Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 November

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 00:01, 31 October 2020 (Create monthly log page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< October 2020 Deletion review archives December 2020 >

30 November 2020

[edit]

29 November 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Public image of Donald Trump (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I am requesting that this page be moved to draft space. Consensus was that this topic is notable, but the article lacked substance. I propose building off of Donald Trump#Public profile. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I do not see this as "no consensus"; note in particular reference in the nomination to previous TfDs; and to prior discussion about whether to nominate the templates individually or collectively, which makes the closer's "I suggest usage be addressed on a per-page basis" particularly egregious. Closer has declined to reconsider. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[adding] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse Given the RfC and this discussion, I think there isn't consensus to remove this everywhere it is used. I don't think there is even consensus to migrate everything over time. I think it's going to have to be done at a lower resolution if at all. Hobit (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer cmt: nothing egregious at all, as I have expanded on at Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_discussion#Sidebar_batch_nominations. By the way, this is the second time you've not notified me of a DRV per the instructions, using {{DRVNote}} or otherwise. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC) e: Neither was step 4 or 5, it seems. I have done that for you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Classic no consensus close. Not sure there's any other way to close that one as both sides raise policy-compliant arguments. SportingFlyer T·C 00:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, probably. ... only, the close has led to the old-fashioned template to be revived (instead of just tolerated), and that direction is sure to produce heat where it seemed all quiet, - what can we do to avoid that? No major opera by a major composer has that template, unless the article was written by one of its supporters (Handel and Offenbach). We have it left in minor operas by minor composers (see Donizetti), and it's not good for peace to have to argue again and again, on top of being a waste of time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This close should not have changed the status quo as it existed on 21 October 2020. If it has, that's an interpretation of the close which is further than I intended it to be. If, however, you're referring to the inherent nature of a NC close, then that's hardly the fault of the close, rather of a nomination. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we look at one case? Rita (opera).
    In other words: what we have now is the worst "solution", while I assume in good faith that is was meant as a compromise. Can we please return to the version with ibox only, in keeping with project opera's guidelines, similar to all masterworks by Donizetti (Lucia di Lammermoor), and following the intentions of the principal authors? - This is one of many cases of needless edit warring, instead of creating new articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1 December restore ibox improved --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure of the exact nature of the problem here, and I'm not aware of the close having any knock-on effects - I'm simply noting that as someone uninvolved, I see no error, nor do I see any other way of closing that discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 11:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. WP:BADNAC#2. Further, that close does not advance on the problem. I read a consensus that there is a problem, a rough consensus to delete, with a minority against and an inkling of other solutions to satisfy the "keep" !voters' concerns. I read the "delete" arguments as stronger, and the "keep" arguments focusing on its usefulness in some respects, which begs a solution, and the discussion was yet to get there. The "no consensus" close is a cop out, and the closer's third paragraph that speaks to this I read as a supervote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The tally was 5k 6d, I would not say "a minority against" fairly represents that. Nor would I say it's a supervote, after all I closed 2 previous sets of transclusions as delete - I take no opinion on the matter. BADNAC is an essay and TfD is far more liberal with NAC closers than any other deletion venue; "controversial closes" are regular. As for the rest, others can decide, but these three do not seem correct to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me try putting my reading another way: You made a thoughtful and intelligent contribution that advanced the discussion, but, because you closed, shut the door to responses, the discussion doesn’t progress. I think it wasn’t ready to be closed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was open for 5 weeks, relisted explicitly twice (once by me), and implicitly four times. Participation dwindled, with the last reply over one week before my close. I'm not sure what else is expected here - I can't force a consensus to happen. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair response. What else is expected? Ideally, what is missing is the path forward. As closer, you probably feel it is not for your to implement your conclusion? Would it help if all participants agreed to your close? I just think movement forward would be more likely if your conclusion were presented as a !vote for others to then support. Can we ask each participant whether they agree? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NACAFD, non-admins can close TfDs as delete, meaning BADNAC #2 isn't really relevant here, especially because a quick check shows ProcrastinatingReader is a regular closer of TfDs. I'm not willing to call this a BADNAC in the least. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You don’t seem to be talking to BADNAC#2. “Regular closer” does not mean “good at difficult closes”. “Can” does not mean “should”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closer was not flying blind here. They sought advice at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion, and I opined there in no uncertain terms that there was an absence of clear consensus for the change sought, particularly given the number of articles that would be affected by it. I have no opinion on the underlying issue of whether these templates should exist, but I would have closed this discussion exactly the same way. BD2412 T 07:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit the close was correct, only, it has been interpreted as an invitation to revive the template in cases where it had been replaced by an infobox (where a navbox was there), or by infobox and navbox. Project opera's style guide recommends infobox and navbox. The template is old-fashioned and "clunky", and can be kept if an author absolutely insists (knowing or not that readers don't see the image it presents, and the content is only visible if you click on "show" which is an accessibility problem). If a close is worded in a way that prevents further steps backwards, then why not, but the template really should not be implemented any more, and when improved not be reverted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of the templates were removed while the deletion discussion was in progress. As per above, the close restores "the status quo as it existed on 21 October 2020", which was that those articles included these templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The removal had nothing to do with the template deletion, it was only prompted by it. The removal was following the 2013 advice of project opera, per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 115, first thread, saying that an infobox is available to be used together with a horizontal navbox. If a navigational device seems needed at the top (which I doubt is useful) it can be part of the infobox. Donizetti: principal author Viva-Verdi of most of these added infoboxes - without navigation on top - for all operas by Verdi. Sadly, he died before going further for other composers. I feel that I work for his memory giving Donizetti's works the same style. Please consider to revert your changes to Donizetti's operas. I care less about the others, but this is a matter of friendship and respect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ps: Falstaff (opera) was made a featured article in loving memory of Viva-Verdi. I had forgotten, and remember now with tears. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close reflected the discussion. Questions such as what best helps with navigation on certain articles are largely opinion-based, and as a result there's little scope for the closer to apply any strength of argument considerations. The participants were pretty evenly divided on the subject. Whether other similar discussions were closed as Delete isn't relevant. A wider RfC which decided that sidebars such as this one should be removed would definitely be relevant, but there doesn't seem to be one. A "no consensus" closure at TfD is definitely not a good reason to revive a template, on the contrary it's not a reason to do anything at all by definition. Hut 8.5 17:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All fine, only: something was done citing the close. Would you have means to educate the editor? Compare La favorite, showing Today's featured picture. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Neutral I agree pretty much word-for-word with SmokeyJoe's analysis. However, I'm a little reluctant to say the closer totally erred; it wasn't a dumb or supervoting decision, but a mistake of under-consideration of relative strengths of arguments, and of the pre-existing consensus record on these templates. This is one of those cases where no consensus could easily result from a casual analysis (one that leaned a little toward just head-counting, or treating various arguments as effectively equal, when on deeper inspection they are not). But casual analysis doesn't cut it here; this was no SNOWBALL. The fact that prior batches of the exact same pile of templates were all successfully deleted is important here. All of the reasoning in those TfDs also pertains to this one, and had this been properly factored in, then the result would have been an obvious delete (especially since much of the keep reasoning is listed in various sections of WP:AADD). Maybe TfD closers just don't think about this as much as other XfD and RM closers do. If this round of discussion isn't the first [non-ancient] one, then the previous rounds' input must also be considered to properly assess the community's views on the matter. Otherwise the result is a false "micro-consensus".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you're saying, but the issue imo with trying to rely on this kind of recent precedent is this: about 20 transclusions were deleted, and since the 70 transclusions of this template weren't tagged then (or even now, which is a bit of a procedural error) users of those templates weren't notified, which is why we got new editors participating in this discussion. Using this reasoning I could take any template with 150 transclusions, nominate a low-controversy 30 for "unused/bad template", and then nominate the remaining high-controversy 120 per "previous transclusions deleted" even if there was no consensus on that 120. That was my reasoning on why I had to be careful deciding how much weight to give to the previous sets I closed. It's hard to completely delete a meta-template without a clear consensus against its core premise, if actively being used with even a couple of transclusions objecting. So I did think about it, but decided against the reasoning - whether that decision was correct or not is still up for debate :P ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC); rev'd.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I think I can buy that, at least marginally. And it's not like they can't be nominated again later in "escalating chunks". Big-ol' cleanup efforts often have to be done that way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There was No Consensus. When there is no consensus, No Consensus is a valid close. It isn't up to DRV to decide whether there also would have been another valid close, because this was valid. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as to me there's no consensus in this discussion, and neither has a strong enough wider consensus developed to explicitly prohibit these sidebars - the separate previous discussions where individual composers' sidebars were nominated and duly deleted are instructive, but not precedent-setting. This was a worthy attempt to try and avoid a load more individual discussions, but this is the risk one takes with what is effectively a batch nomination - legitimate individual objections to some of the affected pages result in increased difficulty to get a strong consensus to deal with the group in its entirety. I find myself generally in agreement with ProcrastinatingReader's close here, as well as the comments regarding batch nominations made at Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_discussion#Sidebar_batch_nominations - but there's little fault to be apportioned here. I think Pigsonthewing was very justified in attempting the batch nomination, it's just that I think this ended up being too bold in trying to sweep up everything at once. Smaller batch nominations based on a specific problem, or ones that expressly appear uncontroversial, may yet be an efficient way of dealing with this, but ultimately these sidebars are affecting articles that are closely related in topic, but aren't necessarily edited by people with the same stylistic views. ~ mazca talk 13:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Ashish Chanchlani – Endorsed - as usual, this doesn't preclude using the deleted copy as the basis of a new draft, so if you can try that, but be confident you have the sources you'd need to avoid speedy deletion under G4 for an article falling under the same discussion before you invest much effort in it, eh? WilyD 19:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC) WilyD 19:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ashish Chanchlani (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
AfD1 = WP:Articles for deletion/Ashish Chanchlani
AfD2 = WP:Articles for deletion/Ashish A. Chanchlani

