quality of a source if they cannot review that source? If those sources have been located, I would request that URLs be provided and that I be pinged so that they can be properly reviewed. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I am not opposed to recreation in draftspace. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkudlick:, the fact that no one commented on the new sources in that week is disappointing, and was why I said it wasn't "strictly obligatory" to relist. But Wikipedia is not a race, and nor is it obligatory to use online sources that are easily checked by anyone. Paper sources without URLs, and sources behind paywalls are also okay. Strictly speaking, once we have reason to believe sources might exist, we're supposed to go to some effort to check them before deleting. I agree there has to be some limit, but a week is perhaps a little optimistic in a volunteer project. Elemimele (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the thre sources listed by Hobit (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)?[reply]
They look too thin.
The are not the basis to overturn the AfD decision, because the article was not based on these sources, if these three sources are the foundation GNG sources, then WP:TNT applies. Go to draft, start again, get rid of all but the best sources, and show what material these new better sources support. Only then is it reasonable to ask whether there are independent secondary sources that cover the topic in sufficient depth. I fear that these sources cover facts and very little subjective (secondary source) content. This analysis, tipping on thin borderline sources, needs to be done in draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that Extraordinary Writ apparently has found copies of the three sources in question. I would like to review them for myself and would ask that any action on this DRV be postponed until I can do so.
I would like to review them too, but procedurally it is better to do this in draftspace. There, we can collectively compare notes. Do the article proponents agree that these three are the three best? If not, then people are wasting time and effort.
If two or three people agree that new sources meet the GNG and overcome the AfD reason for deletion, then the draft can be mainspaced immediately, faster than a DRV process. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Extraordinary Writ for forwarding those sources, which I have temporarily posted at User:Jkudlick/Fifth Quarter Sources for others to review if they wish. All three are short pieces that, to me, do not provide the sort of in depth coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. However, these three sources do seem to be enough for me to prefer restoring the page to draftspace to allow extended time for article improvement. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action. I'm not going to use the word "endorse" because I'm not confident delete was the right closure when more-or-less unrebutted sources were still on the table, but based on what's come up in this DRV (including my comment above) it seems clear a relist would just lead to the same outcome, and per WP:NOTBURO I can't support doing that either. Recreation is always an option as long as the new version isn't substantially identical to the deleted one, although I don't think it'd be a good idea (and it doesn't sound like the appellant does either). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that “Recreation is always an option as long as the new version isn't substantially identical to the deleted one”, unless you strictly mean “avoidance of applicability of WP:G4”. I would label immediate recreation as WP:Disruption. Comments that could be read by new or emotionally involved editors as encouragement to unilaterally immediately recreate as long as it is not “substantially identical” are very poor advice. “Not eligible for G4” is a poor justification for immediate re-creation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I may have worded that poorly: when I say that "recreation is always an option" I certainly don't mean it's always a good option, and in this case (as I said) I don't recommend it based on the evidence we currently have. My point is just that getting DRV's imprimatur isn't generally necessary if someone genuinely thinks the reason for deletion has been overcome; obviously repeated poor judgment in this area can indeed be disruptive. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
hello! I have no idea to use wikipedia and I got my first article speedy deleted because someone thought I was paid to write the article which I was not. I am kindly asking for help if someone is able to just send me a copy of what I wrote. that is all I am asking for. my article was called draft:aya Atassi khanji . thank you. Nicole Perez-Krueger (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Four traditions of geography – The deletion of the category is endorsed, insofar as consensus below is that it was the correct way to close the discussion. Noting that consensus can change and the participation rate was small relative to other debates and venues, the applicant is encourged to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography their proposal for the new catgeory structure, and seek consensus there. If explicit consensus exists at that venue to create something new in that space (note, not just exactly what was deleted here), then permission is explicitly granted to do so should that consensus form. I would caution the applicant against extensive replies to every single comment in this subsequent discussion at WikiProject Geography - both at the CfD and here, I feel their replies have been too frequent and also too verbose. It is important to allow other voices to participate in a discussion and only reply when strictly necessary, and when replying, to do so in as few words as possible. Daniel (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I disagree with the closer judgment; I believe I raised enough points in the discussion to bring serious doubt to this category's deletion, and "When in doubt, don't delete."
Tl;dr at the bottom.
I don't mean to repeat arguments from the discussion, but I believe that context is needed on this topic to decide on it fully. Geography is a big field, and the debate on how to subdivide and categorize its subdivisions has raged in outside literature for well over a century, and how it is done varies by culture and between individual geographers. As a geographer, I don't know if others know about the depth of this topic, but I feel the strong need to continue advocating for what I believe to be the best course of action and provide literature and rationale, even if many people disagree. If people are unwilling to change their minds, compromise, address the full scope of the organization problem, or propose alternative solutions based on sound literature, I don't know what is left.
The Four traditions of geography are likely the most consistent and strongest supported method of dividing the discipline proposed in the past century, originating in the 1960s, a search on Google Scholar shows the original peer-reviewed publication has over 600 citations, with other well-cited papers on the topic existing. This topic is taught to geography undergrads, and the paper is required reading for many geography graduate programs in my anecdotal experience with two of them. The four traditions are not the only method for dividing geography; various methods have various levels of support in the literature. Another similar but different approach is Category:Branches of geography. Generally, the four traditions organize high-level theory and historical approaches to geography, while the branches are more "applied." While the word "branch" might sound good to someone, the use is inconsistent within the literature from my search. Ultimately, the best approach I could find was to use the organization methods from UNESCOEncyclopedia of Life Support Systems and other literature to put together three well-supported "branches," however this is not the only possible approach. The book "The Philosophy of Geo-Ontologies" by Timothy Tambassi is one of the best sources to understand this.
Creation or deletion of high-level categories is something that should be approached very carefully to avoid being original research on the Ontology of Geography. After discussion and to remain consistent with other fields on Wikipedia, I created the category Category:Subfields of geography, which served as a container for these two different approaches to dividing geography, as a place a field that didn't fit either could be dumped or to place future categories for organizing geography based on literature. In my opinion, this created a defensible compromise between what the literature says and simplifying Wikipedia classification. Changing this high-level organization needs to be done with considerable thought and discussion. The category for the Four traditions was proposed for deletion and relisted twice without further discussion (other than my own comments trying to get more feedback) either time. While I tried to argue the points above, I don't believe they were considered. In response to feedback by editors in this, I created the Wikipedia page for the four traditions, and provided explanations for why they should be included. Reactions to the nomination, in addition to my opposition, were two calls for deletion and a comment that requested the page for the four traditions be created. Ultimately, the discussion involved, by my count four editors in addition to myself. One reason given to delete was that "This concept has been proved notable, but nobody has proved that it needs a category over other ways of subdividing the discipline of geography." The other methods of subdividing geography, however, have less consistent support in outside literature than the four traditions, which I pointed out but was never responded to. In deleting this category, the "Subfields of geography" category now only has "Branches of Geography." Branches are inadequate to take on all subfields; however, as that term is established in the literature, it has limitations and less support. Category:Human-Environment interaction, one of geographies four traditions, is now unconnected to the main geography category, and it is not clear how to link them in a way that is consistent with the literature. These points all need to be addressed in the discussion for deletion of the four traditions category, but that did not happen.
tl;dr:
Because of these reasons, I dispute the deletion of Category:Four traditions of geography based on disagreement with the closer's judgment. I discussed this on their talk page and was directed by them here. I believe that more voices were needed in the discussion, at the very least, and that deletion was done without fully considering/addressing the implications with an action plan to move forward based on policy and outside literature. I don't believe Wikipedia is a democracy, and that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads but by looking at the strength of argument and cited recorded consensus." While more discussion and thought may be needed, I don't believe a nominator and two in support of deletion are enough to establish a consensus against the amount of literature on the topic.
Thank you for taking the time to read this; I understand that people don't like reading large bodies of text or replying to stuff after they have said their piece, but for consensus to really be reached and the status quo of how the pages are organized to change, I believe these issues need to be addressed and thought out. I know it may seem tedious, but if minority opinions don't speak up on topics, they risk being steamrolled by small groups of editors without a strong understanding of the topic. --GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak endorse At hand is the question as to if this categorization is "defining". The !voters felt it was not. I feel it might well be, but I'm not an expert. I've done enough reading to believe it's a reasonable claim, but don't have evidence that professionals in the field consider it defining. Just for fun, since I know a lot of folks in this field, I'll ask around. That said, the discussion was closed correctly--we not only look at "truth" but "consensus". And while I think I'd have !voted to keep this, there just isn't enough evidence that the !voters were wrong to overturn the close. Hobit (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How much evidence is needed to create doubt on consensus when there are only two votes for deletion, three if you count the nominator? Please do let me know what the people you know say about this (and their general position in the field), as a grad student in geography, I don't always know what others think. I'm sure many undergrads who I made memorize this can't remember it after info dumping after an exam, but I'd struggle to think anyone with a masters degree in geography wouldn't consider them defining, if only from a historical sense. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've long since given up trying to make sense of how CFD decide things. The people who care about categories enough to participate at CFD are a subset of Wikipedians who have their own reasons for doing things. They do quite often seem to delete categories that are useful to some editors and aren't doing any harm, and I don't know why. I wouldn't fault Pppery for following the consensus -- that's what we instruct sysops to do, so in that sense I'd anticipate a slam dunk "endorse" outcome at this DRV.But this isn't a content decision. It's about how we organize content, and we ought to be offering lots of ways, so our users can index and catalogue articles in a variety of ways -- that's a helpful activity and one we ought to police with a light touch.My advice in this case would be to look for a compromise. Can we bring it back but not as a category? Could we usefully listify it? Make it into a portal, perhaps?—S MarshallT/C 22:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made it a page already based on content because a voter didn't think the category was important without one. Organizing content is a content decision, and how we subdivide a discipline is something heavily debated in the peer reviewed literature. A nomination and two calls to delete, with strong peer reviewed papers on the other side of the conversation is cause for doubt. I am completely losing faith in the consensus process overall, 1 or 10 sources won't change minds, and two votes are enough to disregard those sources. It's like a Facebook comment section. If this category is deleted, a literal set of categories used by geographers to divide the discipline, I don't know why we have categories at all. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised you're losing faith in the consensus system. It relies on volunteers reading, thinking, and self-educating, and it assumes they've done so. Sometimes they haven't, or they !vote with their friends rather than on the evidence. There isn't a better alternative, unfortunately.—S MarshallT/C 15:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative was, from my understanding and reading of Wiki policy, that votes are taken taken into consideration with the arguments and sources presented. Wikipedia is not a democracy, in my understanding. If 1000 editors voted on something based on their opinions, but one presents a well sourced response using credible outside sources, the 1000 should be disregarded. As it stands, the quote on your page resonates with me lately, "Anti-intellectualism [is the] notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." This is not the first time I've been voted down recently despite having sources, and the majority having opinions. I would hope that an admin would see that three editors have not actually done their reading, but it's certainly easier to do a head count.
S Marshall, the category was listified (or rather article-ified) at Four traditions of geography. Anything more than that would probably be excessive. The point is, really, that it doesn't help to have mountains of categories, each tied to a different way to organise content. That's why the categories need to be defining, and useful for navigation. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I article-ified it during the deletion discussion because several people thought without a page it wasn't demonstrated as significant, it's funny how this is now also used as justification to keep it deleted. It is more defining and better supported within the literature then the remaining categories, and deleting it has created the need to reorganize other higher categories, without a clear way to do which both satisfies outside literature and is internally consistent that immediately obvious. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GeogSage, what higher categories need organising? — Qwerfjkltalk 09:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I had pointed this out in a few other comments. The Four Traditions was a container category that had held Category:Spatial analysis, Category:Human-Environment interaction, Category:Regional geography, and Category:Earth science, of these the category Human-environment interaction was connected to the category tree only through the four traditions. It can't be simply dumped into another category without a bit of thought as this is a well established concept in the literature.
The category Category:Branches of geography was parallel to the traditions within the category Category:Subfields of geography. It contains Category:Human geography, Category:Physical geography,Category:Technical geography. Branches are a term that exist in the literature to organize the discipline (you can read about them on the main geography page), so we can't just dump all fields into them or it's original research on ontology. Subfields of geography was created to maintain consistency with other disciplines on Wikipedia within the category Category:Subfields by academic discipline. This category does not have strong supporting literature, so the idea was to have the various approaches to organizing the discipline serve as categories within it. It is important to note that there are many approaches, and it may be good to leave room for non-western models as well, I did not create categories for organizations like Five themes of geography, but could see the argument made if someone really pushed on it. Now that the four traditions has been deleted however, this category and the Branches seem redundant, but just dumping everything into either one is not ideal, and choosing one over the other is a huge debate.
I believe that the situation before deleting the four traditions was stable, and have proposed (without reply yet) the possibility of creating a category just titled "traditions of geography" that can satisfy not only the four traditions, but others that have been preposed in the literature over the years to augment the original "traditions" model (this would satisfy the "lack of growth potential" argument I believe).
