Who previously created this page and other editors who shared it in the deletion discussion did not have the quality pass to retain it, so this page has been removed, and as of today, this page is eligible for a new political position WP:NPOL or (officeholder), WP:GNG. category, which should be moved to draft to be edited and moved to the main page ~~
Spworld2talk 01:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD, which is three years old. Did you ask @Daniel: for a draft? It's unclear why we're here when there's no protection limiting a new article from being created. StarMississippi 11:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SM, thanks for the ping - this is the first time I'm aware of this DRV. It definitely was not discussed with me prior (noting that this is 'optional', although definitely encouraged by Wikipedia:Deletion review#Instructions). That being said, what isn't optional is the notification to the XfD closer, which is mandatory and required per step 2 of 'Steps to list a new deletion review'. Unfortunately, this wasn't done by the applicant. Daniel (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorseoriginal AfD as closed. I'm not sure what the appellant means by, should be moved to draft. Our policies have a long list of cases when an article should generally not be draftified, and some when it can, but no case where it should. If the subject's status has changed such that it now meets our notability guidelines, an article can be created, either in mainspace or in draft, and no one is stopping the appellant from doing so. If the subject's status has not changed since the AfD, draftifying is a waste of time. Owen×☎ 12:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the 3-year-old close. We get a number of requests to restore a deleted article to draft, possibly because the requester wants to start with something rather than from scratch. When the original article was found not to meet notability or not to be based on significant coverage, sometimes it really is better to start from scratch. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per the request, assuming that this person did just win the election - I have absolutely no idea of how to check. Otherwise endorse. SportingFlyerT·C 02:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Template:Historical American Documents – Overturned to split Everyone agrees the NAC, of whichever flavor, was bad. Of the people who analyzed the outcome of the discussion, including several admins and regular TfD closers, rather than just saying "vacate as a BADNAC" everyone agrees "split" was the consensus, so there's no need to go through the rigamarole of reopening and we can just overturn that now * Pppery *it has begun... 19:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Please note that the nominator did not first discuss the closer's decision with the closer, which is listed as a required step before a review. Procedural close? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed pointless, as you'd already convinced them to change their close against consensus. Needed to be seen on a wider forum. --woodensuperman 12:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep [see my comment below]While the discussion, on a quick glance, seems to be a consensus to split, in reading it carefully - as the closer eventually did before reversing their response - that falls apart quickly. Split arguments included 1) that the navbox is too large (incorrect, there are hundreds if not thousands of navboxes which are broken up into sections, and this one has four easily understood and distinct sections), 2) that the navbox includes duplication (incorrect, each of the four sections lists individuals who drafted a particular document. That some were active in two events is akin to sportspeople playing two seasons of a sport, a sport which formed a 250 year old nation), 3) that other navboxes exist (there are signatory navboxes for each document, which are used in place of adding the central navbox to each signer) and 4) that there is a basis for splitting because of a previous discussion (incorrect, the rational fails when realizing that although this navbox was used as an example in an earlier discussion there were no notification tag placed - not on the navbox, not on its talk page, not on the pages of its topic structure, and not on the talk page of its creator). This collapsed and typically sectioned navbox actually saves space, has an accurate visible title ("Founding documents of the United States") and has been carefully edited and maintained since 2010. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the two "keep" !votes, both converstaions were practically unanimously in favour of a split. --woodensuperman 12:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You missed some editors, more than two. There was only one conversation involved in this request, the first only used the navbox as an example without notifying anybody that it was being scrutinized. I address the split above (please remember that these decisions are not made by counting heads). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, only yourself and Gwillhickers advocated for "keep". --woodensuperman 12:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy vacate and leave for an admin, Toadette is not ready to be closing XFD's, especially contentious ones where there's clearly a split in opinion as is evident here. I'm not familiar enough with templates or I'd have done it myself. StarMississippi 12:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Star Mississippi, the discussion may tend to confuse inexperienced closers, as it did initially for Toadette who, when asked, took another read and came to what I view as the correct conclusion. Hopefully an admin will take a good long look at this one, grab some coffee, view the "Founding documents of the United States" navbox, and create a solid mental map of the two "sides" before completing their analysis. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: @Woodensuperman and Randy Kryn: you have both commented verbosely and continuously at all venues related to this discussion. I would kindly ask that you cease commenting and let uninvolved editors discuss the matter. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy vacate and revert on sight any other BADNACs by this out-of-control editor. Every few days we have to undo another BADNAC from this one editor. Enough already. Owen×☎ 14:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you accusing me that I am "out of control"? ToadetteEdit! 12:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I think any sensible editor, after seeing two of their XfD closes get vacated or overturned as BADNAC within a week, would step back and figure what they've been doing wrong. You, however, went right on to make your third BADNAC. It took a failed RfA to finally convince you to stop. I know your intentions were good, but this level of tone-deafness is incompatible with a crowdsourced, collaborative project. I've been closing AfDs for 18 years, and even now, when editors tell me I'm doing something wrong, I listen, learn, and adjust my actions accordingly. That's the only way things work. Owen×☎ 13:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate per User:Star Mississippi. I don't see a guideline for Speedy Vacates. Should there be one, or do these editors just mean that it is obvious that the close should be vacated? The original close of Split was a valid close, and did not need to be changed, and changing it did not reflect consensus, so much as an argument from one of the two editors who has been bludgeoning this discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "summarily" would have been a better term than "speedy". I (and, I'm guessing, Star Mississippi) believe this DRV can be closed by any uninvolved admin without waiting the statutory seven days. Owen×☎ 15:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally speaking, Deletion-related closes may only be reopened by the closer themselves; by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity... or by consensus at deletion review, which is somewhat ambiguous about whether one can re-open as an individual admin action while a DRV is progressing, but does not expressly forbid it like some other wordings I've seen. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I read prongs #2 and #3 of that policy to imply that if there's a rough consensus to summarily vacate, any uninvolved admin may close the DRV and revert the XfD closure, without waiting for the DRV to run its course. Leaving this here for seven days isn't a disaster, but I also see no benefit to doing so if there's a consensus to vacate. Owen×☎ 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for confusion and delay @Robert McClenon. My proposed course of action was clause A as @Primefac noted. When a close is contentious (as this is), my POV is the action can be speedily undone by an uninvolved admin, as some of this editor's closes (and other bad NACs) have been. Personally believe seven days for the sake of process here only to likely kick it back to TFD seems like process wonkery,but that might be IAR. StarMississippi 00:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, Robert McClenon I was sort of shocked to find that after the closing at decision to keep, woodensuperman went to the Template:Historical American Documents and tagged the template for deletion. IMO, this was nothing more than a vindictive reaction from someone disgruntled over ToadetteEdit 's decision and closure. Because of the developments that occurred here the tag has been (was) reverted, just for the record. Additional note: Initially there was indeed a clear consensus to split, and only split, the template, but once it became evident that one editor was not content with just splitting but wanted to further make edits to the would be separate templates, and kept making one point of contention after another, even many of the notified editors didn't bother to pursue a never ending discussion, so it's perfectly debatable as to whether all the involved editors still wish to split. IMO,Toadette.'s decision, all things considered, was certainly called for. Latest: As I write, Woodensuperman has just restored the tag for deletion. Could someone please deal with this editor? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwillhickers: the only tag I see there is the DELREV tag, linking to this review here, as required by policy. Am I missing something? Owen×☎ 20:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a tag for deletion review. In any case, we can let the tag ride, because it seems this nomination, also, isn't going anywhere. I bowed out of the original and belabored discussion days ago. Opting to outright delete the entire template simply because a nomination to split didn't go as expected, is an overkill request and completely uncalled for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tag is to notify people of this discussion, not to delete anything. Deletion review is simply where you go to appeal a closed decision. SportingFlyerT·C 21:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers, the tag is to direct editors here, as SportingFlyer said, not to "outright delete the entire template". Your removal of the tag, while well-intentioned, was wrong. In the heat of battle, you seem to be mistaking good-faith actions for combativeness. A deletion review is what we're doing here now: reviewing the closure of that TfD. No one here is suggesting we outright delete the template. Owen×☎ 22:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I assumed that the purpose of the discussion was to delete the template. My mistake. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Owen×☎ 22:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gwillhickers - The template that indicates that another template has been nominated for deletion looks like {{tfd}}. The template that is on the template under discussion is {{delrev}}. Click on them to view the difference. A deletion review is an appeal or reconsideration of a previous deletion discussion. This discussion is a deletion review. I can see that you were reasonably confused. 00:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Overturn to Split. There's only one way to close that discussion. It was also poorly closed, so I don't care if the BADNAC is simply undone and re-closed by an administrator. I think we're also close to handing out topic bans. SportingFlyerT·C 21:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does Speedy Vacate mean to open the nomination again for an administrator to closely study the discussion and make a new close?, then that's the one I'd pick. Have struck my keep comment above. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I mean by my !vote, yes. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to split. I knew this should be split, so I closed it, but anouther editor convinced me of the closure and demanded me of amending to so the template should be kept, and so I've amended the close. Since I've stopped closing discussions following complaints on my talk page and elsewhere, I looks like it should be overturned and not vacated. ToadetteEdit! 11:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a participant but clearly not an active one relative to the discussion, the clear consensus appears to be split. So overturn to that. I have no strong opinion on having an uninvolved editor (per TFD closing procedure) re-close. "BADNAC" is not pertinent to this case. Izno (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. BADNAC says nothing more than the discussion is contentious and should not have been closed by an inexperienced, non-admin editor. That is, in principle vacating the close is less an indictment of the closer than overturning the decision is. Jclemens (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BADNAC doesn't apply for two reasons: 1, it's an essay. 2, we're talking about TFD. That essay was written for AFD closes, and this isn't one. The actual policy on the point is at WP:NACD and the most interesting point it makes is Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. (emphasis mine), so BADNAC is also out of step with documented policy.
It's fair to say that a particular close was bad and that didn't document the consensus correctly in this case. It's not fair to say that that's because of "BADNAC". Izno (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Izno, out of curiosity, are you saying that the original close was bad, or that the re-close and self-overturn was bad? Primefac (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original close was fine (the clear consensus appears to be split). I am making a point about how BADNAC likes to creep into discussions in which it has no place. Izno (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter if something is an essay if it's applied consistently in practice as BADNAC is - with your first point, you're arguing that BADNAC can never apply to anything because it's an essay. That's completely inconsistent with how we treat BADNAC. SportingFlyerT·C 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then consider whether you should be treating BADNAC that way. Izno (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We absolutely should, it works very well in practice. Why are you implying otherwise? SportingFlyerT·C 22:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It discriminates solely on whether a user is an admin. Izno (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why it is needed. SportingFlyerT·C 22:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, if it is needed it is because we have inexperienced users, not because we have users who are not admins. Consider that you (in the specific) are disenfranchising yourself from closing divided discussions with your current line of argument, despite what would appear to me to be sufficient experience to do so, and it's solely because of a particularly arbitrary divider.
Secondly, as pointed out above, the essay diverges meaningfully from what our current guideline text is. BADNAC the shortcut bans such closes, our guideline says "you shouldn't". If someone would like to change the guideline text, there is a talk page for that and an RFC process I'm sure would be disputed. BADNAC the shortcut should instead reflect the relevant guideline, but it doesn't (and the only reason I can assume it does not is because of some POV pushing or another about who should be able to close discussions, but I'm sure someone can AGF to find another reason).
Thirdly, it is trivial to say "this close was bad" without pointing to whether the closer was of some arbitrary experience level—"comment on content, not contributor". If anything, such an essay or the guideline section of interest should be pulled out only to ask users to stop when they have made multiple bad closes. It's appropriate on a user talk page or at AN, not in a discussion about potentially overturning a specific close.
Anyway, we are clearly into arguing the generalities in a discussion that does not hinge on those generalities. I will move on. Izno (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to split. I was going to close the discussion a day or two before Toadette got to it but got sidetracked; their original close matches what I was reading from the discussion. I don't really see a point in reopening just for myself (or I suppose, another admin now) to close in the same way. Primefac (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Saira Shah Halim – Both the most recent AfD "delete" closure and the speedy deletion of the one-sentence recreation are endorsed, and the title is salted. Sandstein 21:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The deletion discussion was taken without any proper discussion based on policy happening. The article had enough reliable sources with significant coverage over a wide period of time. I provided a wide list of sources. Two participants simply did not see anything and made vague comments, one of them was a brand new account and the other's only objection was that it was edited by sockpuppet. One more participant later came and after some discussion he accepted that the coverage was fine but he did not consider the topic notable because the topic didn't meet WP:NPOL ignoring WP:BASIC and also WP:GNG itself which the coverage meets. There was no other participation. Therefore it must have been no consensus or keep, not delete.