I voted delete in the second nomination of the page as then I failed to find three, Later when I searched for him in detail I found that he clearly meets WP:GNG and for the evidence I am providing those links below:

and I also came across the fact that he is one of the most Influential Youtubers in India and comes in top three alongside Bhuvan Bam and Ajey Nagar. so I feel that the page must be restored where editors can improve the article as per wiki noms, Thanks. Dtt1Talk 08:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well this is an interesting case. The discussion was clearly closed correctly so endorse close. But we have what seem to be new sources that look quite reasonable on their face. I guess the best bet is to ping the delete !voters and see if the sources above get them to change their mind? I'd like others to chime in first, but I can't see us overturning that discussion based on those sources unless the delete voters feel that the above sources are enough. While they look good, Indian sources are tricky to evaluate (lots of PR releases that look like article IME) and I'm loath to overturn, or even relist, given that discussion. Hobit (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is ju*st more WP:TE about this subject see this discussion as well. How many times are we gonna do this? Praxidicae (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But DRV isn't for litigating notability, it's for discussion of closes. In this case, it was correct and should not have been anything but delete, so endorse close. Praxidicae (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also the source evaluation is...bad. This is a Tiger Beat style "about me!", it's not independent coverage in the slightest. This is basically a gossip piece with quotes from IG and not actual coverage. This existed in the last 3 (or more?) discussions and I wouldn't exactly call this meaningful journalism and this is a puff piece chock full of PR gibberish and bad grammar that I'd expect an actual editorial board with standards to proof read. Praxidicae (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New sources are a reason to reevaluate an AfD. "[I]f significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" is a reason to open a DRV. The sources appear to be reliable, but again, I'm not going to claim to be great at evaluating Indian sources. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I am also pinging the voters from the AFD so the consensus can be done clearly, @Neurofreak:, @DMySon:, @Oaktree b:, @Hatchens:, @Sjakkalle:, @Superastig:, @Devokewater:, @Ab207:, @Pharaoh of the Wizards:, @Bonadea:, @Bmf 051:, @Aguy777:, @Hako9:, @Spiderone: and @Cyphoidbomb:. Dtt1Talk 06:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Clear consensus to delete. The "keep" !voters make only weak assertions of sources meeting the GNG, unsubstantiated. The proffered sources fail, they are not independent of the subject. A publication commenting on the subject is not independent if it is made with the assistance of the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - on both occasions the decision to delete was clearly based on a correct judgment of consensus Spiderone 09:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - I always thought that "significant coverage" meant that a journalist (or whomever) would have written about the subject, Chanchlani, and/or his work, in significant detail. Of the four articles newly presented, only the Republic article really attempts to do this, diving into his videos and subscription numbers, etc. The rest are relatively fluffy. The Indian Express summarises Chanchlani's Tweets/Instagram posts. Big deal. No new analysis of Chanchlani or his work. Not really independent. The Telangana Today article feels like someone slid two videos across the PR desk and asked someone to review them. Maybe someone could argue that the videos are notable, but since notability isn't inherited... The New Indian Express source is not independent and doesn't speak about the subject or their work in depth. Someone once said at an AfD that just because someone is popular doesn't mean that they are notable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - We have discussed it multiple times, reviewed all the sources (including new ones). The subject is still far from being notable for WP:BIO. Also, there seems to be an attempt from the subject's side for paid editing. Neurofreak (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Recreation: It was agreed to be deleted and I respect the outcome. As one of the users who voted to keep it, the Delete arguments are stronger than the Keep arguments. However, Cyphoidbomb seemed to be flinging personal attacks on DMySon. DMySon does have a point in what he said. He did his best in improving the article and it's no big deal if he reached out for Oaktree regarding the article. I see no vote stacking involved. As for me, I looked into the sources indicated by DMySon and I believe they're reliable enough for the article to pass WP:GNG. I had explained enough. To be honest, there's really nothing wrong with our statements. Since the article is still good enough to pass the said criterion with the sources indicated by Dtt1, I have no problem id the page will be recreated in the near future. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Recreation or Draftify: I agree with @Superastig: that the outcome was delete as the Keep voters failed to prove why it should be kept, But if we truly go unbiased with the subject then it DOES have references on Reliable sources, There are atleast 1000+ pages on wikipedia which have low standard references as compared to this subject but they are allowed to be kept just because they aren't deleted or don't have any such history, But there are many subjects who have done notable works and have enough sources to pass a standalone article but they are considered as not notable!? I personally felt and had voted for the delete for this one, but as I said we need to really be unbiased to make wikipedia a much better place and that's the reason I chose to open a DRV case, as I feel the the subject DO have enough sources to be considered as Recreate, And I have also seen that Indian Media which are truly reliable are misinterpreted as Non reliable, We SHOULD have a group of experienced Indian Editors who can raise the consensus in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and can get the Indian Media listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as there are few of them only which are mentioned. Dtt1Talk 07:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Recreation or Draftify: The closer didn't err (and I have no interest in any of the interpersonal drama mentioned above), but if we have sufficient sources now for a proper article, then great. AfD isn't forever (well, it is for total nonsense and hoaxes and such).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment:Here are few more new sources to establish Notability Business Today (India) This, Deccan Herald This, National Herald This. Businessworld This Dtt1Talk 12:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those have even bylines, all appear to be PR stuff they just reprinted. Can't be sure, but it reads like a PR piece and the lack of a byline makes it very likely just a PR bit. Hobit (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 November 2020

[edit]

27 November 2020

[edit]

26 November 2020

[edit]
  • Roman Staněk – Endorsed - if you want it draftified, ask me or whoever else. If you create a new, non-G4able version and want it unsalted, also just ask (the SALTing is clearly premature anyways, since it was recreated once, not repeatedly). WilyD 14:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC) WilyD 14:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Roman Staněk (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The participation was minimal and the only argument given was that the person does not meet WP:NMOTORSPORT. NMOTORSPORT clearly says "Have driven in a race in a fully professional series." The subject hasn't driven a not one race in a professional series, but has driven a whole season in the 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship, which does count as a professional series, making the only given argument invalid. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 21:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow Re-creation as Draft with a reliable source showing that the guideline is satisfied. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. While reviewing this I asked the article creator for more sources but got nothing. I sought help from WikiProject Sports Car Racing and another editor asked at WikiProject Motor Sport. No sources were forthcoming to I took it to AfD. The other editor who took part agreed that notability was not established and the discussion was properly closed. This article was previously created by a blocked sockpuppet, deleted, and then recreated. Mccapra (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There's no list of fully professional motorsport leagues, other drivers in that series appear woefully undersourced as well, and there's nothing on wikipedia at least showing F3 is "fully professional" and a quick search shows that only the winners get prize money. He's a BLP who failed WP:GNG which is a requirement of WP:NSPORT, so the deletion is proper regardless, though if more sources can be shown I'm fine with recreating the article. I don't know enough about the topic and may be wrong on this but it might open up looking at whether some other drivers in the series meet notability guidelines as well. SportingFlyer T·C 11:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the participation in the AfD was minimal and we have a reasonable objection to the rationale for deletion, so this should be restored as a contested soft deletion. I don't think we can justify salting it on the basis of two deletions, one by a banned user. Hut 8.5 14:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Low participation, but my quick search for sources turns up many, but I would label all I saw as “promotional” as indicated by featuring professional photography and subject interview, or not independent commentary but directory information blurred with non-secondary source reports. A fifteen year old rising motorsport star, of course there is going to be lots of promotion, and there is, and so great care is needed in testing for notability. Encourage draftifying and use of the WP:THREE standard for mainspacing. Also encouraging adding mentions to existing articles, not being mentioned anywhere else in Wikipedia is a strong sign of non-notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist Never relisted, !vote was fairly weak (and maybe wrong). No consensus yet. WP:SOFTDELETE could also be a reasonable call I guess, but I think relist is a better bet. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 November 2020

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

The article was originally deleted because the sources were stated as not reliable by an user. However, all the sources used for the article belonged to independent newspapers well known in Israel's high tech ecosystem (Globes, Calcalistech, NoCamels, etc.). Moreover, if the original article is undeleted I will add new sources so it will be better back up. Many thanks in advance. Best regards Alerogue (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 November 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of second overall National Football League draft picks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The first AfD was closed without any sort of real discussion beyond the OP making his argument to keep. As for why it should be deleted, I just don't see the independent notability in going 2nd in the draft, unlike going 1st. Why not make a list about 3rd overall picks? 4th? 5th? At what point does the arbitrariness of this stop? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 November 2020