Trying to organize these categories was something I spent some time and thought on, and had at least one other editor help along the way. My main frustration is that I don't believe the same level of thought is being done in deleting this category, and I don't think the reasoning for keeping it was fully considered. To reorganize it, I think significant thought will need to be put back into the problem, and had asked for that thought to be done before deleting the category for the four traditions in the original discussion. I think this has made a bit of a mess in my opinion.
Geography is an umbrella discipline, which covers extremely diverse topics, as opposed to other more specialized disciplines like sociology or geology. The debate on how to organize it goes back centuries (literally, I can give you sources if you want) and may be a bit more extreme then other disciplines due to the highly integrated and interdisciplinary nature of the field. By making these categories, we are inadvertently weighing in on this debate, which is why I tried to inject established schema. I hope corrections to this will be appropriately thought out with consideration to the literature and internal Wikipedia consistency.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and your question. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Having read the discussion, I think this was the only way it could have been closed based on the discussion. (I also happen to think the reasoning was correct as both a non-defining category and a category of limited growth - the arguments for keeping the category were based on content, not on the usual ways of determining whether a category should be kept or not, but we haven't lost anything considering a page which covers the topic as a whole is currently in mainspace.) SportingFlyerT·C 23:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason there is a page on the mainspace is because someone didn't think the topic needed a category without one, so I made it as the main article for the category, as they requested. The growth potential for the category is within the four subcategories, the "four traditions," which are all fairly large categories. Howmanypeerreviewedpublications are needed to prove something is a defining category? This method of categorization has better consistent coverage in outside literature then the other existing categories, and I don't understand why "growth" matters based on the Wikipedia:Categorization page. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a second attempt at the CfD, and I don't wish to be drawn into a discussion, but from my view the category was doing one of two things: either it only serves to categorise the three or four articles currently at the Four traditions of geography article, in which case the growth potential for the category is extremely limited, or it serves to replace or complement the branches of geography categorisation scheme, which would probably require an RfC to discuss because it's at such a core level of the categorisation tree, and is not something I'd necessarily see passing. Pattison's terms are discussed in the literature but I think it's a difficult argument to make that an alternative categorisation structure would be needed, considering we err on the side of not categorising things. SportingFlyerT·C 05:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a lot of time on this exact topic and like discussing it, and at this point am pretty much giving up on this despite feeling its ridiculous. The four traditions of geography category was a Wikipedia:Container category, and held four categories, Category:Spatial analysis, Category:Human-Environment interaction, Category:Regional geography, and Category:Earth sciences. It was not just the four pages, it was complementing the branches of geography categorization scheme. Unfortunately, "Branches of geography" is difficult to establish as this is an active area of debate within the discipline. I modified this category and the main page of geography to have three branches (based on the UNESCO approach and a couple journal articles), physical, human, and technical. These three categories are similar to but not identical to the four traditions, and while this is the best order I can find based on the literature, they are not as well established and consistent as the four traditions. Based on a previous discussion with another editor (I think it is in the now deleted four traditions talk page), I created the category Category:Subfields of geography to hold both the Branches and the four traditions. This was to maintain consistency within Wikipedia's category Category:Subfields by academic discipline. By having the two models for subdivision, branches and traditions, within this higher category we were able to satisfy the literature and maintain internal consistency. We also had the door open for other potential complementary models for dividing geography, as the two we have here are not the only possibilities, and are mostly based on European/Western approaches. Deleting the four traditions with one nomination and two votes did make major modifications to the core of the categorization tree, created an orphan category (Human-Environment interaction), and has made the "Subfields" and "Branches" seem redundant. However, dumping everything into either category through a merge would represent original research on the ontology of geography... It's a mess and why I'm very frustrated. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closer was correct. The appellant seems to be filibustering, and seemed to be filibustering at CFD. Is the appellant saying that the closer should have ignored consensus and supervoted? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't mean to seem to be "filibustering," I just believe that it is the responsibility of us all to argue to the best of our abilities and if we believe a decision was not based on sound reasoning, dispute it, especially if we hold a minority opinion. Wikipedia is odd in that it needs in depth discussion on a topic, but doing so seems to annoy people. I've found several individuals who seem to assert their opinion into a conversation, refuse to change it, and then decry discussion that goes against their view. Invoking these policy from admins really feels like an attempt to stifle dissent most of the time.
I believe that the literature I presented verified the category was one in use by geographers in the real world, and that the implications for deleting it to the organization of other categories were not fully addressed. I believe that two votes for delete in addition to the nomination do not represent a strong consensus that could over ride outside sources, and more discussion was needed. Overall, I believe the category was deleted based on the subjective opinion of a few, rather then in consideration of the arguments presented based on sources. As the discussion had been relisted several times, I was trying to think of how to get more discussion going without looking like I was shopping for support. Without additional discussion or addressing how the other impacted categories would be dealt with, I think that there was doubt to if it should be deleted, and that no consensus had been reached. As the delete comments were, in my opinion, mostly WP:ITSCRUFT, I was not asking for a "supervote," in my opinion.
Comment - I think that what GeogSage wants is to use the parent category Category:Four traditions of geography as a container for four subcategories, one for each tradition, and put each geographic article in one (or sometimes two) categories. If so, that is probably a very good idea, but needs to be discussed in a less adversarial forum than CFD, and with more attention to the child categories. If so, maybe WikiProject Geography would be a better forum. Can this DRV be closed as Endorsing the deletion, but as a Soft Delete so that the category and its children can be recreated based on subsequent discussion to clarify the need for and use of the category? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your comment and suggestion. Prior to deletion, this was what the category for the four traditions of geography was doing, and it was deleted without an in depth conversation to discuss the child categories and implications for broad organization. It held Category:Spatial analysis, Category:Human-Environment interaction, Category:Regional geography, and Category:Earth sciences, with the main article for the category being Four traditions of geography. Deleting it has created orphan categories, makes some categories seem redundant, and makes addressing a reorganization challenging in consideration with the outside literature and internal Wikipedia consistency. I brought it here because I felt the discussion on it did not consider this, and that the consensus was weak in the face of the literature. Honestly, I don't even know how to go about fixing the mess without doing original research, so a soft delete and discussion on more focused group would be beneficial.
(honestly, I feel like the problem is the average person is familiar with the word "branches" when dividing a discipline, so "traditions" sounds weird. In this case though, the four traditions have more consistent literature then branches, although I don't see why two broadly overlapping supporting categories can't coexist. A good compromise I've found in a literature review recently for a "new" category could be just "Traditions of geography", as there are more then one publication that have attempted to build on the four traditions by preposing a "fifth." I'm considering a subsection on the page for the four traditions to discuss this, and eliminating the "four" word would allow more room for "growth". I was considering making this category anyway, but wanted some resolution here first.)
This was deleted per WP:G5 about 12 years ago and I cannot find any Cfd discussion at all either. Not sure if it applies here even but wanted permission to recreate as part of Category:Wheelchair tennis players. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect, and consider doing so speedily. A G5 from 2011 shouldn't constrain a good faith editor in 2023.—S MarshallT/C 17:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy unprotect This is an uncontroversial request. SportingFlyerT·C 18:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Category:American wheelchair tennis players – Speedy close — per SportingFlyer this is a 12-year-old discussion with very minimal participation. Any good-faith editor can recreate the category here considering the change in the number of articles captured by the category, and the more established directory structure. Daniel (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
There was no discussion for this deletion and, since then, Category:Wheelchair tennis players has grown and continues to grow, making this category necessary. The rationale no longer applies. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a 12-year-old discussion with only one participant, there's no reason why a DRV needs to discuss it apart from procedure, just go ahead and re-create it now that it's part of a more established directory structure. SportingFlyerT·C 18:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This AFD was closed by Seraphimblade (who I note declares themself to be a 'deletionist') as 'delete'. I !voted 'keep', and think (naturally) that the close was bad. Whilst NOTAVOTE, it was 7 keep to 6 delete. At best it should have been 'no consensus'. However, I have neither the time nor energy to fight over that (although if others do...) - instead, I have requested that Seraphimblade restore the article and draftify it, so that further sources can be found and the article improved, although they have refused to do so. Accordingly, I request that the article is draftified as an ATD. GiantSnowman 12:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 12:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand why we're here, @GiantSnowman:. If you're not asking for the closure to be amended, why open a DRV? If all you wish to do is search for more sources and check the deleted version to see if you have new ones, you can already do that; you're an admin, you can see the deleted version. For the record, though, I !voted "delete", and I believe the closure is valid; assessing consensus isn't a vote-counting exercise, and the evidence doesn't support the "keep" !votes. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking the closure to be amended to 'draftify' rather than 'delete', which is an WP:ATD and should have been considered by the closing admin before closure and also after I raised it with them. I'm also not going anywhere near restoring it myself etc. to avoid accusations of being INVOLVED. GiantSnowman 12:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse delete close but allow recreation as draft (involved, voted keep). While both sides made solid, policy based reasoning, delete seemed gain some level of consensus after JoelleJay's source analysis. Either "delete" or "no consensus" weould have been reasonable closes. Draftify was obviously not considered because nobody suggested that during the AFD. However, there is clearly support for this article and some level of sourcing such that there is a chance it can be improved via the AFC process so that should be allowed if GiantSnowman or another user wants to make a good faith attempt at this. FrankAnchor 13:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - half of the participants thought the coverage was SIGCOV and the other half didn't. Siding with the delete camp is a judgment call which does not accurately reflect the outcome of the discussion. (For what it's worth, but not to re-litigate the AfD, I've looked at some of the available coverage and did a source search and I think deletion here was a mistake.) SportingFlyerT·C 14:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. One participant brings up sources, two participants (and the nominator) subsequently agree in their characterization as "transfer/injury/suspension coverage", with one of the two claiming that the sources contain SIGCOV but does not identify where the SIGCOV actually lies and evades the question when asked, a subsequent participant just says "passes GNG with significant coverage" bypassing the preceding discussion in what amounts to a WP:JN-type comment, followed by another participant's notoriously poor argument in the form of "there are multiple online sources" which also bypasses the relevant issue. Then on the seventh day, JoelleJay posts a source analysis, one participant agrees with it, and the discussion is relisted. Consensus leaning delete at that point. After the relist there's another explicit endorsement of the source analysis. Then, there is an attempt to appeal to WP:BASIC but this is countered with the argument that trivial coverage is not the type of coverage that may be combined to show that there is coverage across sources equivalent to significant coverage (it should be fragmentary non-trivial coverage, that's the point of BASIC), and from early on in the discussion there has been rough agreement that the coverage is trivial, rememember: "transfer/injury/suspension coverage". Then there is a protracted thread with less then relevant complaints from the keep side such as "now it is not two sentences but three sentences" and the "clearly made zero effort to locate sources before nominating" ad hominem, and contemplation on whether the case for deletion is tied to racism. Followd by a "clearly notable" WP:JN-type comment. Consensus leaning delete. Then second relist followed by one keep and two delete !votes. So there was rough consensus to delete.—Alalch E. 16:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Breaking down the !votes by camp, I get:
Keepers
Giant Snowman, who leads with an utterly needless personal attack on the nominator, so zero weight, and consider personal attack warning.
Gidonb, says the sources are good enough but doesn't explain why (WP:JN), and is fully countered by JoelleJay. Oh, and also, WP:MERCY. Relatively low weight.
Ortizesp, says the sources are good enough but doesn't explain why (WP:JN), and is fully countered by JoelleJay. Relatively low weight.
Govvy, admits that the sources are weak but thinks enough of them should count (WP:LOTSOFSOURCES). Relatively low weight.
Frankanchor, says the sources are good enough but doesn't explain why (WP:JN), and is fully countered by JoelleJay. Does creditably make an attempt to link that position to policy, but subsequently slaughtered by JoelleJay's point immediately below. Relatively low weight.
Eluchil404, says the sources are good enough but doesn't explain why (WP:JN), and is fully countered by JoelleJay. Relatively low weight.
Deleters
Dougal18, challenges all the routine coverage (WP:MILL). Normal weight.
JoelleJay, careful and detailed source analysis that sets out full reasoning and bluelinks relevant policies. A truckload of weight.
Let'sRun, says the sources aren't independent but doesn't elaborate (WP:JNN), and that view falls apart because the AfD unearthed genuinely independent if trivial sources. Then supports JoelleJay (WP:PERX). Not much weight.
Vanamonde93, criticises the keepers and supports JoelleJay (WP:PERX). Not much weight.
FenixFeather, supports JoelleJay (WP:PERX). Not much weight.
I note that this is a biography of a living person, so we've got to be extra-careful about sources. I conclude that JoelleJay's contribution fully overwhelms the rest.