P.S, there was one more participant who concurred but didn't give a (vote) and wanted to see some more sources over a wider period of time which I showed but she didn't come back to it. It should be counted too. MrMkG (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original AfD, since everyone except the DRV nominator supported deletion so it couldn't have been closed any other way. Overturn the A7 since I think being a political candidate is a CCS even if it isn't evidence of notability, but re-delete that as a G4. And salt* Pppery *it has begun... 02:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original AFD as Delete. As per Pppery, Overturn the A7. I haven't seen the reposted article, but having seen the history, I concur with salting. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of non-admins, the A7'd version stated in its entirety "Saira Shah Halim is the CPI(M) candidate of South Kolkata Lok Sabha." (No sources.) Arguably it's more of a G4 than an A7. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ I am confused. Did someone create the article again with that single sentence after the article was deleted in AfD recently and is that what all the admins are seeing?
I would request them to see the article that was created by me and deleted in the 2nd AfD nomination and see the conversations in the 2nd AfD nomination. It was a proper article, multiple paragraphs long divided into multiple sections with multiple sources.
This DRV is about that. It shouldn't be deleted just because some sockpuppet or whatever is active around it too. MrMkG (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what happened. I think everyone here is aware that you're talking about the second AfD (which people are calling "the original AfD"); they just have comments on the deletion of the single-sentence version too. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the only thing they really have comments on and it's an absolutely minor frivolous thing about "A7" or "G4" of a later single sentence nonsense recreation, not the actual article or AfD.
7 of the 8 people who have said something here are like that. MrMkG (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD-deleted article was thousands of bytes, with multiple sections and eight references. The speedy-deleted article, as you see from Extraordinary Writ's comment, was one sentence. It's obviously not a repost, and obviously not a G4 candidate. Anyone can be a candidate for political office; it's not at all a claim of importance merely to be a candidate. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have A1'd it after my third failed attempt at finding an article at some subphrase of South Kolkata Lok Sabha, if I somehow didn't notice the previous version. I also disagree on G4 - the new substub was a proper subset of the version deleted at AFD. It's immaterial, anyway. No reasonable person is going to leave that in mainspace after we deleted the full article that was here. —Cryptic 03:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AfD was poorly argued. Even though numerical consensus was against the appellant, statements like Extensive coverage of a non-notable person doesn't help. are not policy based, and demonstrate a bias against failed political candidates, as if that somehow eliminated their GNG compliance. Of course, that GNG compliance itself is challenged by the general unreliability of Indian news sources overall. Neither G4 nor A7 applied to the recreation. In short? This is a big mess, and I'm not sure deletion is a better outcome than no consensus, given the amount of uncertainty and poor policy argumentation in play. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indian news sources are not overall unreliable. How can we create any article if that is so? There are many bad sources but I did use the best sources. Two of them (Indian Express, The Wire) are green marked on the page WP:RSPS and none of the others are yellow or red marked. MrMkG (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - G4 should be clarified that it applies when the page in question is a subset of the deleted page, and, in the meantime, should be interpreted as applying when the page in question is a subset of the deleted page. The recreation after the AFD was a stupid subset of the deleted page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome, can you tell me what do you mean by "original decision"? Is it the first AfD from 2016? If you want help finding out whats out of order, it is that WP:CONSENSUS needs one to make policy based arguments which was not made in the 2024 AfD in question.
In the AfD, one claimed "extensive coverage of a non-notable person doesn't help" which makes no sense policy wise. The other two were vague handwave comments, one (a 33 edit old account) said that was no in-depth coverage but there was (examples in the AfD and Amakuru mentions it too) and the other completely ignored GNG. JoelleJay (only comment) and Oaktree b even accepted that there was significant coverage.
The non policy complaince problem of the deletes in the AfD have been highlighted by 3 others by now; Amarkaru (here), Liz (here) and Jclemens (above). MrMkG (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Jclemens, can you please follow up and give a final opinion of overturn or endorse instead of leaving it only as a comment? MrMkG (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