[edit]

22 November 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Community Regional Medical Center (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article about a large regional medical center was deleted after a discussion with only two participants (including the nom) for WP:ORG notability issues, in spite of the hospital notability guidelines at the time stating "In practice, large, regional hospitals will almost always meet all of these [notability] standards". Notability is not solely based on article references, it is based on the existence and availability of sources. This article's references may not have established notability, but the article could be improved by finding and adding additional references to establish notability, if such sources are believed to exist, as in this case, rather than deletion. In response to this deletion discussion, the hospital notability guidelines were revised (based on this discussion) to make clear that level I trauma centers, including the hospital in question here, are likely to easily meet these criteria. I therefore think a return to mainspace with a refimprove tag, or a return to draftspace so that references can be added before a return to mainspace, would be warranted. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you have a solid argument. That said, can you provide a few (three or four) sources you think best help meet WP:GNG? Given it has been deleted, "likely" is probably not enough by itself. Sources need not be online, but you should have access to them. Hobit (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Front page of the Fresno news the day it opened. One of the "25 busiest centres" in the country. Opening story: [1] Follow-up article on the move: [2] I know another source would be great, but that's just from the opening year. I'd support an overturn per nom. Also, the timing of this one is interesting on my end: there are a number of regionally notable building articles at AfD right now which are undersourced or barely sourced which clearly meet GNG if you do any non-Google legwork, and I've put some effort into finding sources today for a few of these buildings already. I'm worried consensus will trump GNG for these articles as it did for this one. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see those sources, but I have faith in the fact that your bar for the GNG is higher than mine. Plus that probably should be treated as a WP:SOFTDELETE in any case. As such, restore article with no prejudice against a new AfD (after a few weeks to let folks find and add sources). Hobit (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Request the deleting admin to userfy/draftify it for you, add some better sources, and then ask the deleting admin if these sources overcome the reasons for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, so, it was entirely sourced to the hospital's website (I've temp undeleted it so we can all see); the best course of action would be for someone to take it to Draft or their sandbox, add at least one good, third party source (making it G4 ineligible), then move it back to the mainspace. If there's such a volunteer, I say let 'em have it. Otherwise, I don't see a way forward. I certainly can't fault the close. WilyD 08:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to take action with multiple disagreeing viewpoints here (including my own). If this DRV closes as undelete, it'd be wise to add the sources to stave off another AfD (which seems likely). If it's endorsed, then it can be draftified or emailed to you or something. WilyD 14:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: There is no SIGCOV for this subject. The sources in the article are all from the hospital and the sources above are common, ordinary news every hospital would receive in local news. The "hospital notability guidelines" mentioned above are not guidelines but an essay, but if it is considered it states, "Articles about hospitals, clinics, and related organizations must comply with the WP:ORG notability standard" (em mine). There are no sources showing the subject meets the criteria in the ORG guideline. If the Hospital essay is considered, it states "as an absolute minimum" three criteria which the subject does not meet. Fails GNG, ORG, and HOSPITAL; likely meets does not mean will meet, in this case it does not meet notability criteria.   // Timothy :: talk  11:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A single per nom is not adequate to establish consensus in this case because the nomination was so flawed. I am not familiar with this place but can sit here on the other side of the world and easily trace its history from its start in the 19th century in a small boarding house to its modern and massive campus today. For much of its history, it was the only hospital in Fresno and so there's an obvious alternative to deletion. A clear failure to follow WP:BEFORE by WP:IGNORINGATD. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Closed after minimal participation, but non-minimal controversy. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the discussion certainly could have been relisted, but there was nothing wrong with the close. As there were no alternatives to deletion proposed (or indeed any !votes besides delete), a close as anything else would have been a supervote. Given the small amount of participation in the discussion, this could be considered a WP:SOFTDELETE candidate that can be WP:REFUNDed, so no opposition to it being recreated in draft or userspace for improvement. CThomas3 (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The sources in the article and mentioned here seem to be trivial at best or primary and do not meet the notability guidelines. So, personally I think the close was correct and there's zero point in relisting it as things currently stand with the clear lack of good references. Otherwise, it would just be relitigating the prior AfD. Although, soft deleting it as Cthomas3's suggested so someone can recreate it in draft or userspace to work on it is perfectly fine, but the close couldn't have gone any other way. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Eighth largest hospital in California, of 808 total [1]. One of 15 or 16 Level I trauma centers in California [2]. Has 685 beds and extensive facilities. It is the clinical location of UCSF Fresno, part of a top 10 medical school in the United States. [3] [4] Numerous recent news items are available. "The fight that jeopardized top care at Fresno hospital appears to end. What we know," Fresno Bee, November 3, 2020, [5]. "Community Medical Centers strikes long-term deal for neurosurgeons," The San Joaquin Valley Sun, November 4, 2020, [6]. History of the facility is documented in books, such as [7]. Colfer2 (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://dexur.com/usa/state-ca/
  2. ^ https://emsa.ca.gov/trauma/
  3. ^ https://www.fresno.ucsf.edu/emergency-medicine-residency/
  4. ^ https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-medical-schools/research-rankings
  5. ^ https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article246901337.html
  6. ^ http://sjvsun.com/news/fresno/community-medical-centers-strikes-long-term-deal-for-neurosurgeons/
  7. ^ https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Regional_Medical_Campus_A_Resource_f/DWJ5DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Community+Regional+Medical+Center+fresno&pg=PA279&printsec=frontcover
  • Endorse. Given that opinion in the AfD was unanimous, its "delete" closure was procedurally correct. Whether the outcome was right on the merits is not a matter for this forum. This is not AfD round 2. Editors remain free to recreate the article with substantially different content that addresses the AfD's notability concerns. Sandstein 21:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restored, with sources, per your comment that it's OK to do so. It now meets the criteria in the initial deletion discussion: "that the hospital has been noticed by two unrelated, independent third-party sources; that at least one source that discusses the organization in-depth (many paragraphs directly about the hospital); that at least one source that is outside of the organization's local/service area." I left the deletion banner up, since I don't recall if it's proper to remove it yet. I haven't edited much in the last ten years. Colfer2 (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say not. Really, it should have been drafted and sent through AfC first. Plus, you probably should have waited until this was done with to do so. No way is it up to par as it currently is though. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring was premature, even though the article would probably survive an AfD now. SportingFlyer T·C 11:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing should have been done with the page until this discussion is closed. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doing so essentially relisted the original AfD, which means we now have two discussions occurring. This should be fixed somehow. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've done just that. Valeince (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 November 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
One Day the Only Butterflies Left Will Be in Your Chest as You March Towards Your Death (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was speedied per R3. However, R3 refers to implausible typos and misnomers, whereas One Day the Only Butterflies Left Will Be in Your Chest as You March Towards Your Death is a redirect from a song (the target was Post Human: Survival Horror). JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 01:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse general deletion. There is no point in redirects of every lyric to a song, particularly ones that aren't exceptionally notable. Praxidicae (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't a lyric to a song, it's a song to an album. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 02:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 November 2020

[edit]