Finally, I want to deplore the inclusionist tendency to attack nominators. This is happening more and more, I've noticed, and I'm starting to wonder if there might be scope for an arbcom case about it.—S MarshallT/C 19:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Describing something as a "weak and lazy nomination" is not a "personal attack". I was criticising the edit, not the editor. You've also mis-counted the !votes on each side and missed editors out. GiantSnowman 09:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine if it worked like that! Imagine if you could say whatever you liked about an edit. "That was a stupid and arrogant edit!" "Your edits are pointless and annoying." "What an ignorant edit." Hardly compliant with WP:UNCIVIL, is it? I expect that a non-sysop would have been blocked for the behaviour you showed in that AFD.—S MarshallT/C 11:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are different ways to criticize an edit. One of those ways is the argumentum ad hominem way. That's not the right way. —Alalch E. 13:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, aside from the fact that WP:ATA is an essay, that's a very odd interpretation of Per X comments. A !vote that is "per X" should be given exactly the same weight as X's !vote. If X's is a strong comment, the Per X comment gets considerable weight; if it is weak, it gets less. Joelle Jay analyzed the sources comprehensively; when I endorse that analysis, nobody's interests are served by me regurgitating it instead of citing it. We expect editors to make strong evidence-based arguments in consensus-building discussions; we do not expect them to make novel or unique ones, and endorsing a previous strong argument does not in and of itself determine the weight your comment should get. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also wanted to write this. These perexes get normal weight.—Alalch E. 13:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well. To an extent this is a distinction without a difference, because you (both of you) and I agree that JoelleJay's contribution is decisive; but I'm interested in continuing this conversation because I'm interested in how we weight discussion contributions.On ATA -- I feel that there are essays and essays. Some essays are widely cited and closely followed, and others little known and mostly disregarded. I feel that ATA is the former -- an essay that enjoys widespread community support. Yes, okay, ATA is pretty incoherent and at heart it's just a bucket list of things that some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say in deletion debates. But it does neatly encapsulate what the community thinks about many things.On PERX -- as soon as we say that "I think the same as %_editor" gets full weight, we're turning the discussion into a poll. Aren't we? And when we do that we encourage sockpuppetry. Our rule (policy) on this is WP:DETCON, and I'm sure you're both very familiar with it, but for the benefit of onlookers it says Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. How does PERX add to the quality of the arguments?—S MarshallT/C 14:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: Replying in the same spirit; I don't think PERXs get "normal" weight, and to that extent I actually disagree with Alalch E. above. I give PERXs the same weight as the !vote they are endorsing. In this case, I would give "per Joelle Jay" full weight (well, you could have guessed that); but I would also give FrankAnchor and GiantSnowman the same weight, because their !votes are based on the same evidence. Under the present circumstances, I would give both those !votes identical lowish weight (because those sources were convincingly rebutted), but in a hypothetical scenario in which JoelleJay hadn't debunked those sources, it would be substantial weight. I would also not downweight a comment based on the presence of a personal attack, though I might independently consider sanctions for it. I fully agree that assessing consensus is more than vote-counting; my closures are quite frequently different from what you would expect based on just numbers. However, you can't close based on only strength of arguments either; because if that was all that mattered, there would be no purpose in participating in a discussion if the argument I believe in had already been made, and that's clearly not what we want. When there is substantial disagreement, what I do is to assign weight and then see how the weighted numbers shake out. At AfD in particular, I have seen numerically even AfDs in which the "keep, meets GNG" arguments have been convincingly refuted by source analyses (such as this AfD); I've seen ones in which the source analyses are clearly applying an absurdly high standard, or have not taken into account newly found sources, or in which "delete" opinions are not based in policy; and I've seen ones in which both sides have differing, but reasonable, interpretations of what constitutes SIGCOV. I close those delete, keep, and no consensus, respectively. TL;DR: I judge consensus based on what the split looks like in weighted !votes, and consequently giving PERXs appropriate (not necessarily full) weight is important. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't. As a first approximation, that page is correct, and it also isn't the place to get into the nuances of determining consensus. Quality of the arguments is primary; numbers come into play when quality is genuinely comparable on both sides of a dispute (spoiler alert, it rarely is). In relation to my first point, though; I think it makes far more sense to say that a PERX argument has the same quality as X's argument, than to say a priori that it has low quality. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing in my $0.02 totally unsolicited here, I wrote some extended notes regarding balancing strength v support in my close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of atrocities during the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. Admittedly this was a different situation (in this one here, I tend to agree that the GNG arguments were just about totally disproven), but there may be some relevancy in the comments there. PERX is relevant when an argument isn't disproven and you need to assess its support, but by its very nature it doesn't advance a different argument to what it is referencing. If the original argument gets significantly disproven, so does the PERX by extension. Daniel (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not usually interested in amending essays, as the acrimony/benefit is not helpful; but I would suggest it be changed, yes. It already acknowledges the essence of what Daniel and I are saying in reference to nominator arguments; the same logic needs to be extended to well-reasoned other comments. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited it, then.—S MarshallT/C 11:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acceptable edit. A PerX !vote May be sufficient. It adds weight to the original !vote, but it most certainly does NOT deserve the SAME weight as the original !vote. Mere repetition carries less weight than the original thought through !vote. Assigning simple additivity to PERXs would be vote counting and poor closing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's contrary to both current practice and common sense. Sometimes a previous participant has said what needs to be said about sources. A novel rebuttal is not only unnecessary, it's impossible. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think so. I’ve never seen anyone making your claims.
A novel, good, argument carries a lot of weight in a debate. Adding four “per him” does not add up to equal to five different novel good arguments.
Per X is a good thing to do when you want to register your review and back what you think is an already winning argument. If there is no single winning argument, a vote is stronger than Per X if it adds something, anything, as to why, for them, X’s argument is strong.
Sometimes there’s a weak, as in dubious, !vote cast, and a bunch of driveby !voters !voting Per X do not give much confidence that they’ve spent anytime reviewing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
giving PERXs appropriate (not necessarily full) weight is important is agreed. They get weighted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised and intrigued to find that experienced Wikipedians differ so much on a point that seems so foundational to how we make decisions.—S MarshallT/C 10:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At User talk:MBisanz/Archive 16#bare supports (Jan 2013) is a crumb of a record relating to discussions with User:MBisanz, he being an expert closer, albeit erring in the side of brevity in my opinion. The question was on bare support votes at RfA, which I connected to bare votes at XfD, including no rationale, and “per nom” rationales. An issue is the practice of expectation of justification being higher for “Oppose” or “Delete” than for “Support” or “Keep”. I think we agreed that the community consensus is that bare votes get some weight, but less weight than a well articulated !vote. I think this is right, and I think it reflects real world debates. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RFA's a bit different, though -- RFA actually is a poll, so it seems uncontroversial to me that you'd count the PERXs.—S MarshallT/C 12:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RFA is also different in that the scope of discussion is the entire record of an editor, typically consisting of 10k+ edits. The scope of the typical AfD discussion is limit to a much smaller pool of evidence, and there generally isn't very much to say about it, regardless of whether you believe it to be sufficient. The AfD we are discussing, which is not atypical of AfDs, boils down to whether 10 links provide SIGCOV. There isn't anything substantive to add to a comprehensive source analysis, and a PERX that refers to such an analysis should be given equal weight to it. Otherwise, why bother participating after an analysis has been done? More generally, the emphasis on novelty is all wrong. "I see no evidence that this topic meets SIGCOV" carries full weight at AfD until and unless someone provides evidence of SIGCOV: conversely, "This topic meets GNG because of the following three sources" also carries full weight until someone convincingly rebuts those sources. A PERX of one of these two arguments is entirely equivalent to repeating it, and gets the same weight, because generally there is nothing more to say. There is no novel argument to be made in those circumstances. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve lost the esoteric line of thought that saw me challenge the wording of one of Vanamonde’s posts here. All I’m seeing now is that is that JoelleJay did an excellent source analysis with a compelling conclusion for “delete”, and that her analysis was hacked and amplified by Vanamonde and FenixFeather. GiantSnowman was rebuffed. All other !votes, keep and delete, were weak compared to JoelleJay, Vanamonde, FenixFeather and GiantSnowman. They are stronger because they addressed specific points on specific sources. Weighing !votes by quality of argument, I see a consensus to delete. Someone wanting to try again, for longer, in draftspace is not a challenge to the consensus to deleted, and should have been allowed on request, and should be allowed now. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus—the vote clearly showed nothing close to a consensus about this deletion, and indeed leaned in favor of keeping the article in place by virtue of the vote itself. As mentioned above, beyond the vote, any inference of consensus for deletion is a wholly subjective judgment call. I would weakly support a "draftification," as it were, but I also agree with the majority of "Keepers" above in identifying the existing coverage as SIGCOV, even if on the weaker end of the spectrum. There was no clear reason to act on the deletion, and it should be reversed. Anwegmann (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. I can't say I enjoyed it (or this review -- I have never submitted one) yet I exposed the visual analysis to be factually incorrect while also trying to be as little confrontational about this as possible. Before I did that -with huge hesitance- multiple folks already seemed impressed by the exes and vees. Here as well. Nevertheless the results were balanced between keeps and deletes with the keepsayers having factually the strongest argument. Then the closer slammed their entire body on the scale. I am so hesitant with confronting people that I later made all my source points in the article. Can we get that up? To call my hesitance to confront people MERCY (above) is revolting but sometimes it just is what it is. You have to be assertive at all times at WP and some people are not as much built that way. gidonb (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call your "hesitance to confront people" MERCY. You said Nom, please do not nominate footballers who have played so many professional games!, and that's what I called WP:MERCY. I don't agree that you displayed any hesitance at all to confront people in that debate. You apologised for confronting them and then you confronted them very hard indeed.—S MarshallT/C 20:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's an abundance of AfDs and that has a toll on work in the article space. People submit AfDs with hardly any before. That's what the comment gently referred to. My position is and was that Jallo meets the GNG. No MERCY needed. The how is in the article but that is hidden now. Giant appearantly tried to get that up to no avail. I had not seen that the article was deleted until I received a message about a DRV and was surprised to find my name mentioned here, while distorting my position and work. My comment above seeks to correct that while explaining why the closing decision is unjustified. It was not my choice to submit a DRV or AfD. gidonb (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in the last pre-deletion revision of the article were [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Which of these are you saying constitute significant, non-routine coverage sufficient to write a biography? —Cryptic 21:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[11][12][13][14][15] all look good to me. One's an interview but there's plenty of additional coverage of him that's not in the article - search most of these websites and other articles will come up - and the ones which don't necessarily qualify as significant coverage are still reliable sources. [16] is light but there's a video I found of him in another search where this made national television. SportingFlyerT·C 18:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are routine WP:MILL articles about football matches. None of them contain any biographical information about Gaby Jallo.—S MarshallT/C 23:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly didn't properly interact with any of them, then. The first one isn't the best one, but I reviewed them in order. The second talks about his performances and contract status. The second is beyond a mere transfer announcement as it discusses his possible landing places and his role on his previous team. The next one is a bit transactional as it discusses how he re-signs. But most importantly, this isn't the extent of coverage - there's plenty of coverage. For instance both of these articles are directly on him, from just one website: [17][18] - which is exactly what you would expect of a professional football player in one of the top leagues in the world! Often we argue about over only a handful of sources for notability, but Jallo has dozens. SportingFlyerT·C 01:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've linked the same article twice. The tiny teaspoon of biographical information in it is his age (22 at 18 November 2011) and the descriptor Syrian/Aramaic (presumably ethnic origin/birth tongue). It then explains that he's a substitute, standing in for one match to replace a full team member who's injured. How is that not routine WP:MILL coverage of a football match?—S MarshallT/C 07:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Draftification as a reasoable AtD. As a participant in the AfD I don't really trust myself to evaluate consensus. When I first looked at it, before I did my own evaluation and voted, I thought it was leaning towards Keep but probably not clear enough for a NAC. But S Marshall makes a reasonable claim that the full discussion leans towards delete. <Shrug>. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse,
10:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC) on several readthroughs, I’ve come around to seeing that the close was not discretion, but the correct reading of a consensus to delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
… correct application of admin discretion. Obviously, too many sources are too poor. The challenge here requires a more thorough source analysis, and DRV is not the best location to do this, being too-high profile, and time-limited. Instead, send to draftspace for a WP:THREE source analysis. Proponents carry the onus to identify the best three sources. While agreeing with Marshall on the unacceptable attacking of anyone, I do criticise the nominator for the perfunctory nomination rationale. Poor rationals are one of the root causes for difficult discussions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose “overturn to no consensus” and undeletion to mainspace. Although the sources weren’t obviously and conclusively shown to not meet the GNG, the substance of the criticism of the sources was strong, and the defence of the sources was very weak. A thorough analysis of sources takes time and space. Further analysis should be done in draftspace, removing low quality sources, analysing what’s left, with a presumption that the proponents have to demonstrate two independent secondary sources that cover the topic directly and to some depth. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I request that the article is draftified as an ATD. GiantSnowman 12:47, 23 December 2023