19 November 2020

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

Filing on behalf of User:Delta fiver, who submitted this article for review at WP:AFC and received a comment from reviewer User:Robert McClenon indicating a willingness to submit a DRV on their behalf, but then seemingly went silent. I have accepted the AFC, moved the draft article back into mainspace at Matthew Axelson, and restored the previously-deleted revision history there for review. The previous AfD only had three participants and had to be relisted twice, so a relook at this should be warranted. Since the AfD closed in 2017, a post office in California was named after Axelson last year, which may add to his notability claim. Additionally, one of the "delete" !votes indicated precedent for deleting members of the four-person team was established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Dietz, but that article was recreated and a subsequent AFD resulted in it being kept. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin: As I indicated to Robert McClenon on my talk when they first raised this, I don't think DRV is needed here. If coverage increases after deletion to the point that the previous reasons for deletion are no longer applicable, recreation should be allowed without having a whole discussion here. Regards SoWhy 07:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned reason, was as to why I didn't take it to DRV, I assumed it was not required as previously explained on SoWhy's talkpage. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 10:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Robert McClenon is wrong to think that cases like this are suitable for DRV. The AfD is old, and if someone thinks reasons for deletion have been overcome, they may re-create. If someone else disagrees, they may nominate it at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to User:SmokeyJoe and anyone else - It says at the top, in reason 3 for using DRV, "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;". It is often said, by experienced editors including DRV editors, that that isn't a use of DRV. So who should I believe? What appears to be a guideline, or what experienced editors say is their interpretation of a guideline? Maybe the instructions at the top of the page should be changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a use of DRV, but the instance isn't correct here. If a page has been deleted and the discussion isn't fresh, there's no reason why someone can't try to create a new page with the new information without having to go to DRV to overturn the AfD. If my page gets deleted two years ago and kept now, it does not mean the original AfD was incorrect, and DRV is to check to see if the the AfD was incorrect. If for instance my page gets deleted now and I turn up a week after the AfD with all of this information that was ignored by the participants demonstrating I'm notable, that would be an instance in which the "significant new information" would apply to a DRV. Not sure how clear that is but hope it helps. SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 November 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Valentinian dynasty (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I cannot see any valid reason for deleting this infobox, where it serves a legitimate purpose on the page Valentinianic dynasty, which is being prepared for promotion. I originally created it for that purpose. On the contrary I believe such a deletion would be detrimental to the page. As far as I can see the reason advanced for deletion was that someone did not like the look of it, when they saw it. It has been modified in response to the criticisms on the discussion page. The issue is more its utility, which is central to the subject of the page on which it appears. In summary I believe nothing is gained by the deletion. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 22:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It wasn't deleted? The result was that the template should conform with all the other templates, i.e. horizontally. SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No deletion occurred. Not in scope for DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SmokeyJoe, DRV is also for disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions (per the first line of DRV). Heck, it even goes on to say DRV can be used for "keeps" that should have been deleted. Primefac (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The result is clearly being disputed, but I don't understand why the nom is saying the template was deleted when the answer was to rewrite the template as horizontal, making this impossible to sort out. SportingFlyer T·C 20:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to get pedantic, no, it's not being deleted. However, from a technical perspective, the "sidebar" version of this template is being "deleted" in a way - it's being replaced with a navbox of the same name. Primefac (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Primefac, I don’t see the dispute. It wasn’t deleted, and he doesn’t think it should be deleted. What is being disputed? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The result of the TFD was that the sidebar should be converted into a navbox. Michael doesn't agree with this close. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. I see. This is a challenge to the closer's reading of consensus and their closing statement. Thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a reasonable or good close, but do not read the close as prescriptive. Consensus was to convert/improve, and it is not for an XfD discussion to prescribe exactly how to do this, or to prejudge complications that may arise on the attempt. After the close, the next step should be WP:EDITCONSENSUS, with Template talk:Valentinian dynasty used for discussions (or Talk:Valentinianic dynasty if agreed to be a better talk venue). In the case of intractable disputes, evidenced on the talk page, it could go back to TfD or dispute resolution forum. DRV is not the correct forum for discussing possible rewrites or improvements of a template. Michael Goodyear's "I cannot see any valid reason for deleting ..." is irrelevant to moving forwards because deletion is not on the cards, not at this time anymore. User:Avis11's TfD deletion rationale did not find consensus. While User:Primefac is correct in the close to state: "no prejudice against renomination for deletion", it might be better had the close mentioned a time limit (eg 2 months), or where improvement discussions should be held (eg Template talk:Valentinian dynasty or Talk:Valentinianic dynasty. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused why this comment is not chronological, and I don't think your point reflects the reality at TfD (distinct from the reality at AfD); TfD closes regularly prescribe outcomes other than merge/deletion because TfD discussions often result in comments of other than deletion. Consensus is consensus, irrelevant of whether the discussion happens on template talk or TfD. With that reasoning, TfD would also be unqualified to result in "convert into wrapper" outcomes. So that argument totally does not hold with TfD practice. If there are disputes in implementing the TfD, that's something else which can and should be discussed on template talk or in holding, but the fact that it should be converted to a horizontal navbox is a perfectly acceptable result. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not chronological?? I once ventured into TfD, and found it sensible, filled with people who knew what they were doing, and different to most other places. It seems to be most like WP:RFBOT, where I once lurked and didn't come close to coming up with a constructive contribution. So, I make no claim of TfD expertise, but I still think I am right to say that the close was good, for what it says, and that the next step is to implement it, and that the implementation may be a windy road. "convert into wrapper" sounds more narrowly defined a task than "make horizontal and improve" I think. In the end, I "Endorse" the close and suggest that coming to DRV without wanting a deletion reversed is nearly always a waste of time. A "Keep" overturned to "delete" is very rare. What is this review nomination asking for? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved): there was a clear consensus in converting the sidebar to a navbox. 4 comments wanted a rewrite to horizontal, 1 wanted deletion only, and 2 wanted to "improve" it. Alla arguments were pretty much equally valid: there is no clear PAG or precedent that would advise giving more weight to 'keep as sidebar' (if that is what you interpret "improve" as). Regarding the DRV rationale, this is explicitly not an infobox (that would be {{Infobox noble house}}), this is a sidebar masquerading as an infobox, which is (to be fair) not prohibited but it is also not advised and is unusual. Often when such templates arrive at TfD they end up deleted or converted. Re comments above, I would say this is in scope of DRV; this was a deletion discussion with an outcome to totally change the template. When compared to AfD, this is not such a different scenario to a "merge" outcome (which can be discussed here afaik), in the sense that such consensus can also be made outside of a deletion venue. Though, this is probably dismissed by NOT #1 (no evidence given here that the closer erred in their interpretation of consensus, the argument here is that consensus is wrong) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I have no argument with @Primefac:, who helpfully suggested I appeal the planned deletion here. I am simply saying that I do not see any strong argument for deleting this side bar/infobox/template from the page in question. The statement "that the template should conform with all the other templates, i.e. horizontally" is not correct, there are many Roman imperial dynasty templates in this form, which I copied. A horizontal navbox does not have the same functionality. As noted, this template is not forbidden, but the editor who proposed the deletion orginally, wanted them all deleted because they appeared not to like the look of it. My argument is that it is an essential part of the page as being constructed currently, and I am making a plea to retain it. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 21:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I see two keeps, three horizontals, one delete or horizontal, and one delete - while this isn't a vote-counting exercise, there's no "wrong" argument here, and I think you a "rework as a horizontal template" conclusion validly drawn here. It's also not a deletion per se, but rather a consensus against vertical navigation boxes, which are now rare on the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer T·C 21:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious about "now rare on the encyclopaedia" since they are the backbone of any botany or zoology page, where the classification is laid out, eg Tulipa gesneriana. Also biography, eg Iaac Newton, geography eg Ukraine etc etc. See also Constantinian dynasty Is there any data or guidance to support this statement? I'm still unclear as to what exactly is wrong with the infobox as it stands. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 01:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first two are infobox propers, which leaves just the third (Template:Constantinian dynasty), which is one of your templates, so that argument is slightly iffy. There is a big difference between vertical sideboxes and vertical psuedo-infoboxes. There is nothing formally wrong with them (yet), which is why (a) history at TfD matters and (b) arguments cannot be discounted. There is an explicit obvious problem with using these psuedo infoboxes, and that is that (unlike proper infoboxes) they do not appear on mobile devices, which is most of our readers. This may be easily verified by visiting Constantinian dynasty on a mobile device. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've only come across them a couple times. It doesn't reflect my endorse, either - just noting that consensus was against a vertical infobox, and therefore the discussion was properly closed. SportingFlyer T·C 11:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly had no idea that this could be so controversial. "pseudoinfobox" OK that is clearly a valid argument. Therefore does the argument go away if it is converted to a "true infobox?" --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 22:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that was the consensus of the outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 16:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak endorse weak because I don't know enough about templates. But from what I can tell, while outcomes like this (to change the thing) are rare at say AfD, they aren't unheard of at TfD ("convert" being a standard outcome for example). Hobit (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well if there is consensus on that - I can work on rewriting it, there are actually other dynastic infoboxes already in place on other national histories (which do appear in mobile view, and incidentally, the current template does work in mobile view) - provided the current template is left in place till a working replacement is substituted --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 22:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Badabun (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As a person that cames from a Spanish-language country, I can say that Badabun is one of the most important YouTube channels in Spanish countries, no matter if they use bots for grow up in subscribers, they left a mark on the Spanish-language YouTube community that probably nobody can delete. They surpass WP:GNG (His 20 references in his article on Spanish Wikipedia, with some of them caming from media like El País or Vice, verifies it). Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The instructions for deletion review require you to discuss the matter with the editor whose decisions you are challenging prior to opening a listing here. Can you say why that hasn't been done here, or show where it was done if I have missed it? Stifle (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Stifle I guess it's  Done. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 14:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Stifle: Actually, the instructions I see above suggest that editors consider discussing with the closing admin before coming to DRV. It's a good suggestion that should be followed, but not actually a requirement as far as I'm aware. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks like it was changed from a requirement to a suggestion in September. Regardless, the new text – I am looking at the bit that says "Deletion review should not be used..." – requires the admin to be notified, which wasn't done either. Stifle (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • So notify the closer. Notification was never a requirement, just a strong suggestion because most situations can be easily resolved that way. The re-wording was a bit silly, but there were occasional problems with people demanding the closer be consulted first, which was almost never helpful and typically disruptive and derailing. WilyD 08:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Temp undeleted for discussion WilyD 08:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, here's where I'm at: from the discussion, I don't see how it could've been closed any other way. Maybe relisted? All of the !votes are terrible arguments, frankly none should be given much weight (but .... that brings you to a headcount). There are a few sources in the English version that was deleted, but they aren't mentioned in the discussion (except one !voter who denies they exist?); the Spanish article does have a lot more. So, the best course of action is probably for someone who is interested (and speaks Spanish!) to create a new article with expanded sources (and more balance), to which this AfD wouldn't apply, and everyone else to go on with their lives. WilyD 08:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • à mon avis, s'on peut pas parler une langue, c'est presque toujours une fucking terrible idée de traduire les articles ou les livres pour écrire une article ici, c'est trop facile de faire plusieurs erreurs. But, I won't stop you either. But it's much better if one can find a Spanish speaker. WilyD 10:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 November 2020

[edit]

16 November 2020

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

WP:BADNAC. This was closed after less than 48 hours with the rationale "The result was Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT." One situation when a non-admin closure is inappropriate is when the outcome is likely to be controversial. This is such a case, as evidenced by the fact that this is the second nomination for deletion for this page in just over a week. A further indication of the controversial nature of this is the non-keep closures of two related AfDs only a few hours after this closure: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Ambassadors appointed by Joe Biden as delete and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political appointments by Joe Biden as redirect. Of course, the first AfD closure should have been taken here to WP:DELREV rather than a second AfD being created (it seems the editor who created the second AfD did not realize there was a previous one until after they had already created the second one). At any rate, the first closure (i.e. of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidency of Joe Biden) was a WP:BADNAC misapplication of WP:SPEEDYKEEP, and the second closure (i.e. of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidency of Joe Biden (2nd nomination)) was either a pure WP:BADNAC for the reasons stated above or overly bureaucratic in taking us here to WP:DELREV when the likely outcome of bringing the first AfD closure here would have been relisting it in order to allow proper discussion – something the second AfD provided. TompaDompa (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to adopt Stifle's wording, which really says it better than I did. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this has absolutely zero chance of being deleted. The only argument for deletion is a claim that we shouldn't have articles on future events except in the highly unlikely situation where an event is absolutely guaranteed to occur. This view doesn't have any basis in policies/guidelines, usual practice, or common sense. I also don't agree that we should reopen decisions just because someone thinks they're more controversial than they are. Hut 8.5 17:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE. I don't think this was a great close and I won't say this close was a WP:BADNAC, but I would suggest the first close was. There were some participants who did suggest sending the article to draft space so there was some debate about whether there should be an article now. That said, there is no way this article is or should be deleted and the close is correct and would reflect community consensus if the discussion were to have continued for the week. --Enos733 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action. I explicitly do not endorse an early non-admin closure of a controversial debate – that's pretty much a checklist of all the reasons that you don't do a NAC. Nevertheless, the article is inevitably staying around. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action. Yes, this was a BADNAC because it literally violated the "likely to be controversial" rule and if someone wants to {{trout}} the closing editor, feel free to do that. But then again, it was WP:SNOWing pretty heavily and another outcome was extremely unlikely. Fun fact on the side: Presidency of Donald Trump was created on November 9, 2016, but never nominated for deletion as premature. Regards SoWhy 07:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Improper speedy closes. Ҥ (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. On reading this DRV discussion I was leaning to the standard criticisms of NACs that result in controversy (fail by a measure in hindsight), but in reading the AfD, the close was correct. It was snowing “keep” to “speedy keep” and the ongoing pile on was properly close. The close was not controversial or borderline or arbitrary in any way. Good close, good NAC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Exactly per SmokeyJoe. Hobit (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Renomination so soon after the first AFD was tendentious. However, in the future, if there are more similar tendentious AFD nominations made, they should not be NAC-closed, only because they should be dealt with under discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first close was actually more problematic. That close was a NAC completed less than an hour after the nomination and with only two "keep" votes. --Enos733 (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
D. S. Bradford (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It is urged that this particular case be examined once more with the intent on considering reinstatement. The article and articles related to the subject of this article had no issues up until last year, whereupon it was discovered that some of the reference links were either expired or not enough to demonstrate notability. The article was worked on and published and was also deleted, even as links for the subject in sources were found and improved. There have been some developments and new sources are being proposed to add to this article (includes mentions and reports of collaborative work and career) and to restore this article from deletion. Sources: Philadelphia Weekly, ARPost, RealityBox, Philadelphia Weekly, Blabbermouth.net, 93.3 WMMR News, Consequence Of Sound, Alternative Press, Kerrang!, Entertainment Weekly THBAO (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. I see no problems in the AfD. However, I have no objections if this is restored to draft space to be worked on. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse You can't close that in any way other than delete. While I want to encourage content creation, looking at the sources above, using those to create a draft would be a waste of time, as none of them really demonstrate notability. SportingFlyer T·C 22:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse correct assessment of consensus (t · c) buidhe 15:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deletion discussion was closed accurately. Deletion review is a venue to address issues with failure to follow process, not to "urge that a case be examined once more" or otherwise reargue the original discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endores Nothing wrong with the AfD process, it was closed appropriately. GirthSummit (blether) 17:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Properly closed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the instance of the article as it was previously could be cause for deletion, I am asking that it be restored to draft to work on it again. There was also some question about AllMusic being unreliable, but that was only in relation to genre and not to biographical purposes, from which some of this article’s information was sourced. There didn’t seem to be an acknowledgement of that fact. Additionally, there was proof offered that the biography was written on AllMusic before it was summarized on the subject’s own website, which linked back to the original source. The sources from the original article will be complimented by the above sources, which hold more weight than some of the previous smaller and less prominent publications. There is more substantial information about this person available now and as time progresses, the draft will provide better information, all of which is verifiable and shows notability in the fields of interest in music, art, and science. THBAO (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the best sourcing. [3] looks independent, in-depth, and overall solid. But seems like mostly an interview without much pulled in from elsewhere. [4] is local and mostly an interview, the the introduction is probably enough to count as a solid reliable source. Everything else is pretty much just a mention. One good article somewhere that isn't quite so local and isn't an interview (say an actual review of their work, even if negative) would probably be enough. But for now, not over the WP:GNG bar. endorse and restore to draft. Hobit (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There doesn't appear to have been closer error. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Magali Elise Roques – No consensus; speedy deletion overturned. A majority of contributors would endorse the speedy deletion, but we don't quite have consensus for this view. Because speedy deletion is meant for uncontroversial deletions, this means that under our usual procedures the deletion is overturned. An AfD nomination remains possible. Sandstein 09:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Magali Elise Roques (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  • Overturn. Roques has received prestigious awards and is widely published. The extensive amount of her publications which have been retracted because of plagiarism is remarkable in itself and justifies an entry about her in Wikipedia. See discussion here. Melchior2006 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from deleting admin: I came across this article while clearing WP:RFPP, where Lightbluerain had requested semiprotection due to vandalism concerns. Instead of protecting it, I deleted the page because it appeared to be a largely negative WP:COATRACK article about a BLP, intended to focus entirely on the plagiarism controversy concerning this person. I don't agree that the coverage of the plagiarism issues, at least what was included in citations in the article, is sufficient to meet the WP:GNG and she does not appear to be sufficiently notable for an article outside of that, which is why I've asked Melchior2006 to bring it to DRV. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. Paraphrasing what I wrote at the declined arbitration request, the article listed the routine milestones and publications typical of any minor academic. There was no claim of notability satisfying WP:PROF or any other notability guideline. The lead consisted of 55 characters giving the subject's name, birth year and occupation, with another 220 characters describing claims of plagiarism. Given the lack of notability, that means the WP:G10 speedy deletion criterion (attack page) was accurate. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion. I realize that the notability criteria are different in the WP:EN than in the WP:DE. However, it does seem to me that men with similar biographies are included in the WP and women are not. Yes, there is a plagiarism controversy, but that is probably the reason people would be looking her up on the Wikipedia. Thus, it is good for the awards that she has received to be listed as well, so that readers can make their own decisions. I will admit that I am an inclusionist - I fight for inclusion of articles, especially ones about women, as we don't have disk space problems. As an academic I am probably biased, but I feel that many people below the level of Nobel Prize winners need to be included in the WP, just not in epic detail. --WiseWoman (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree with the principle to include as many articles about women as possible, it should be noted that her academic integrity has been tarnished due to these retractions. Her dissertation was also in part plagiarized. This means the awards she received and the degree she got might all be cast in doubt. There is an ongoing investigation in the CNRS. We should wait for the results first. FlybellFly (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I can't see the revision and it probably shouldn't be temp-undeleted, but I trust Johnuniq's analysis here and if that's correct then the deletion should be endorsed. It does not preclude someone else writing an article on her where WP:G10 does not apply, though that may be a difficult task. SportingFlyer T·C 15:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you haven't read the article, I would humbly request that you refrain from commenting on it. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm perfectly able to participate in the discussion. A good closer will note that I have not viewed the article and will downweight my participation accordingly. SportingFlyer T·C 11:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, it's definitely not an attack page, and there's nothing on it that's any worse than what's in this discussion. I could certainly do a temp undelete if one wanted. But it's a otherwise very close to an A7; the only thing that makes it better than my CV is the claim she was a Canada Research Chair, but it's an apparent mistranslation of her having been a postdoc for Claude Panaccio, who was a Canada Research Chair. So ... WilyD 13:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I am also unable to evaluate the article myself, but I'm willing to trust GorillaWarfare and Johnuniq, who have both sufficiently indicated that the page met G10 criteria. If someone wishes to re-create the article, please bring new sources here so the community can evaluate them. CThomas3 (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone needs a copy of the article to evaluate I'm happy to provide it, but per SportingFlyer, given the G10 concerns I would prefer not temporarily undeleting it publicly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. While I am also for inclusivity and, furthermore, strongly think that the WP:PROF criteria set the bar too high (echoing WiseWoman, we do have unlimited space here for more bios!), I don't think it is just to this scholar or to any female scholar that we create and defend a BLP *only because of* a scandal. The creator clearly created the page to document the scandal (hence WP:G10). It was not a proper bio but a WP:COATRACK. If documenting the scandal was the original intention, then the page should have been titled The Roques Plagiarism Incident. But even then such a page is unwarranted as this single event does not yet satisfy WP:GNG. We currently only have a few retraction notices (which are not independent secondary sources) and one minor coverage in the Daily Nous blog. FlybellFly (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We currently have six retractions from the editors of prominent scholarly journals. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My primary point is that if/when the event becomes notable, then the page should be the Rogues Plagiarism Incident page, not a bio. Doesn't WP:GNG require significant coverage by secondary sources? These retraction notices will be primary sources, no? FlybellFly (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct; the retraction notices certainly don't contribute to establishing her notability. We would need significant coverage of her/the retractions in independent reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retraction notices are what I referred to below, as primary source sleuthing. Wikipedia should not be doing this. The policy is WP:PSTS. If Wikipedia allowed every/any academic’s bio to list their retractions, it would be a flagrant WP:NPOV failure. Acceptable only if mentioned in a reliable reputable independent secondary source. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If academics have their complete works listed, then retractions should also be included. But really only list publications or retractions if they are important in some way. IE if referenced by other writings. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion. I am unable to read the deleted article; however, I looked up the subject, and I do not see any way that the subject could pass WP:PROF. If the retracted publications had all been legitimate, the record would still be one of an unremarkable early-career academic. (There is another Magali Roques, a cell biologist at Universität Bern, who is much more prominent than the philosopher on Google Scholar.) The plagiarism incident has not itself attracted significant attention — the Daily Nous post mentioned by FlybellFly is all I can find. Retraction Watch just points to the Daily Nous without doing a writeup of their own [5]. This isn't enough coverage to warrant an article on the incident, and I'm highly dubious that the Daily Nous is a good source for WP:BLP material, whether that content is in a biography or an article on an event. Maybe the situation will change, but right now I don't even see grounds to describe the incident within another article, let alone devote a page to it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't endorse, Leave deleted - the article had a single, negative sentence that was well sourced and relevant, it's in no way an attack page - it was largely her CV. G10 very obviously doesn't apply - we're openly tossing around the whole of the issue here without concern. That said, I would call it an A7 - the claim she held a Canada Research Chair is a mistranslation of her postdoc being funded by someone else's Canada Research Chair, leaving a decent CV but nothing of particular note; really, the French equivalent of a run of the mill assistant professor. WilyD 10:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • She's not a post-doc, apparently the original reporting got that wrong. The fact that it *could* easily get that wrong is a hint about her notability, but it appears to be a permanent position, maybe akin to an assistant prof in the US? Hobit (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, CNRS is a permanent position, akin to being an assistant professor in the States. But she was a postdoc, and she was the postdoc of someone with a Canada Research Chair. That got mistranslated into the article as though she had a Canada Research Chair, which would have been a claim of significance that would've prevented A7 deletion. But, it wasn't true, so I'm fine with leaving this deleted as a A7. WilyD 09:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how BLP policy is relevant here. BLP says we need to remove unsourced or poorly-sourced negative information about living people. It certainly doesn't say we need to remove negative information that's verifiable by reference to scholarly journals. BLP is not a whitewasher's charter. It should protect people from unproven allegations, but it certainly shouldn't defend a demonstrable cheater. Overturn G10. She's not a notable person and shouldn't have a standalone article but this doesn't make deletion the appropriate response. The matter should be covered in List of scientific misconduct incidents, and her name should redirect there.