I support this request. This request was put to the deleting admin at User talk:Seraphimblade#Gaby Jallo AFD. I think Seraphimblade was unreasonable in rejecting the request, noting that the deletion was contested, WP:HEY was claimed by someone, and there were lots of sources. Draftspace is a good place to filter sources for quality, for a second look at whether the GNG is met. After draftification, GiantSnowman should not be allowed to unilaterally mainspace it within six months, out of respect for the close at AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn no AFDs are not a vote, but I feel that the administrator inserted their own opinion in closing the disccusion, that and what is written on their user page gives me cause for concern. I do not find JoelleJay's constant hounding of !keep voters on this and plenty of other discussions, especially on football biographies, to be helpful. Despite what S Marshall says I do not find that JolleJay "slaughtered" the keep !votes, rather they just seems from my view to cherry pick to find something wrong with them. All that said I do not have a problem with the article being draftified and as I !voted keep in this AFD I'm probably a biased participant, and I mean no ill will towards the users I've mentioned here. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't? When you hover over my user name the pronouns say "she/her", is this hover function not available to all editors? JoelleJay (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you enable the local popups gadget. The popups in base MediaWiki that anons and registered, non-gadget-enabling users get only work for links to mainspace. The more general advice is to use {{they|JoelleJay}} and its sibling templates. —Cryptic 23:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen this hover feature working, but I have always read Joelle as feminine. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The hover function does not work for me (on a MacBook). GiantSnowman 12:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation with no prejudice against speedy renomination. The closing admin made it clear in their closing note that their decision was effectively based on the view of a single AfD participant, namely, JoelleJay. That may have very well been the correct thing to do. The analysis done by S Marshall above certainly supports such a decision, and I am not here to contest it. Thankfully, we do not need to adjudicate on whether this was a correct reading of consensus or not. All we need to do is recognize the fact that this AfD was closed based on the opinion of one participant other than the nom, and as such, qualifies as a WP:NOQUORUM closure, despite the numerous--correctly or not WP:DISCARDed--!votes. This means that the resultant deletion must be seen as a WP:SOFTDELETE, equivalent to an expired PROD, which allows for immediate recreation/undeletion. Once undeleted, if the appellant in this DRV still wishes to draftify the page while they search for better sourcing, I don't think anyone here will object. I certainly hope they choose that route, seeing the poor sourcing the deleted article suffered from, and knowing it will likely be instantly renominated if left in main namespace. Since the appellant specifically requested it, I'll be happy with a Draftify outcome. Owen×☎ 02:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse based on the analysis of AFD !votes by User:S Marshall and the analysis of sources by User:JoelleJay, and pending a request for temporary undelete. S Marshall has explained why the closer could reasonably give much greater weight to JoelleJay's Delete !vote than to anything else. A close of No Consensus would also have been a reasonable reading. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request - Can the article be temporarily undeleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:S Marshall - What are you proposing that ArbCom should do about insults in AFDs? I have three times in the past five years asked them to extend ArbCom discretionary sanctions, now known as contentious topics, to disruptive conduct in Deletion Discussions, and they have declined to do that three times. I still think that deletion discussions should be a contentious topic, and that expedited remedies should be available for incivility (and jerk-like behavior). Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Poor conduct in AfDs in general is definitely an issue, but to my eye it doesn't rise to the level of Arbcom involvement. I think there's a specific problem with sports inclusionists. If you nominate a sportsperson's article for deletion, they take it very personally indeed. They have various behaviours of the kind you saw in the AfD we're considering here --- rallying round, confrontations, attacks, anything to get the nasty source-focused person away from their precious articles.—S MarshallT/C 11:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So GiantSnowman's discription of an nomination as "lazy" rises to WP:UNCIVIL but S Marshall making blanket statments on editors who work on sports-related articles (by the wonderfully vague pronoun "they") as crybabies who take everything personally doesn't? To be fair, while heated, I don't see any violation of WP:CIVIL in the AFD and certainly nothing which rises to the level of being a blockable offense. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also can say, reading between the lines of "sports inclusionists," that GiantSnowman is not someone who is quick to keep an article at AfD. Plus this player appeared in one of the top domestic leagues in the world over the course of several seasons and received a normal amount of Dutch-language coverage for someone who did so. Significant coverage differs from country to country. It's not as if we're trying to include some youth athlete here. SportingFlyerT·C 18:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does “significant coverage” mean? In any country? I read it as virtually meaningless, too subjective, and suggest WP:100W instead. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a strangely and unnecessarily "partisan" blanket statement that has very little meaning here by S Marshall. I wonder who's being confrontational and "attacking" others with differing opinions at this point...As something of an outsider to this, I find the amount of vitriol here alarming and off-putting, not to mention unproductive. Anwegmann (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and support draftification. AFDs are not a vote, and it was within the closer's discretion to close as "delete" or "no consensus." On balance, I do think individuals who made a comment supporting deletion had the stronger argument as that argument was not sufficiently refuted by individuals supporting keeping the article. --Enos733 (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion was procedurally within discretion, and there's nothing in the sources, article, afd, or this drv to suggest it wasn't correct on the merits. No reason to object to draftification, but it'd be a waste of the requester's time without substantially better sources; rewording the prose or presenting more sources of similar triviality won't save this from a G4. —Cryptic 00:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that you can pretty easily write a C-class article on Jallo using the available sources - if you search any of the websites mentioned in the AfD, there's more coverage of him directly on him, but none of it is the classical "American feature story" that I think people are expecting to see here. We're excluding someone who seems clearly notable enough to have been written about by multiple outlets on the grounds that half the participants didn't think it was significant enough. SportingFlyerT·C 22:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Accepting JoelleJay's source analysis requires accepting JoelleJay's interpretation of interviews as primary sources (they can be, but aren't necessarily, especially when published in RS'es) and what ROUTINE coverage means in terms of sports coverage. Understanding that any source analysis is colored by the policy perspectives of its author, any closer should acknowledge the antecedent opinions. To put it bluntly, "that's not SIGCOV" gets too much credence from a lot of admins. More importantly Seraphimblade's refusal to just draftify the article for potential improvement is something that should not be tolerated. Draft space is cheap, self-cleaning after six months, and no one has argued the article under consideration violated G10-11-12 ("bad content") rather than simply being on the losing end of a notability discussion. For one admin to refuse another's reasonable request calls into question the neutrality of the close in the first place. Whether personality or topic based, admins have an obligation to act beyond possible reproach when dealing with affected articles at AfD. Back in the dawn of time when I was a working admin, I made a habit of doing uncontroversial deletions and staying far away from controversial AfDs. (For anyone who might care, I have 19,259 deletions, just under 50k edits across both accounts, and haven't held the mop in 10 years) The talk page discussion does not typify collegiality or working toward creating encyclopedic content, but really comes across as "You do the work up front and then I'll consider restoring the article." This, in my mind, is a more important problem than whether no consensus or delete were within administrator discretion. Jclemens (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well said! But again, even if one accepts Seraphimblade's and JoelleJay's interpretation of SIGCOV, the endorsed result would be a soft delete, based on WP:NOQUORUM. If there was a consensus there, it was between the nom, JoelleJay and the closing admin, after discarding every other !vote. That said, I agree that an overturn would send a stronger message than a mere draftification. Owen×☎ 21:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NOQUORUM: If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor and with no one opposing deletion. Neither of those criteria seem to be met in this AFD, so I do not think NOQUORUM applies. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; you can't have it both ways. If you discard all but one of the views when closing an AfD (including all the Keep !votes), you can't then turn around and claim it was widely participated. The extent of participation is measured based on valid, non-discarded views. We do this every day with canvassed votes.
If, on the other hand, you claim that the Keep !votes were incorrectly discarded, then we're back to an overturn for no-consensus. Those !votes can't be counted for quorum while being ignored for their view. Owen×☎ 11:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jclemens that the biggest issue here is Seraphimblade refusing to draftify. GiantSnowman 12:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are listed as primary sources at OR, and what the interviewee says is never independent of the interviewee regardless of where it's published. JoelleJay (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They may be listed as primary sources, but that doesn't change the fact that a high-quality curated interview is a secondary source. Only the direct quotes are primary sources, and a good, in-depth "interview" is much more than a bare regurgitation of what two people said. If you look at what OR says, it actually says including (depending on context) reviews and interviews, so saying OR says interviews are primary sources is an oversimplification of the actual policy. Jclemens (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which source are we talking about here? (Link would be great.) Interview transcripts never pass GNG. Articles based on an interview do not usually pass GNG unless they are quite long, in depth, and are not just a collection of quotes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about policy, not any specific interview. Jclemens (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the commentary contributed by the interviewer may be secondary and independent, and I evaluated the sources with that in mind. What you said was they can be, but aren't necessarily, especially when published in RS'es, which implies that the reliability of the venue where the interview is published factors into whether its content is primary or secondary (why would we even be considering interviews in non-RS anyway?). There were only two sources I called "interviews", neither of which I characterized as "primary", so I don't understand why you are claiming my delete argument (partially) rested on accepting JoelleJay's interpretation of interviews as primary sources. The 5th source from my first comment does have some interviewer statements interspersed among the quotes, but these mostly appear to be pre-summaries of the quotes, often in present-tense and including Jallo's point of view ("Jallo is not surprised...", "He prefers a longer stay...", "The defender also expects his team...", "the happy Jallo looks back."). I judged the material linked to these comments to be too derivative of the interview to be independent, an interpretation that seems generally consistent with what other users (such as @SmokeyJoe and @Novem Linguae) have expressed here. JoelleJay (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with JoelleJay.
It is almost impossible, although not impossible, to extract independent secondary source content about the interviewee from an interview with the interviewee.
The source typing of secondary vs primary, is usually irrelevant to the question of satisfying the GNG.
When it comes to some interspersed interviewer comments, it’s a tough ask for these to be significant (though interviews can be interviewer monologues). SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The interspersed interviewer comments, indicating that the subjects' claims are not being repeated verbatim and uncritically, renders the entire interview an independent secondary source. When done by an outlet with a track record of reliability, it's going to be an independent, non-trivial, reliable source. Have you never seen an in-depth interview like this? It's qualitatively different than a simple back-and-forth. Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "entire interview" does not become an independent secondary source; the quotes/summarized comments of the interviewee are not magically transformed into someone else saying those things. If the actual I&S content is significant enough then that counts as one of the GNG sources, but if it's only SIGCOV if you add in the content from the interviewee, the source does not count towards GNG. Distributing facts gleaned from an interview across both direct quotes and summaries of quotes doesn't make the info independent, and the interviewer stating his in-person observations of the interviewee during the interview is still primary. JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
… renders the entire interview an independent secondary source. Nonsense. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to NC but there are a lot of issues.
GiantSnowman, I've seen you around for years and you are generally a solid editor. Your behavior in the AfD and here are not up to the standards I'd expect of you. We would all appreciate it if you were more civil going forward (and frankly I think the lack of civility is self-defeating).
A request for a draft by an editor in good standing of something that might well be notable shouldn't be declined even if they have been being rude.
The discussion was split, both sides had reasonable arguments. There was no argument on the delete side strong enough for there to be a consensus for deletion (including JoelleJay). It was a bad close IMO and should be overturned.
On the underlying matter of notability (which is relevant at DRV when dealing with a split discussion and doubly so when dealing with a BLP): The sources are, IMO, over the bar, even for a BLP. They aren't stellar, and I can understand where the delete !voters came from, but we have enough to write an article about the subject and I see nothing that makes me feel WP:BLP requires otherwise.
If I have been uncivil then I apologise, it is never my intention. However, I stand by my criticism of the nomination, as WP:BEFORE does not appear to have been followed. GiantSnowman 20:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly it doesnt sound all that sincere and I dont appreciate the personal attacks at afd and the message left on my talk page and I quote - "Your AFDs of Simon Amin and Gaby Jallo are both seriously ill thought out. I suggest you withdraw." Simione001 (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted text is anything but uncivil. By suggesting an edit is "ill thought out" it presumes that the other editor could have done better, but failed to in that instance. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What personal attacks Simione001? I noted that other neutral editors here have criticised your AFD rationale as well. They've just done so slightly politer than I did. GiantSnowman 11:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've always got to be right don't you. The article got deleted so you were wrong from the beginning. Just accept it. Simione001 (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GS, you mostly have gone after actions, not people. But you could do so in more polite ways. I know some people view doing so as "weak" or "not being a straight shooter", but politeness is what greases the wheels and keeps this place functional. Simione001, you are very much going after a person, not an action. Please stop. Both of you: this case is quite borderline. I personally think this is over the bar for keeping with some margin, but I'm on the more inclusionist side of things. Other folks who I respect think this is a delete case. It's the corner cases that generate the most heat, and it would be best if you both realize this isn't a black-and-white case. Hobit (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wise advice, as ever - but I will note that those being critical of my conduct are markedly silent about Simione001's... GiantSnowman 11:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: There is a clear different between "per X" and "I've done the research independently and I agree with X." The latter carries more weight simply because it is double-checking, giving greater support to the conclusion being the correct one, whereas "per X" gives no indication that the editor actually checked anything. It's better that we have multiple people checking for themselves than that we have one person doing all the research and the rest playing follow-the-leader.
For a specific example: Contrary to S Marshall's analysis Special:Diff/1191068224 is not a mere "per X" because although the editor agrees with a previous editor, it is clear from that opinion that xe has actually gone and looked at what sources are cited by the Dutch Wikipedia and evaluated their provenances, and is the first person in the entire discussion to even discuss their provenances.