—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not mentioned there now, and she's a not terribly high profile academic just doing boring plagarism, so there aren't likely to be any knock on effects. If someone really wants to write something there they might be able to, but I'm very skeptical it merits it. Maybe it'll pick up attention, but this isn't one of the hundred most important instances of academic misconduct. WilyD 13:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worth noting that the deletion was both for G10 and A7 concerns (I thought I'd added A7 to the deletion rationale but it looks like I just wrote it out instead). I do think G10 applies, but A7 does also apply. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Marshall that at most she deserves an entry in a List of Research Misconduct page. Not List of scientific misconduct incidents, exactly, as it is only for the natural and social sciences. Contrary to Wily, I believe that this case of plagiarism is much worse than many of the incidents already listed in List of scientific misconduct incidents. We're talking about whole paragraphs of copy-and-pasted text from a wide range of sources (multiple authors, multiple outlets including Wikipedia and news articles, even from her own supervisor's PhD dissertation!). Her position is extremely competitive and she was only one of two philosophers selected that year into the CNRS. FlybellFly (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Article aside, we really shouldn't be adding negative information about a BLP to a list of incidents if that person or incident isn't otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 07:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, there are some "Wow, who gives a shit?" entries on that list too. Things like faking results have real knock-on effects and can be pretty significant; plagarism means you're spinning you wheels and maybe stealing credit, but is almost never import in the big picture. WilyD 09:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just responding to this comment, so the following does not have any import to the current discussion. Many of the listings on that page are single incident minor plagiarism without any independent secondary reporting (e.g., "Ismail Deha Er (Turkey), former Associate Professor of Marine Engineering at Istanbul Technical University, plagiarized vast majority of his paper published at Energy Sources Part A.[334] I. Deha Er simply copied content of a technical report published by MAN Diesel titled "Emission Control Two-Stroke Low-Speed Diesel Engines." Where [334] is just the retraction notice). If your standard holds, then these entries should be deleted from those pages, too. I'll stop commenting on this aspect. FlybellFly (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request emailed copy of the deleted article, as offered by User:GorillaWarfare. This sounds like a possible case of BLP zealotry, and I would like to have a look please. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me too please. Hobit (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've sent a copy of the deleted article to both of you, via EmailUser. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Received, thanks. “Some think ...”. Bad but not egregious, arguably an unsourced attack, but I think sourceable. It’s a question that I think belonged on the article talk page, to discuss the reliability of sources, and whether it is primary source sleuthing. I note no issue with the bulk of the article, nor with foreign language Wikipedia versions, de.Wikipedia examined. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC). It’s the “accusations of plagiarism” issue already mentioned by the OP and in the discussion linked. A probably non-notable researcher, misidentified as a professor in a source translation, G10 is possibly heavy handed, but I think the article would be deleted at AfD as failing WP:PROF, and I agree with WileyD above. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy Received the article. Certainly not an attack page IMO. Probably fails WP:PROF, but that is an AfD call. Might pass WP:N at this point. I think I'd prefer we not have this article, but that should be a decision made by the community. Hobit (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article, as it stood, definitely failed WP:PROF, and definitely failed WP:N. In neither case was it remotely close. It might be possible to write an article about her that didn't (although I doubt it), but what we had wasn't it. WilyD 09:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Although this is not an attack page, and G10 does not apply, A7 would apply, as the prize won has no article and neither does the awarding organisation. Unless secondary sources mention the retractions, I don't think it should be mentioned in those lists of misconduct articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Charlie (Street Fighter) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page has existed without any substantial issues since October 2004. However, due to the article's inadequate state of sourcing, it came to the attention of an editor who nominated it for AfD last week. For some reason, only about three other editors including myself have participated in the discussion. I voted Keep and brought up some sources for discussion; to which both the nominator, and another editor who usually err towards delete or merge in AfD votes, have indicated that they may withdraw or reconsider the deletion or redirection of the article if more sources could be found. I have very recently posted some more sources, and made a request to whoever intending to close the AfD that it should relisted in order to allow the aforementioned users more time to respond, which is a precedent that has been done with many recent AfD's, to generate a more thorough discussion and consensus due to lack of participation and because two editors have indicated that they may change their mind after I posted the sources. For some reason, an uninvolved editor User:Buidhe have ignored my suggestion that the AfD be relisted, and closed the discussion prematurely without leaving any comments about their ddecision. I would like to appeal the closer's decision, as I am of the view that the editor appears to be inexperienced at dealing with potentially contentious AfD's, as this one should have been relisted to generate a clearer consensus, and to give the other editors time to respond. Haleth (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer's comment The discussion got decent participation and of the editors who participated, 3 agreed that it did not have enough sourcing [there were not enough sources] to justify a stand-alone article while Haleth disagreed. I stand by my close as appropriate. Just existing for a long time is not evidence that the topic is encyclopedic or notable IMO, especially considering that Wikipedia used to have much looser standards. (t · c) buidhe 16:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Several other AfD discussions have been relisted at least once or twice, with many more editors in terms of participation. In this case it is evident to me that the discussion should be relisted once the other editors have indicated that they would like to see more new sources being introduced into the discussion. Unfortunately, you have also not addressed the points I have made, that two editors have expressed an interest in reviewing their stance when more sources be found. The nominator has also indicated he may consider withdrawing his nomination altogether if more reliable sources are found. The third editor simply made an assertion, without discussing whether the newer sources were unsuitable or unreliable to sustain the article. Per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. I was prepared to restructure and improve the article with the sources I have located, should the consensus move towards recognizing the subject topic as being notable. Haleth (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I still stand by my position. While the character pages Haleth has already made are commendable and this is in no way personal, I clearly take a harder line on notability than they do, and don't believe many small snippets together fulfill the significance criterion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it's not personal and it's a given that we have to agree to disagree when taking opposing stances during a discussion, though I don't agree that you take a harder line on notability then me. I find your interpretation of WP:SIGCOV and stance on WP:GNG to be inconsistent and confusing at times, but I digress. Haleth (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think merge is the correct result here and I'm not selling trout today since nothing was technically wrong, but given how this DRV has gone so far, an overturn and re-close by an admin or a relist is probably justified since the AfD wasn't an easy one and the result isn't uncontroversial. SportingFlyer T·C 22:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Effectivley we have the entire salad: one delete (default by the nom), my merge vote, one keep vote, and one redirect. While I still think a merge is a sensible compromise, a relist wouldn't harm anyone and would have likely provided more opinions making it less controversial. Not that I blame the closer for ruling merge, it is a reasonable enough compromise - but if I was closing this, I'd just have relisted it instead. Additionally, it is best practice to provide a rationale for why a deletion was closed in such a way, if the distribution of votes can be controversial, this hasn't been done and deserves a (very small) WP:TROUTing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist if we were at this point after 2 relists or something, you'd have to make a call. But that's not the case. It should have been relisted. Hobit (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Monday Morning (newsletter) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page has existed without any major issues since 2011. The page belongs to India's second-largest student media body and all the information in the article is legitimate. The speedy decision of this page is unfair and a prior warning should have been given before deciding on its deletion so hastily. We assure the mods that the page would certainly be rectified in accordance with all the guidelines once it is restored Parzival221B (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 November 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rod Taylor (American football) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This one suffered from a lack of participation. Taylor was an offensive lineman who was selected in the 7th round of the NFL draft. He was seen as a can't miss prospect coming out of high school but never really panned out. Regardless, the two delete votes after mine were rather weak, as they failed to take into account his sourcing from college. Where GNG is concerned, reliable sources are reliable sources, and it disregarded these sources as less substantial because they were "youth sports", which isn't a strong argument. There are football players who never played in the NFL or CFL that have articles which passed AfD. Due to the low turnout, the proper close in my view would be a No consensus. Even the nominated acknowledged several sources and said his claim to notability was stronger than other football AfDs. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - It isn't important whether No Consensus would have been a valid conclusion. Delete was also an obvious valid conclusion. We should not be second-guessing and overriding obvious reasonable closes. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was one of the "weak delete votes," so I'm not going to endorse this, but my vote wasn't weak at all - none of the coverage was good: much of it was from blogs and only short mentions in any case, some of it was transactional, one of which was about a crime, and the rest of the coverage presented was routine coverage of him as a high school player (his recruiting). SportingFlyer T·C 11:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you closely examine the sourcing however? While Bengals Wire is not the New York Times, it's not a blog and is considered a RS. From the Associated press. Sure this is about his injury, but it also includes stats from freshman year and I wouldn't characterize it as routine. Also this about recruiting, which shouldn't be discounted since it's high school. More significant coverage. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 13:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did. The first is only a few sentences on a team's draft pick. The ESPN article is routine transactional, i.e. a player is injured. High school sports articles are always routine per youth sports. The last one isn't terrible, but it's a local article on two players invited to the NFL combine. Based on my reading, he wasn't a notable college football player and he clearly fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Just because some sources exist doesn't mean someone qualifies for a standalone article, especially if they're in a profession which will receive coverage regardless of who is on the team. That's why I voted why I did, and I don't appreciate having that argument be called "weak." SportingFlyer T·C 14:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist I find the delete !votes to be weak/wrong. Age of the athlete isn't a factor when considering GNG coverage and that seemed to be at the core of the delete arguments. That said, my own opinion here *also* isn't part of the SNG or GNG (that if you don't meet this particular SNG, GNG coverage needs to be really quite good). The keep argument, on the other hand, provided sources that look good. I think NC and relist would have been reasonable outcomes. Delete is tempting, but I think the delete !votes are weak enough you have to let others chime in first before you delete. Basically, I can't quite find a guideline-based consensus for deletion given the relative strength of arguments. Hobit (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the sources presented, the first source, ESPN, is a routine injury report. The second one is a blog and not reliable. The third AP article is clearly not significant coverage. The fourth is probably the best one, but it's on how he shoplifted. The fifth is a blog about the fact he got drafted, even though he never played in the NFL, and the last one is youth sports-based, which specifically doesn't qualify. These aren't good sources. He fails WP:GNG and since he never played in the NFL, WP:NGRIDIRON. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1st is independent, reliable and non-trivial coverage, as are the 3rd and 4th. I don't buy "routine" here--no one covers *my* injuries for example. I wasn't aware that the GNG has anything about excluding youth sports coverage, could you point that out to me? That would make the !votes in the AfD a lot stronger. Hobit (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would beg to disagree. We are using coverage from his high school years as an indication of his notability, not as the argument in itself. Very few football players are notable while playing in high school, but far more can use high school coverage for notability later on. Besides, a player can fail the notability guideline but still have enough sourcing to meet GNG. There is no reason why we should discount high school/college coverage just because it is during his amateur career. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 November 2020