Special:Diff/1190919018, not listed in S Marshall's analysis, is not a "per X" either. But the problem with it is that once people have actually started discussing sources in detail, it is not a weighty contribution that helps the process to just make general statements and fail to address the specifics of the sources at hand. One has to raise one's game at that point, and that rationale did not.
It's not clear to me whether you would endorse or overturn.—S MarshallT/C 08:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to second-guess the closure, I'm just here to support a closer restoring a deleted article to Draft space where an editor can work on improving an article and addressing the problems others found with it. That doesn't seem controversial to me when the editor making that request is a long-time editor. LizRead!Talk! 08:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support draftify. Big picture, why are we here? To build consensus as we build an encyclopedia that provides reliable information. The article is a BLP, it needs a lot more work to justify existence in mainspace, and would likely benefit from more and higher quality secondary sources if available. Send it back to draft and it will either be improved or abandoned and deleted after 6 months. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - In no way could this AFD of a player with sources and over 100 games in fully pro Dutch league be interpreted as a "consensus" to delete. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. For the reasons explained by SMarshall, I believe that Seraphimblade's assessment and weighing of the arguments made in the AfD was a valid exercise of a closer's discretion. Several people above who would overturn the closure mistake AfD for a vote. I also agree that GiantSnowman's personal attacks on the nominator are inappropriate, and I would deny this review request for this reason alone. As regards draftification, I am generally opposed to the concept of draft space because either something belongs in Wikipedia or it does not (although I'm in a minority, it appears), and I do not see the point in draftification until somebody can show convincing WP:THREE sources establishing notability. Sandstein 09:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After a consensus to delete, see the point of draftificationas providing a place to do what WP:THREE advises. Cut the weak sources. Show what material is supported by the three best sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Rafat Abu Hilal – Relisted. Opinions are split between endorse and relist. This means that we don't have consensus in this DRV, which gives me as closer discretion to relist the AfD. I choose to do so, given that it received only three rather perfunctory opinions, and was not previously relisted. Under these circumstances, it is likely that a relist will lead to a clearer consensus. Sandstein 09:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
As mentioned in my AfD nom, this person doesn't have any form of WP:SIGCOV. In fact, no facts are alleged about him except that: he was at one point the head of Popular Resistance Committees and that he was killed in Oct 2023. I tried discussing this with the deleting admin twice[19][20] but they didn't respond to me (to be fair they seem really busy). As I mentioned in my AfD, even the article Killing of Rafat Abu Hilal wouldn't meet WP:GNG, so deleting this article (not changing its name) is the only option.
Two of the !votes didn't even address the SIGCOV argument. One !vote claimed there was SIGCOV while providing a single link the subject's own organization (therefore not an WP:INDEPENDENT source) that also doesn't provide SIGCOV.VRtalk 20:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry about the lack of responsiveness, VR, that is because I'm very busy but if I had responded in a timely way, we might not be here today. I don't have much to say about this particular discussion and its closure, I weighed the arguments presented and it seemed like there was a rough consensus that SIGCOV did exist and that this was a notable article subject. Thank you for the notification about this discussion, it's appreciated. LizRead!Talk! 20:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There's really no way to overturn that discussion, and this is not AfD part two. Suggest renominating in a few months. SportingFlyerT·C 00:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Even if you ignore the two !votes the nom claims ignored the SIGCOV issue, there would still be no consensus to delete, leaving the result effectively the same. I see no other argument made by the nom to refute the closing decision. The question of Rafat Abu Hilal's notability is one for an AfD or a WP:REFUND, not for DRV. Owen×☎ 00:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we ignore all three !votes? Two of them don't address the SIGCOV issue at all, and one of them cites a clearly non-WP:INDEPENDENT source that apparently doesn't provide SIGCOV. What baffles me is why we should keep an article on a subject where not a single (independent) RS exists that provides that subject with SIGCOV. If you can find a single such RS, I'll gladly withdraw this DRV.VRtalk 01:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC) As OwenX correctly points out below, this is not an AfD and so I'm striking out the part of my comment that was inappropriate. My apologies.[reply]
You ask, Why can't we ignore all three !votes? - why have an AfD at all, if you'll just ignore any opinion that differs from yours? It's important to distinguish between AfD views that are invalid, such as "I like this article", and views that are merely ones you disagree with, such as "Source X provides SIGCOV". The AfD closer has an obligation to ignore invalid views, but they have no obligation to side with you on the interpretation of WP:SIGCOV. Their decision is supposed to reflect the consensus among the valid views, which is what they did in this AfD.
I will not search for RS, because this isn't AfD; it's DRV. DRV is not AfD-take-two. We are not examining the notability of Rafat Abu Hilal here. We are examining the accuracy of interpreting consensus in the AfD. You seem to have the two confused. Owen×☎ 03:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX: I assure you, I'm not asking you to "ignore any opinion that differs from" mine. I've participated in many AfDs and discussions where the result wasn't what I wished and I'm totally ok with that. I'm only bringing this to DRV because I feel all three votes made arguments that are inconsistent with policy in a rather obvious way. WP:DISCARD says "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy,..."
Two of the !votes don't even mention SIGCOV and cite reasons for keeping that are not found anywhere in policy. This !vote[21] should be discarded because the !voter provides a single link for SIGCOV where the !voter themselves acknowledges that the link is coming from the subject's own organization (something that can be also easily seen if you click on the link). IMO, this obviously contradicts WP:N that requires SIGCOV sources be independent. Is there a way to interpret this !vote as consistent with policy that I may have missed? VRtalk 04:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:RENOM suggests that "no consensus" implies a much quicker renomination for AfD than a "keep" result. Given that its an essay, where else can I find more guidance on renominating for AfD? Thanks for your help. VRtalk 05:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the death is recent, amidst the fog of war, and taking into account the limited participation in the AfD, I think most would see a renomination in two months as reasonable. Feel free to link to my comment here when you renominate - I'll be happy to accept responsibility for the short delay between the two AfDs. Whoever closes this DRV may also offer useful advice about renominating. Owen×☎ 11:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: please indicate future steps in terms of both renominating for deletion and the original closing admin's advice to try requesting a move to Killing of Rafat Abu Hilal.VRtalk 06:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have given the keepers much weight. They reduce to a point somewhere between WP:JN and WP:ITSINTHENEWS. What they needed to do was refute VR's points, either by showing that the existing sources were high-quality, independent and reliable, or by providing new sources that meet those criteria. I don't think they did that and I certainly wouldn't have evaluated the sources in the way they did. And, despite its name, WP:BLP applies to the recently-deceased as well as the living, which in my view adds further weight to VR's criticisms of the sources. So I would overturn to no consensus, the practical effect of which would be to allow a speedy renomination.—S MarshallT/C 11:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with S Marshall, the quality of the keep !votes is sufficiently poor that either NC or a relist would have been appropriate. A claim that ample SIGCOV exists without providing evidence should be given low weight by itself, but when the !voter provides an example of this coverage that they state is from the subject's own organization, that suggests a lack of awareness of source independence re: notability and calls into question their assessment of all other sources that may have factored into their !vote. EDIT: Relist. JoelleJay (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there wasn't a single delete !vote in the entire discussion, why should the result of the AFD be changed just because people are having issues with it now? If users still feel the article doesn't meet standards they can always renominate it or nominate it for merging etc. This is not the proper avenue. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, all the issues mentioned here were mentioned at the very beginning of the AfD, so I'm not sure why you say "just because people are having issues with it now".VRtalk 06:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close of Keep and Tag the article as needing better sources. Keep or Relist were the only valid conclusions that a closer could have reached, and Keep was a valid conclusion. The appellant's concerns about sources are best served by tagging the article and allowing normal editing to improve it. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What tag? The information is verifiable in the usual way. There are citations. Are the sources unreliable? There's no "the sources don't contain significant coverage" tag. There's the notability tag which is the same as that, but it is not appropriate to place a notability tag after an AfD. —Alalch E. 11:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with S Marshall but I prefer relisting to overturning to no consensus. Keep was not the correct outcome. The keeps did not argue for notability. They just opposed deletion for non-policy reasons. Comments based on "individual was a leader" and "prominent role" are irrelevant. There is no WP:NLEADER. One mentioned SIGCOV and said There's ample and diverse well-cited WP:SIGCOV of the article subject, but did not identify any significant coverage, and then cited a website that contains everything but significant coverage, while talking about how the individual was "the leader". All of the keeps have zero weight. So despite there being three reponses which would have been enough participation under normal circumstances, under these circumstances it is not enough participation.—Alalch E. 12:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist so more arguments can be made and heard. Further to previous comments and the AfD page itself, the close was somewhat rushed. Adding that, according to our article, Abu Hilal was –on one date or another– killed by an Israeli airstrike. Hence the AfD should have also been listed also in the Israel deletion queue, from where perspectives may have differed or not. It's our shared responsibility to check listings, reduce the number of debates, and improve the quality of AfDs. gidonb (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as there was clearly not any consensus to delete. The keep votes were weak but they were not refuted. There was ZERO support of deleting the article outside the nom. This can be renominated after several months (refer to WP:RENOM) if the nominator’s concerns are not addressed in the article. FrankAnchor 02:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The company was voted as the best place to work in the UAE and best workplace in the UAE for women. Plenty of credible sources for century financial. it was speedily deleted though the content was new. Francisjk2020 (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC) -->[reply]
Note: temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted as advertising, so it does not matter if it is new or not. We just have to confirm whether it is too promotional to keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it is not to promotional to be here, even if the purpose of the page is promotional. There is a claim of importance, but I would vote delete in an AFD for failing WP:NCORP. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it's that promotional, but it does seem to have a fair number of references to puff pieces/pr. At least one "news" story states "This content comes from KT Engage, the brand marketing unit of Khaleej Times". I can't imagine it would survive an xFD in the current state, would probably be best to get this into draft and work on it to remove such before returning to mainspace. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mess, and partially my fault. The article was previously deleted at AFD last month as "Century Financial". Article was a hodgepodge of promotional claims and paid/PR sources and trivial "recognition". The article was recreated by Francisjk2020 at Century Financial Consultancy and quickly moved to draft by BoraVoro (see Draft:Century Financial Consultancy). I removed some of the more obvious, and at least marked, paid advertorials. The article was then recreated again in mainspace by the same editor. After removing the same promotional material, I noted the prior AFD and and many other PR sources and intended to delete with A11/A5G4. I mistakenly left off the A5G4 from the delete comment (substantially the same, only with less supporting material). The draft is still there to work on, with a comment from me related to the failed validation on the sources. Sam Kuru(talk) 12:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean G4 rather than A5? --81.100.164.154 (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a mess. I'm not entirely sure the speedy deletion post-AfD was completely properly done, mostly because it's not clear exactly if this meets G4 or G11. Ignoring that, the problems identified at the November AfD have not been remedied and this should not be in mainspace at this time. SportingFlyerT·C 00:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The AfD result was unanimous, and the four views presented were firmly based on policy. The closer did the only possible thing. If new sources turned up since the close, this should be taken to WP:REFUND, but it doesn't sound like there's any basis for that either. Until things change, G4 or SALT as needed. Owen×☎ 01:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly this article is different from the content in the previous one and the company was recent voted as the best workplace to work in UAE and the best workplace for women. Also, credible sources is not in question as there are plenty of sources available on a daily basis. Like another administrator mentioned this article cannot be categorized as promotional either. I tried WP Refund. Honestly I am not too sure on what basis the article was speedily deleted.(Francisjk2020 (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Please provide the three best sources that demonstrate the notability of this organisation. Stating they are "available on a daily basis" is insufficient. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can someone look at the two articles and assess whether they were substantially identical? I'm thinking if one is G11-able and the re-creation is not, then the re-created article is probably not G4-able. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, I've tempundel'd the second article now also. Daniel (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Daniel. With that, repudiate G4 for the new article, regardless of what else happens to it. I don't have any strong opinion on G11, but it's clearly not substantially the same article. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I second that. I feel both the articles are dissimilar with respect to content and sources. Also a previous admin mentioned current article is not promotional so it can’t be deleted in that category(Francisjk2020 (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Endorse The nomination, though made in good faith, actually fails to address any issue with the deletion. CharlesWain (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sir the article was deleted under G11 saying it was too promotional but multiple editors has stated that current article is not promotional but neutral.(Francisjk2020 (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Well, this is an interesting one. The re-generated article at Century Financial Consultancy wasn't substantially identical and therefore did not meet the criteria for WP:G4. It's also not hopelessly promotional and therefore did not meet the criteria for WP:G11. This argues for a "restore" outcome.Of course, when we delete an article about a company, creating a new version with new content and a slightly different name and slightly different sources, amounts to an end-run around the previous AfD. We rightly frown on that behaviour. This argues for an "endorse" outcome.The close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century Financial was excellent at the time Liz made it, but with the benefit of hindsight, we now know that User:Antonio Vinzaretti is not in good faith and their encyclopaedic judgment is open to doubt. We would have to weight their !vote at zero, and in my view that places the consensus at the AfD in doubt. I think we have good grounds for reopening the case for another look.Taking into account all these factors, I would prefer the DRV closer to say relist, but as a fresh AfD, for the content at Century Financial Consultancy, with a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century Financial in the nomination statement.—S MarshallT/C 11:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Biewer Terrier – Allow recreation with the proposed version, with subsequent improvements proposed. Ping @Annwfwn. Daniel (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The deletion discussion took place in 2009. Since then, this dog has become increasingly notable, including having a standard,[1] gaining full AKC recognition in 2021,[2] and garnering mention in several books and scholarly articles[3][4][5][6][7][8] While I definitely don't think we should restore the original Biewer Terrier article that was deleted in 2009 as it was not of suitable quality, if the article was to be recreated, I propose we restore [this version]. With some cleanup and the addition of the sources I mentioned, I think notability would be demonstrated.