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

Hello, I believe that this deletion discussion, which was closed by Salvio giuliano (in good faith)was actually supposed to end in a clear "no consensus" (perhaps even in a keep). As instructed here I will focus mostly the technical reasoning rather than the subject's notability - but will still note that it's a platform/website ranked 180 in the world by traffic according Alexa with 50 million monthly entries and thousands of sources covering it (its deletion proposal to delete by itself is very rare as far as I know, and it had an entry for many years). Besides the nominator, the deletion discussion initially had 2 keep votes, and could have been closed as keep/no cons. but it was re-listed. Then it got no votes and was re-listed for a second time, getting another "keep vote", and it had been three weeks before getting its first delete vote. For some reason it was then relisted for a third time, which is not recommended according to guidelines, and it eventually ended in a "draw", yet got deleted. Considering this unusually long no procedure and no consensus, and the fact that more sources were found about the subject for the notability of the article which were not there initially (see draft ), please review it. Thanks, EliQM (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse The AfD itself was properly closed - the third relist wasn't great, but the keep !votes were awful (WP:IAR so you can ignore WP:NCORP? please) and I don't think this can be closed any other way. If there is a new draft, I don't see the link to it to evaluate whether that would now pass the notability guidelines. There's a chance a new draft would be okay, but in no circumstances should the AfD be overturned. SportingFlyer T·C 14:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. After weighting the !votes correctly, that's a slam dunk delete. Endorse.—S Marshall T/C 15:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I would have closed it as No Consensus, but the Delete is a valid closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I understand your points, thanks regardless. @SportingFlyer, here it is: Draft:Investing.com. I added refs & details that were not previously there which prove notability, and made an effort to make it encyclopedic and neutral (can always improve ofc). An evaluation would be appreciated as it could spare the tiring process that new article drafts for review go through, which honestly may not be necessary in this case. Thanks EliQM (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took note, and just trimmed more content and balanced it further. I think articles about companies often have a natural tendency to appear promotional, and after all our goal here is to improve this encyclopedia in all fields... @SportingFlyer:, another look would be greatly appreciated! EliQM (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 November 2020

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

To add new sources that have come to light as well as source material covered in physical copies of magazines circa 2015 to sustain the notability of the artist in question. Who is covered in detail by several publications and not mentioned as a triviality but also covered by reliable sources independent of the subject Pen Bull (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pen Bull, it would very much help if you were to list the new sources you have found. Otherwise, we have no way of evaluating them. CThomas3 (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cthomas3 Right, thank you. First there is an in depth interview dubbed the 'ElementCheck:Stepping it up by a milli' done by South African Hip Hop magazine 'Hype'. This interview is however not available on https://www.hypemagazine.co.za as it was before Hype was an e-magazine. It was printed in Issue 62 of Aug/Sep 2014 and upon your approval I will upload the scan along with its cover page on Wikipedia commons. Furthermore there is the Live Mag interview which he did with Locnville. He is also a part of the Creators Lounge on https://www.theothority.com which profiles only producers who have made a significant contribution to the South African music scene e.g Tweezy. This is in order to make appropriate changes to the article PenBull (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point I would have to say endorse. I took a look at his Othority profile, and unfortunately it is just a short autobiographical entry. I'm not hopeful for what might be in the Hype interview; statements by the interviewee are considered primary and non-independent, which our guidelines make clear do not contribute to notability. I appreciate your efforts in attempting to look for additional sources, but I don't think these quite clear the notability hurdle. Open to re-review if more sources can be found. CThomas3 (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Based on the sources presented here, I would not support an article in mainspace. However, I have no problem if the nominator wants to create an article in draft space if there are other better references out there. SportingFlyer T·C 19:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, deny recreation in mainspace. This DRV nomination and the evidence provided is not persuasive. The article was only recently deleted, and recreation requires convincing information overcoming the reasons for deletion. I recommend that you request a WP:REFUND and make improvements, with better sources, in a userspace or draftspace draft. Read and follow the advice in WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 November 2020