The biggest issue that I forsee is that some publications consider them a subtype of the Yorkshire terrier, a similar issue to the Phalène, which the FCI recognizes as a separate breed from the
Papillon dog but the AKC does not. Annwfwn (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. The linked version is sufficiently different from the version that was redirected in 2009, such that any attempts to delete or re-redirect should take place at a new AFD. Also, at the close of this discussion (and no earlier), Biewer Terrier (dog) should be speedy deleted (probably under G6 or G14). FrankAnchor 14:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation nothing wrong with that discussion, but there's no reason a page can't be recreated 15 years later with such clear new information. SportingFlyerT·C 00:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation as new sources establish independent notability. Owen×☎ 01:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation speedily, as in the emerging consensus here should be plenty to ward off G4, should someone be inclined to NOT compare versions (which should, but doesn't always, keep one safe from G4). Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation - The linked version is substantially different from the redirected version. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Requesting undeletion to add new citations and continue editing the article to remove any biographical content disputed as promotion. Complete deletion removed the subject from this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vibraphonists This is inconsistent with other such lists (see book “Masters of the Vibes” in references).
Editors voting for deletion did not seem to do substantial research on the specific topic (vibraphone and its musical sub-genre). Arguments regarding notability are arbitrary and inconsistent based upon other similar entries that remain undeleted, particularly since the original article meets all of the following criteria:
- Multiple articles covering the music or a tour
- Albums or singles in the official charts
- Prominence within a certain genre or subculture
- Award or competition wins or nominations
- The music featured in another form of media, eg. TV shows, movies, games
- Worked with other famous figures
- Performed at major festivals or well-known venues
Wiki editors failed to discover any of these 26 new citations:
Endorse. Properly deleted. If you want to challenge or change the consensus, come back with no more than three quality sources. If the best three are not good enough, no number or worse sources will make the difference. If you bring lots of sources, few volunteers will read any of them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as Delete. The close was the correct close, not an error by the closer. The appellant appears to be saying that there was an error by the community, which is requesting that DRV be AFD Round 2. I have not reviewed the URL Dump, which is a case of reference bombing DRV, but I can see that some of the references are unreliable sources. If the appellant wants to submit a new draft for review, they should provide three good-quality references, and should also make a conflict of interest disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Nothing wrong with the close, but this is a new information DRV. Those are way too many sources to expect us to go through - the essay WP:THREE suggests demonstrating the best three for notability - but honestly, I did look through almost all of them and I didn't see anything which would make me think a mistake was made by the participants. While there's a number of links on him, apart from one or two reviews from the same potentially reliable site, there's at least some problem with the vast majority of the sources, mostly reliability or independence. SportingFlyerT·C 00:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dexter515251, can you please advise what (if) any relationship you have with the subject of the article, or alternatively if you have been paid to edit relating to this article. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is what tends to be known as a what about X argument. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia and it's volunteer effort, so it takes time to get to things, maybe some of the other articles will also get deleted, or maybe someone will research them more and find better references, or maybe there are already better references as well as the weak ones, in the end each article has to stand on it's own merits, and one of the articles has to be the "first" to be subject to scrutiny. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This sounds like it belongs in WP:REFUND. Owen×☎ 18:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no issue with the close and the nominator's "new information" (source dump of unreliable sources) is not sufficiently compelling to overturn. Daniel (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Endorse: Not seeing anything wrong with the way the AfD was closed and almost certainly it would've been closed the same way by pretty much any other administrator. In addition to WP:OSE, I think Dexter51525 might also want to take a look at WP:PROUD and WP:LUC for reference. As for the "new" sources provided above, I pretty much agree with what SportingFlyer posted above. I guess if Dexter515251 still disagrees with what's been posted above by everyone, they can perhaps seek that the content be restored via REFUND to the draft namespace and then submit to WP:AFC if they are able to find the kind of WP:SIGCOV needed to clearly establish Wikipedia notability; however, it would seem better to find those sources first and then explain what they are in the REFUND request. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The majority proposed deletion, but most of the reasons do not seem valid (WP:DEL#REASON): Never heard of, Russia is no longer emerging economically, overlap with other terms. The only reasons that seem valid are:
This is PwC's advertisments, slogans or labels / There is a distinct lack of sources about the E7: I commented that there are many academic sources (100+, with the term itself in title).
These academic sources are from predatory publishers: I checked a few of them and actually some are from high impact-factor journals (that are clearly not predatory publishers) about the topic available and provided an assessment table (see the original AfD). The only concern is about significant coverage but has not been responded yet.
I don't have a strong opinion towards keeping the article, but I believe as new information emerged, the discussion should better be relisted instead of being directly closed as delete --94rainTalk 02:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse not one of the best discussions I've ever seen. I do think there was a clear delete consensus and the close wasn't improper, but looking beyond the consensus to the arguments - has this term been discussed in reliable sources? There are a few scholarly articles, but I can't really fault the discussion and would probably have voted delete myself. I do think we could potentially relist this though. SportingFlyerT·C 13:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The AfD nominators's statement, the thread involving the nominator in this DRV and the AfD nominator and the !vote by Cortador combined with the lack of other opposition to arguments for deletion after a full discussion period plus the last comment which is essentially a pernom type comment with some not very relevant added text makes for a rough consensus that is validly grounded in deletion policy. The valid DELREASON-based argument is lack of notability. It would be best to endorse and for someone to recreate with better sourcing.—Alalch E. 16:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response to above two editors: I definitely agree there’s some consensus, but my source assessment table was added about one day before closure and there are no comments afterwards. Does that count as “significant new information”? I’d also appreciate any further evaluation of these sources. 94rainTalk 17:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a relist wouldn't have been improper but I also didn't necessarily see significant coverage in the academic articles to the extent I thought the outcome of the discussion was wrong. I likely would have !voted delete if I had been presented with those sources. SportingFlyerT·C 21:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I agree with the appellant that "never heard of it" is not a valid deletion criterion, and someone's fringe view about Russia's economic future doesn't even belong here. But there were two valid Delete !votes there - the nom, and the editor who did a thorough analysis of sources and reached the same conclusion. While some admins would have relisted to solicit more views, there was really no need for that in this case, and the AfD was closed correctly. Owen×☎ 18:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I listed the two valid reasons above, as well as my disagreement accompanied with new information (source assessment table), which I believe deserves some further discussion. 94rainTalk 19:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be arguing for the E7 article, rather than for the AfD process itself. Have you reviewed WP:DRVPURPOSE? The question before us here is not whether the E7 should exist, but whether the decision made by the closing admin correctly reflects consensus among the valid views of those participating in the AfD. If the closure was correctly based on that, but the situation has changed since then to justify recreating the article, the right venue to do that is WP:REFUND. Owen×☎ 20:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I'm more arguing about the process. I was seeking a relist instead of keep. The situation is that "4 editors !voted delete and 1 editor provided a few sources with some initial analysis near closure but no response". Is WP:REFUND the right place to continue the discussion? I appreciate your advice. 94rainTalk 20:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have new sources that weren't available (or were ignored) at the AfD, then WP:REFUND is the right place. I don't think this DRV is likely to end in anything but an Endorse decision. However, if all you can present are academic (=primary) sources, your request will likely be declined. You may want to review the policy at WP:PST. Owen×☎ 20:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was focusing on the reliability and SIGCOV aspects of GNG but rarely thought about the primary/secondary point. While I still believe a relist is the better way to go, I don't really think the article can be kept/restored at this time and will withdraw the request. --94rainTalk 21:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DRV nominator withdraw: While I believe a relist is the better way to go, I don't really think the article can actually be kept/restored at this time. I hereby withdraw my request. --94rainTalk 21:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
2023 Clarksville tornado – Speedy relist. Vacating an early close by a very Involved editor. The AfD can determine consensus, which generally isn't formed in six hours StarMississippi 02:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This closure seems a bit hasty and involved. Personally I see no reason to close an AFD less then 6 hours after it began. 166.199.98.17 (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This DRV is broken, please help.166.199.98.17 (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Closer) — It was closed as WP:SNOW. Even the AfD nominator didn’t want it deleted, but rather merged. As the SNOW closer, it was pretty obvious there was not a chance of a pure keep nor a chance of a pure deletion, given there was a single non-merge delete !vote and a single non-merge keep !vote with 7 separate merge !votes, including the AfD nominator. I’ll let other chime in, but 7 (including nominator)-1-1 seems like a decent WP:SNOW closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can see that I said that the article should be deleted in the next reply. I was thinking that the article could be deleted and then a new section would be written because the article itself was full of bloat. CutlassCiera 13:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD was going and opinion could have shifted. I believe more discussion is warranted.Especially in a case like this, in theory, more information on the storm could come out and some of the injured could die. --166.199.98.17 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (redirect). Consensus to merge and redirect. The “delete” !votes gave no rationale to delete rather than redirect.
For continued discussion, including proposals to reverse the redirect, use the talk page of the redirect target, Talk:Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023. No deletion has occurred.
@SmokeyJoe: the discussion was open for less then six hours. Don’t you think that’s too short of a time frame for consensus to form? WP:SNOW says it should only be used when there is no chance it could change and in a few days opinion might have shifted. See also WP:RAPID.--166.199.98.17 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not impressed that this was closed by a participant of the discussion, in favor of their position, and by the creator of the article. —Cryptic 23:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not fully in favor. As the closer I think the article has (had) a chance at GAN…But I was overruled by consensus, which is clearly merging. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t notice that. That is a reason for a speedy overturn, or countersign by an admin. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer the latter option from those two. —Alalch E. 00:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of procedural irregularities here, including a participant closing an AfD they are involved in that was not unanimous, and where it was not unanimous. Given this is a non-admin close, any administrator can revert it if they wish, per NACD. Daniel (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, we can't let this stand. DRV's core job is to see that the deletion processes are correctly followed and, in a wide variety of ways, this close flagrantly disregarded them.—S MarshallT/C 23:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. This is one of the most egregious violations of WP:CLOSE I've seen in a while. An involved non-admin participant in an AfD, who is also a primary editor of the article in question, decides to "SNOW" close the discussion after six hours, in their favour of course, despite multiple opposing !votes. Owen×☎ 00:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small note, there was only 1 actual oppose !vote, since the AfD nominator preferred merge to pure deletion and one of the only other two "delete" !votes further stated they were ok with merge. In actuality, there was a single !vote for delete and a single "keep" !vote that did not say they supported a merge. The keep !vote albiet was "Keep but rename to 2023 Northern Tennesse Tornado", which provides 0 policy-based reasons. The delete !vote at least was for WP:TRIVIAL. So, in reality, there was only 1 actual opposing !vote that had some standing in the AfD. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Despite the short dicussion time, there is ample reason to believe that there was a snowball's chance in hell of success for any other outcome so this was a valid application of WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR. WP:SNOW is not about unanimity, and closers invoking said policies via said essay can be WP:INVOLVED. I could now argue that there were other theoretically possible outcomes: 'Delete' was theoretically possible, extremely unlikely, but it is not meaningfully different under the circumstances, because WeatherWriter would have then added the same or similar content to the target page, and he would be moving within a free zone of editorial decision-making that AfD can't prejudicially constrain because AfD is not about making improvements to some other article, but about deleting the nominated article; a 'redirect' bold-letters close was extremely unlikely, and it is not only not meaningfully different but is pretty much identical to 'merge', as AfD is generally not a suitable place to form a consensus on what improvements to make to an article that is not the nominated article (unlike WP:PROMERGE which is held on the target article's talk page [for that reason]), and is not about improvements as such in the first place, but about deletion, so closing as 'merge' does not impose any constraints onto a potential reverter at the target article who could say "this addition is not an improvement to this article" (conversely: after a 'redirect' close, content can be copied over from the history beneath the redirect ... so 'redirect' can have the end result of actual merger, and 'merge' can have the end result of mere redirection); additions to the target article if disputed need to be discussed on the target article's talk page.—Alalch E. 00:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see nowhere in WP:SNOW or WP:INVOLVED saying involved users can make a snow close (except a withdrawal, but this was not that.) even if it would be the outcome, this is still a poor closure that should not be allowed to stand. 166.199.98.17 (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping Liz, since I was alerted via personal talk page that this was a bad closure, but Liz never commented in this discussion review. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh Probably the right outcome. Probably not worth the drama here to have closed it this way. Now you know. Jclemens (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh per Jclemens. Right outcome, but don't do early, involved, or non-admin closes like that again. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and have a proper discussion. We should not allow this sort of closure whether or not we here think it was an appropriate disposition. Thincat (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. The outcome may well be "probably right" but AfD exists because "probably right" to one person is frequently "completely wrong" to another; that's why we have discussions. People sleep at different times, not everyone is on Wikipedia 24/7, which is why AfD's run for a week. There are good reasons why speedy closures are rare, and should never be made by an involved editor. Definitely a troutable closure. Elemimele (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I do believe that merge is the right choice, but the WP:INVOLVED close must be vacated. I consider this to be a borderline snow close, and I wouldn't object if a person not involved in the AFD (or this DRV) were to re-close as a snow merge. FrankAnchor 16:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the snow closure and Relist - It is true that the closer was trying to improve the encyclopedia, but sometimes good intention is not enough. The rule against involved closures is not one which should be ignored, because ignoring it almost never improves the encyclopedia. Editors who edit articles about tornadoes should not act like tornadoes, destroying everything in their path. I previously said that editors who edit articles about tropical cyclones should not act like tropical cyclones. The principle is the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as a vastly improper and hasty closure which was WP:INVOLVED. Noah, AATalk 23:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I agree with the meh's above, but I agree more with the principle we shouldn't cater for WP:INVOLVED closes. I don't mind if someone else quickly recloses this either. SportingFlyerT·C 00:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Category:Furry Wikipedians – There is no consensus to overturn the very old CFD and/or to allow recreation of the category. Opinion is split between "keep deleted" and "allow recreation". Sandstein 13:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This article was purged along with most other identity categories in 2007. In the original discussion, many reasons were brought up to keep it, yet it was deleted. Also see this, this, this, and this. I hope in good faith we can keep this category this time around. Frigyes06 (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close I can’t see any scenario in which an over 16 year old deletion discussion would be overturned.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution. Please review this page on how to comment on deletion reviews, as "Speedy close" is not an option (because we are not discussing whether the topic should be discusses, but we are discussing the original decision). Maybe you were looking for "Endorse"? Frigyes06 (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Lister does not present any issue with the deletion process or any reason why the result ought to be changed. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation subject to another CFD, and specifically not subject to WP:G4. I do not see value in overturning a 16-year-old deletion discussion, but 16 years is a lot of time for consensus to change and the consensus in the prior CFD's was not exactly strong. FrankAnchor 14:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, it existed peacefully for over seven years starting in April 2013 until it was G4'd in late 2020 and 2021. —Cryptic 14:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are relatively few people who care about user categories, that tends to happen. Although I'm surprised Black Falcon didn't G4 it on sight when they edited it in 2017. Anyway, endorse since no actual reason for overturning is provided. If this is overturned I will be bringing it back to CfD. * Pppery *it has begun... 17:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The Gay Wikipedians category was reinstated, and I'd argue it's very similar to this case. I don't see why this category shouldn't be reinstated too. - Demomantf2 — Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? This category was (wrongly IMO) kept in August 2007, and then deleted in a later discussion in October 2007. While admittedly 2 months is a bit short for renominating after a keep closure by modern standards, the existence of the earlier discussion is not a justification to overrule the later one. * Pppery *it has begun... 19:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair point. However, I'd argue that the reinstatement of the "Gay Wikipedians" category set a precedent. I've updated my argument accordingly. Demomantf2 (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently the two admins who G4-ed this long after the so-called precedent didn't consider it to invalidate the CfD, whereas they did when I attempted to G4 Category:Pansexual Wikipedians. Perhaps that's because "furry" and "gay" are different enough from each other that a decision for one does not bind the other in either direction. And it's suspicious that this DRV is the only page you've ever edited on Wikipedia. * Pppery *it has begun... 21:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was the admin of both the Keep in Aug 2007 and the Delete in Oct 2007. I will note that the August keep was the result of a large group nomination, whereas the October delete was the result of a more focused discussion. As noted, this was 16 years ago so my memory has faded a bit. After Midnight0001 18:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per WP:USERCATNO. An appropriate RfC may change that guideline, but for now, it clearly violates Categories which group users on the basis of irrelevant likes and arguably violates Categories which group users by advocacy of a position and/or Categories that are divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive as well. Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might, but I'm not sure "Category:Wikipedian accountants" is that far from here. I'd expect someone from this community to know a lot about it. And it is a notable subject. Hobit (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's an OSE argument, but I'm fine with the Wikipedian accountants going away, too. I doubt anyone has found accountants controversial since The Crimson Permanent Assurance. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as the 2007 discussion still holds relevance (This is another notice of self-identification category, not intended for collaboration.—perfectly relevant argument that could have been made yesterday), and no significant new information has come to light since then that would justify recreation.—Alalch E. 23:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if the original discussion is an issue, but it probably isn't. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation subject to a new CFD, agreeing with User:Frank Anchor but not saying "as per". Consensus can change in sixteen years while Jupiter goes around the Sun one-and-one-half times.
Comment - My own opinion is that the category is useless, and should be deleted at a new CFD, but this is a deletion review, and we should not be constrained by an ancient decision. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per the arguments presented by Stifle, Jclemens, and Alalch E.: I have nothing more to add on the matter besides the fact I agree with all of them. SportingFlyerT·C 00:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I created Category:WikiProject Furry participants, as noted in the intro of the linked XFD. It was deleted C1 - empty, in 2008. Someone restored it in 2013 by adding the category to a userbox. The WikiProject is currently tagged as "semi-active". So my question is - What sort of collaboration is restoring this category intended to do? Is this merely a user-page self-label, which can be done by a Userbox, and should not have a category? It seems like it. If you want to self-label on your userpage, by adding a notice, go for it, per WP:USERPAGE and WP:UBX. But the categorization system should not be used for this. Categories are not "tags", and should not be used in that way. See the last line of WP:CATSPECIFIC. - jc37 10:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline to hear the case. I know; not one of the standard options here, but DRV is essentially an appeal, and as such, must follow a timely submission by the appellant. While we don't have a set statute of limitations in place, I think I speak for many here when I say that 16 years is far too long to either endorse or overturn a CfD closure. Community views have changed, the people involved have changed, and most importantly, the relevant policies have changed. This should be taken to an RfC on WT:Overcategorization/User categories, where an update to our existing WP:USERCATNO guideline can be discussed and agreed to. Once a new policy or guideline is in place, the old CfD is implicitly vacated, and the recreation of the category then depends on the revised guideline, rather than on an outdated CfD. Until then, keep deleted is the default disposition, although I don't think G4 can still be automatically applied. Owen×☎ 19:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation I don't see the problem with this, and the CFD in 2007 actually seems to have had consensus trending more towards keep than delete. EggRoll97(talk) 03:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation an XfD from 2007 isn't binding on anyone. It may well go back to CfD and get deleted again, but I think that's fine. Hobit (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. Consensus can change in sixteen years, and while I doubt it has in this case, that question should be answered at CfD rather than here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I do not feel that consensus was totally against keeping the page. Jax 0677 (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as an involved editor. A "merge" close was certainly justified from the discussion. This could of course be reevaluated in the future if sources demonstrating lasting notability become available. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse a consensus to delete was never going to emerge so soon after the crash, but there is no enduring notability. A merger is a perfect stopgap solution when there was also no consensus to keep the article. It was a flash in the pan, that's not notability. StarMississippi 18:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. In my opinion there is a consensus there not to retain the article in the AfD (delete and merge combined), and out of the two options, I chose merge as it is a valid alternate to deletion that was not rendered as an invalid option during the discussion (ie. there wasn't significant opposition to merging from those who !voted delete). Daniel (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as involved editor who voted keep. There was clear consensus that the article ought not be kept, and although I believe an interesting article could potentially be written on the media reaction to the event if there's long term coverage, I think merging was the appropriate outcome here. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was consensus not to keep the article. While there were several well-reasoned views for delete and merge, there was clearly not consensus against merging, so that was the best available option. FrankAnchor 23:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and I'd go so far as to say this is a model close for that discussion: rather than kicking the can down the road with a relist, the merge outcome allows retention of material and not as a separate page. We need more closures like this that cut through the chatter and identify the ideal policy-based outcome from a week's worth of opinions. Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus is not unanimity or near-unanimity, so consensus does not have to be totally against keeping the page for a 'delete' outcome. Sense of the group is what is needed and it's much less than totally one or the other thing.—Alalch E. 23:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The OP has made no argument whatsoever for re-evaluation, other than their cursory subjective evaluation. There's no issue with which to agree (or even discuss). Feels like snow. BusterD (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - It is not clear what the appellant wants or what their reasoning is. Do they want the page Kept, or Deleted? A consensus was not "totally against" keeping the page. A rough consensus was mostly against keeping the page. A close of Keep would be an incorrect close. The close of Merge was a valid conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It feels like the appellant simply wants another kick at the can, rather than present a substantive argument for overturning a properly closed AfD. Owen×☎ 12:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I appreciate that the closer actually parsed the comments instead of just the !votes. There was a consensus against keeping the article, and parsing the keep and delete !votes showed some support for merge. Agreeing on an WP:ATD has allowed editors to get back to covering this topic, within parameters defined by consensus. If this had been relisted or closed as no consensus, editors would still be arguing and potentially creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a good close and the practical option. Even before the close, the page contained a section about the incident at Rainbow Bridge (Niagara Falls). Since the close of one AFD does not affect content on other pages, the effect of the merge was to incorporate additional material to the main page about the bridge. A delete option in this case would not actually remove content. So, in practice delete and merge have nearly the same effect. --Enos733 (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus was against keeping the page. Merge and redirect was well supported, including by many of the “delete” !votes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I commented on this DRV to observe that the closure did not prevent merging or converting the article, or fixing any copyvios. I don't consider that to make me involved enough to be ineligible to close this especially when the closure is a week overdue, but if any other uninvolved admin feels that my closure was inappropriate, they are free to revert and close as they see fit. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Reluctant to open a DRV but no response from closer on talk [22]. There was clear consensus to do something here. 4 delete !votes, 2 others suggested conversion to disambiguation, and 2 keeps, (1 of which was "keep or merge" and the other was "keep and convert to SETINDEX"). A simple "The result was no consensus" keeps a page by default that no one unequivocally thought should be kept. The article is new, and delete arguments that it failed LISTN were unanswered. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Doczilla took a four day break, but has made a couple dozen edits today. Doczilla should answer the question on their talk page, per WP:ADMINACCT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed a lack of editing and deliberately waited until after Doczilla had made new edits, and then waited for over 12 hours more for an answer on the page. At this time it still has not been addressed. Thus my reluctantly bringing it here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having read Doczilla’s answer, …
Doczilla could add some of that to the closing statement.
My advice is to attempt the non-deletion solutions suggested, and if they don’t work, follow the advice at WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unattributed copy/paste which creates a terms of use problem that needs to be fixed. A "no consensus" outcome should have triggered an appropriate WP:CWW repair and if we do nothing else, DRV must fix this. It violates the terms of use to leave it.I do not weight the arguments as Doczilla did. Either this fails LISTN and should be deleted, or else it could be converted to a valid navigational list per CLN in which case it should exist. I would say that if the navigational list is the right way to go, the WP:PATT problems with it suggest it would be simpler to delete and start over than to repair.—S MarshallT/C 08:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a service: Nothing in the AFD closure prevents editors from merging or converting the article, nor from fixing any alleged copyright issues. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - There was no consensus. A closer has to be bold to close an AFD where the participants really are scattered all over, because, no matter what the closer does, someone is likely to take it to DRV, and here we are. If the closer finds that there was a rough consensus to do something, someone will appeal that that was a supervote, or was not what the community wanted. If the closer finds No Consensus, someone will appeal that there was a rough consensus. There was no consensus, and the closer acted reasonably in saying that there was no consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've made the suggested WP:SIA for this topic by repurposing the rubbish article as a service. The set index article should be at that name, not at the name 'List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model' which is a rather poor and useless name.—Alalch E. 17:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a WP:BARTENDER situation. There was a consensus that something besides keep needed to be done, but respondents did not agree on exactly what to do. Admin discretion for some kind of non-keep option mentioned in the discussion might be reasonable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete based on WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 by analogy. Circumstances changed in a way which has something to do with the recommendations made in the AfD.Read the last comment left by User:TimothyBlue as 'delete'. He suggested keeping with the rationale that the list should be converted into a WP:SIA at a time when there wasn't an "as a service" SIA. But now, after the AfD, there is such a SIA, however it was not the nominated list that become the SIA but the article as a service (which was in a hopeless state and the topic is not a good topic for a regular article in the first place). So, seeing that TimothyBlue's suggestion to make a SIA was actually taken up, his !vote can be understood simply as "don't keep that table-format list" under the current circumstances, meaning essentially "don't keep the page". I take it that he agrees that there need not be both lists, because that wouldn't be right since they are duplicative (set index articles are also lists). The only difference in the end result is the name. "As a service" is a good name for something (including a SIA), while "List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model" is not a good name for anything.—Alalch E. 01:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, if you feel you can read into a bolded keep !vote an actual intent to delete (or via versa), that means either the !voter is an idiot or you are stretching too far. In this case, I think you are stretching too far to guess how the changes you describe would impact his !vote. Perhaps best to ping @TimothyBlue: and ask rather than reading tea leaves. Hobit (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch E did ping TimothyBlue. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After all these years, I didn't realize that a link to someone caused a ping. Hobit (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. While I personally believe the article should be kept, that was clearly not the consensus in the AfD. True, opinions were evenly split between Delete and Merge, but the default Keep resulting from a "no consensus" close reflects the least popular view there. Anything other than Keep/no-consensus would have been closer to representing the consensus in that AfD. Owen×☎ 12:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. endorse That was a hard close, with the options being merge or NC IMO. Just no clear way forward--there was a reasonable argument for a keep, merge, and delete with more numbers leaning in the merge/delete direction. Sometimes those should be closed as merges, sometimes NC. I'm not sure which would be better here, so I have to endorse this close as reasonable. Hobit (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with pretty much everyone. There was no consensus in the discussion, but there was a consensus to do something. Since others indicated there was no objection to doing something, I boldly (mid discussion) took an axe to the article to make it an SIA , and think it now can pass SUMMARY (BEFORE, AFTER Revert if there is an objection, I know this kind of edit can be controversial mid discussion).
I don't think a relist would be productive at this time, give this six months and then renom for a fresh discussion. // Timothy :: talk 23:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue There are two "as a service" set index articles now:
the set index article as a service (it's a set index article)
Which of the two do you consider to be better? (Knowing that there are two set index articles with the same scope, do you agree that two should not exist per WP:REDUNDANTFORK but one—which one?) —Alalch E. 00:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an irrelevant question. We aren't in an AfD here. The purpose of a DRV is to determine whether the AfD was closed correctly or not. Owen×☎ 01:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a change in circumstances. I've explained it above. —Alalch E. 01:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. Nom is correct that there's a "do something" in here, but the alternative to deletion with any support at all was DAB-ification. However, As a service is already a set-index article (a "super-DAB") that covers this, and is at the obvious name for such a page. So, the AfDed page serves no function at all and isn't salvageable. The most that needs to be done here is adding entries to As a service that are missing, and the most that needs to be done immediately in that regard is a talk page post at Talk:As a service indicating what ones are missing, so editors can work on adding that material as time and interest permit. There is zero actually encyclopedic content in the AfDed page; it's simply a reformatted copy-paste of the relevant category, and it is at a crappy title (extremely unlikely search phrase) that we don't need to do anything with at all other than return it to a blissful red link. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't already a SIA when the afd was closed or, for that matter, when this drv began - it looked like this. —Cryptic 23:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the horse is already way out of the barn now. I'm one of those WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY types. There's neither any point in keeping this (it would just be redirected, and then probably WP:RFDed as an implausible search title), nor in relisting it just to delete it. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist (or just overturn to delete if we want to cut out the red tape). In the original AFD, I suggested to either merge or convert to WP:SIA. This outcome has effectively been implemented by User:Alalch E. after closure. Given the current status of the as a service article, I agree that this article is now redundant. My understanding of policy is that we're supposed to only comment on issues with the interpretation of the discussion (which arguably was correct at the time of closure) or present new information, and deletion should be done at AFD, but I think we can just WP:IAR this and delete, since it's probably going to be WP:A10ed or WP:SNOW deleted anyway. Liu1126 (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete The NLIST failure arguments are clearly the strongest. The SETINDEX arguments aren't necessarily bad arguments but if we did this it would be unnecessarily duplicative of the page it was forked from. It appears this happened post-close, so the overturn to delete should be read more as procedurally the right thing to do than classic incorrect close. SportingFlyerT·C 00:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to merge for the reasons expressed in WP:BARTENDER. The closer has some discretion to determine which merge targets is best, but the no consensus, defaulting to keep, close is not the desire of the participants in the discussion. If a merge has already been implemented (as Liu1126 suggests), then it would be appropriate to delete the article as further discussion is moot. --Enos733 (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Fixed incomplete nomination. Noting that the G4 tag is up, and this discussion was obviously started as a response to the G4 tag.—Alalch E. 12:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was a consensus to delete this page as part of the nominated bundle. No new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page.—Alalch E. 12:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion review is a place to address failures to follow the deletion process, not to bring (back) up things that were or ought to have been raised at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Nothing wrong with the G4 tag in this instance. SportingFlyerT·C 18:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Large majority of pages in category are about deaths of fraternity brothers and sorority sisters. If changed to siblicide these would need to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 13:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could. On the other hand, it can also be a reason to re-open the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster: as the closer of the discussion, would you be willing to reopen/relist the discussion on the ground that new information has been offered that was not part of the discussion? When you are, this deletion review can be procedurally closed (wrong venue) without the hassle to discuss this at WP:Move review again. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mane Magalu – Article restored to draft based on presentation of sources. While there were some irrgularities with the original AfD due to since-discovered sockpuppetry (as highlighted by S Marshall), there is no need to determine either to endorse or overturn that; the restoring to draft is based on new information. Daniel (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The article was deleted on the basis of only having one review. There are two reviews, one from Chitraloka.com[23] and one from Indiainfo.com[24]. There is also a production source [25]. Request for the deleted page to be restored as a draft so that it can be expanded. DareshMohan (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation, either in draft for AFC review, or in article space subject to AFD. Title was not salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn and restore, and I intend no criticism of closer Malcolmxl5 at all when I say this. There were three delete !voters apart from the nom, and two of them -- User:VocalIndia and User:ThePediaGeek -- were not, we now know, in good faith. They're checkuser-blocked, which places their encyclopaedic judgment in doubt, to say the least. There was of course no way for Malcolmxl5 to know this. Ironically the sockpuppet investigation into ThePediaGeek was begun only a matter of hours after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mane Magalu was closed.When I subtract their defective !votes from the discussion we're analyzing and adding the sources which have now emerged, I get to a "keep" outcome. I suppose that a meaner person than me might make difficulties because all the links above are to archives and when I check now, all three of chitraloka.com, movies.indiainfo.com and viggy.com point to 404s; but on balance I think that's not necessarily fatal.—S MarshallT/C 22:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marshall: First and foremost, thanks for your genuine vote. The three links are 404s for you? Are you talking about the original links? The archived links work. DareshMohan (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct: your archive links work but the originals all give me 404s as of right now.—S MarshallT/C 00:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grant request for the deleted page to be restored as a draft. This should be an uncontroversial request at WP:REFUND. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation nothing technically wrong with the AfD even with two bad-faith voters, but it's close to a soft delete at that point. I would allow recreation but allow anyone to bring it back for a better AfD if necessary. SportingFlyerT·C 18:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Smile (2003 film) – Article restored to draft based on presentation of sources. No reflection on the original close. Daniel (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Article deleted on the basis that no sources exist. There is a review from indiainfo.com[26], a production source [27] and a release source [28] (first half about this film in Kannada). @Pichpich:, you participated in the AfD but thought that sources may exist. How are these three sources? Request for the deleted page to be restored as a draft. DareshMohan (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation, either in draft for AFC review, or in article space subject to AFD. Title was not salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, those sources are pretty weak (and the last two are the same in different languages). If that's all we've got, I'm leaning against recreation, but I guess we could allow it in Draftspace if it is understood that the sourcing needs to improve before we move it to article space. Pichpich (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last two are different. The one in English says what it says (talks about music being completed) and the one in Kannada says as per Google Translate: The differences between the actors and the producers have been resolved and new films are opening this week. Shivarajkumar starrer 'Smile' and Vijaya Raghavendra starrer 'Vikram' are opening. Both these films were all set to release on July 11. But since the screening was canceled then, they are opening this week. and also lists the film crew. I would love to find a Deccan Herald review but that is up to @Editor5454:DareshMohan (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation as draft the AFD only had the nom plus one delete vote (excluding a struck sock vote) so it should have been closed as a soft delete (if eligible). Any good faith request to recreate must be granted. Even if not a soft delete, the additional sources presented add to the notability of the subject. FrankAnchor 13:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation as draft I almost went endorse because there's one good quality delete vote in the discussion, but it was light and there's a source-based argument here. (I have not looked at the sources.) SportingFlyerT·C 18:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Latham Park – Closure endorsed, on the basis that there is no consensus below to overturn it. However, between those advocating relist in addition to those making reference to the original nomination statement, there is enough support to note that the usual convention around wait periods for a re-nomination do not need to apply in this situation (WP:6MONTHS), provided that any new nomination for deletion is significantly stronger than the original (I note SmokeyJoe's comments in particular, with the principle shared to some extent by Thryduulf and Jclemens). Daniel (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I am the nom, I do not ordinarily dispute AfD conclusions but I feel like this was a bad close. Just on !vote counts there was 1 delete (me) 1 redirect and 1 keep - the others were unhelpful "per username" !votes. Regarding policy, the !keep vote made a policy argument which I disputed, so there was not consensus. In my opinion there should have been a relist or two, and there should have been an opportunity for other experienced editors to examine the !keep policy argument (which I believe is novel), to do source analysis and to discuss other possible redirect or merge targets. JMWt (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per nom and due to low attendance. With three keep votes (only one based in policy) and two delete/ATD votes, another week could allow consensus to form in either direction. FrankAnchor 15:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without prejudice to relisting. The "per username" comments are explicitly endorsing the view expressed by the username they cite (Govvy in this case), and as that is a full rationale based on a reasonable interpretation of policy there is no more reason to discount their votes than if they had stated the same thing in their own words. That leaves three policy-based recommendations to keep and one to redirect. The redirect argument simply asserted that there was no evidence of notability and did not address either the detailed arguments for keeping or against redirecting expressed by Govvy so cannot be afforded that much weight. There was no support for your proposal to either delete or merge. Relisting to seek more views would not have been unreasonable, and I won't stand in the way of a consensus to do that, but I also cannot fault closing this as keep. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Good close. Read advice at WP:RENOM. Your AfD nomination was weak. A better nomination would do a WP:SIRS style reference analysis, say why each is non independent, don’t just assert that all are non independent. Seriously consider whether you want to propose a merge or a deletion, AfD is not WP:Proposed merges. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - I don't normally like to reverse a close, but there hadn't been enough participation for a consensus when there three Keeps, two of whom were copy-cats, and two against Keeping, and more participation is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was no additional support beyond the nominator to delete the article (1 redirect) - and noone contested that the BBC articles brought up in the discussion were not RS. Five participants is a good number at AFD. And, the redirect option was rejected as a viable alternative. I can't see error in the close. --Enos733 (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would obviously side with Endorse, because I voted for keep. I do agree there were limit participation, but you shouldn't discount the two other keep votes just because you don't like it. What I said at AfD was more than enough, so I don't need to write anymore here. Govvy (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about me, it is about the policies and guidelines we use when discussing AfDs. I refer you to WP:PERX which states Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion (and are a form of I like it, just directed at someone's vote instead of the article itself). Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy, practice, or simple good sense to support their positions.
The fact is that 'per nom' !votes add nothing. Closers are supposed to weigh the arguments not count !votes.
As to obviously siding with Endorse, I suggest you have a clearer think about what we are doing here. There are no 'sides', there are no 'personal pages'. The question for a DRV is whether the closure proceedure is correct, not whether the correct result has been achieved. If normal proceedure had been followed in this case, allowing all editors a chance to properly consider the sources and rebut arguments, I would have no issue whatsoever with any outcome which reflected consensus. JMWt (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERX is not a "policy or guideline", it is an essay. It is not in any way binding on closers. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This was a normal AfD in which a consensus to keep formed. WP:PERX comments depend on whether the commment they point to contains a real argument or not. Govvy's comment does.—Alalch E. 12:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's not what WP:PERX says. And given that the discussion was closed before normal practices regarding rebutting and discussing sources was completed, I'm unclear how you can possibly say there was any kind of consensus. JMWt (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a consensus, it just wasn't what you thought should have developed. Relists aren't guaranteed, and your nomination garnered 0 supports, 3 opposes, and one redirect. Could there have been more participation? Sure. But it was open for a full week and not one other editor supported your nomination. SmokeyJoe's advice above is sound--look at it and build a more compelling case for next time if you choose to renominate in the future. Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Perfectly clear consensus. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Consensus was clear from the discussion. WP:PERX is an essay, not a policy, and while there's no reason those votes can't be down-weighted, consensus was still clear. The article was also significantly WP:HEYed by a non-participant and so the main deletion argument has been made moot as well. SportingFlyerT·C 18:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Even if we give the PERX !votes equal weight to the others, that still leaves a three-to-two split, which is not typically going to amount to a consensus in this context. (Obviously it would if the keep !votes were significantly stronger than the others, but I don't see anyone arguing that.) No harm in honoring the request to give this another week. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