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

This not the orignal 2018 version's consensus of ths page I want overturned but the recent speedy deletion of the new version by User:TomStar81. So the story was I originally see this page for what was at the time a misused redirect to one of the actress' roles in school of rock. I examined the previous AFD dicussion from 2018 featured above and I believe I could make and article for this actress as she is notable enough to get an article as almost every actor has their on wikipedia page nowadays. So I nominate the redirect on RFD and I'm encouraged to create an article and I quote from User:Mazca and User:Shhhnotsoloud ", either to encourage article creation or to avoid giving the impression that we have useful coverage on something we don't. On a brief look I'm not completely sure there's enough good coverage about her to write an article that demonstrates notability, but that possibility should certainly be encouraged." –from Mazca ,"to encourage article creation, and because Search gives better results." –from Shhhnotsoloud, source: 1 The redirect is close on November 10 and on the day of I start to get to work doing my research, I'm up hours finding reliable sources on this actress and I find two .edu pages and two .org pages about the actress and pathology career which I mention in her personal life. Then not even a day later the page got tagged with not one but two, nomination tags. One by User:CuteMeow who later reverted the tag after I talked it over with them.2 and then a couple of hours later User:Noq places another speedy del tag on the page claiming it was under AFD G4 when it is not identical to its previous version from 2018. Section G4 specifically says "This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion." this isn't even the case and the deletion discussion is not recent being a 2 year old deletion discussion. I then attempted to contest the deletion but it was just ignored and deleted by User:TomStar81 in WP: IGNORINGATD-esque fashion.3 This actress also doesn't fail WP:NACTOR becasue she was a secondary character in Are We There Yet and appeared in 130 episodes in Blue's Clue's as a main character in the sidetable drawer. This speedy deletion was unjust and want this page restored. I won't mind finding more reliable citations for this page if needed. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse The consensus in the AfD was correctly assessed. You would need to come up with reliable, independent sources that hadn't been available to the participants in the discussion to show that the subject is indeed notable. (t · c) buidhe 14:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources you mention above are not WP:significant coverage. They would not be enough to overturn the result of an AFD. noq (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Noq, Comment 2 These are, Let me explain why. On the article before it was deleted I used it to describe her personal life as a speech-language pathologist. She became a speech pathologist during her tenure from acting. And the .gov Library of congress source verifies her middle name and birth place. Those were just a couple of sources I used on the article. What sources of the person would be considered significant? I used other sources on the article verify certain movie performances. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've read two of them. The first does not let me see it. Confirming DOB and middle name is not WP:Significant coverage and will not establish WP:notability. Being a speech language pathologist is not itself sufficient to be WP:notable. Nothing that I am seeing make me think the afd should be overridden. noq (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Noq, Okay we know she not notable for her pathology career but those are definitely relaible sources when descrbing her personal life as that was a section on the article. But here's some sources on her acting career enough to support her career as an actress. Source 5, Source 6 news article supporting her role as a main cast member on Blue's clues and on the film School of Rock And a new york times article talking about her support cast role in Are We There yet Source 7. I just found another source EW confirming her appearances in movies and TV see Source 8. How many more sources do you need for her actress verfication? ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Actress has no Oscar, Emmy, Tony, or Grammy awards for acting, now is she noted for having played a particularly famous role in film or on television. Her medical career shows no awards, prizes, or honors for MD related work. The last article version of the actress's entry prior to the original AFD nomination is located here (admin's eyes only, I'm afraid), and when the two versions are looked at the old one here and the new one from what was as I type this yesterday are not substantially different to negate CSD G4 criteria, nor does the new one clear A7 criteria. I know its not what you want to hear, but from where I sit the article's speedy deletion was correctly assessed and carried out. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this seriously your normal take on G4 and A7? I think you are really far off base. This article had sources--quite a few of them. Some of which potentially met WP:GNG. The deleted article did not, and the sources that are now there weren't discussed in the AfD. Further, that is a long acting career with a lot of shows. Clearly an assertion of importance (which the sources are too). I can understand making a mistake, but it sounds like on review you still feel you got this right. I feel pretty strongly that your standards for G4 and A7 are pretty far outside community norms. Hobit (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:TomStar81, Your rationale behind speedy deleting the article is not justified. In the policy WP:NACTOR You have to pass one of those guidelines to have a page which she passes guideline one,"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Allen has had significant roles in movies and televison shows which I've already explained several times. Your talking about this actress like she was in the background of a obscure movie from the 50's. Just because said actress has not won a award does not mean her page should be just speedy deleted like that just because it was deleted per a non-recent dicussion. If that was the case why don't other child actors including her co-star Philip Daniel Bolden ,who has no citations or has not won any awards has an article? If your criteria was to apply to all Entertainer articles across wikipedia there would be way less article becasue a lot of Actors fit under those narrow standards. If these rules apply to this article they must apply to all the actor articles on wikipedia And this why I should have been able to see the previous version so I would know what to differentiate from it's 2018 counterpart. And since Your'e sticking with that A7 speedy deletion policy so much it says on the Credible claim of significance which is a extenstion of the A7,A9 and A11 criterion it says on the Pitfalls to avoid on number 3 "Therefore, a claim of significance need not pass any of the general or specialized notability guidelines, such as general notability guideline, music notability, or biography notability guideline." This means your criteria is wrong for it becasue she would not need to have won awards to have an article even though I mention on the article that she had been nominated three times for Young artist awards. Source 9. And on point 6 in the credible claim of signifcance it also says "Any statement which plausibly indicates that additional research (possibly offline, possibly in specialized sources) has a chance of demonstrating notability is a claim of significance." And I did hours on top of hours of research so I could have these sources. And this actress is notable for her role as "Lindsay" in Are We There yet and it's sequel and as "Alica" in School of Rock. It may be harder to find sources on the former actress becasue of her straying away from the limelight but just at least give me or another editor a second chance to create a well written sourced article that is not Identical to their previous incarnations. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SomeBodyAnyBody05: I've gone ahead and nominated Philip Daniel Bolden for deletion as well, his AFD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Daniel Bolden, if you're interested. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing, too: You can argue from CSD A7 and its criteria, but unless you can also address the G4 criteria the A7 argument will be moot because of the fallback position here. Make sure you include arguements for overturning both, otherwise one foot never will get out of the grave and the article will fall back into the hole and end up resting in piece whether or not you wanted that to be the outcome. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:TomStar81, I myself want articles for most of the actors that don't fit your crtieria as long as you can find reliable ciatations like I did with the actress. So now that we dicussed the A7 issue what was the 2018 version like so I know what to improve or diffrentiate to not end up in that G4 loophole. Because that would be unproductive to the project with redlinks and needed articles. Because I would like to reach a consensus where we could have the ability to get better made article instead of having a no article is better use for wikipedia. And nobody but admins can't see the deleted version and that includes me becasue I'm not an admin. If I could see it I could adress the issue better.
I was also wondering if I could recieve a copy of the 2018 version so I could see what I would need to change so it would not fall under the principles for CSD G4 so I could set the foundation for the article without another speedy nomination tag. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temp undeleted for discussion WilyD 14:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This article should not have been speedy deleted. Send it to AfD instead to more thoroughly discuss the issues and sourcing. It is not a clear-cut case. Jehochman Talk 15:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn speedy as far as I can tell the article deleted at AfD had no sources, this one has quite a few, some of which probably count toward WP:N. Not sure it will make it at AfD, but not a G4 IMO. Certainly not an A7. I mean, like not even a little. Hobit (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This is a really interesting one and we haven't had a good one like this here in awhile. The question in my mind is, how far does the WP:G4 line extend? The new version has sources and doesn't technically appear based on the old article, but it still reads in a substantially similar manner. The G4 is also technically uncontroversial, as the user challenging is also the creator of the new article. Speedy deletions are intended to reduce the amount of time spent on deletions in obvious cases, and I think this is an obvious case. However, I acknowledge other users may be a bit more lenient in their interpretations, i.e. adding additional sources would make a G4 improper, and I don't think this is an unreasonable interpretation of G4, and while I might also have that interpretation for other articles I still think these are substantially similar and the article certain to be deleted again. I will say I have no idea why A7 is even an issue here, as this seems to be in a different universe than the one A7 operates in. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:SportingFlyer, Your'e right about it not being a A7 claim but there are noticeable differeces to not fall under G4 as G4 states "This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title". The 2018 version does not feature any thing about her personal life and career as a speech-language pathologist and her career section is noticeably smaller and stub like. And how am I (the creator) as non-admin supposed to know how to differentiate from the previous version if I can't see it unless I am a sysop? The reliable references should be enough to not match the two versions. There should at least be another chance for this article to be made by me or another editor.
  • Well, the thing that strikes me when comparing the two articles is that the articles are similar enough that when comparing, the new version reads like an attempt to get around a copyright violation. The prose is technically different, but the cadence is exceptionally similar and has many similarities. An additional paragraph on her post-career personal life is sourced to primary references and looks like it might be a BLP violation doesn't make this so "unsufficient" that I think a G4 isn't warranted. I'm also not opposed to someone recreating this, but passing a notability threshold seems very difficult to me. SportingFlyer T·C 23:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this is one of the grey areas of G4: although the recreated version is different and has sources, it still has the same problems as the version deleted at AfD and the arguments made there still apply. The sources don't look like the sort of thing which could possibly indicate that the subject passes the GNG, they are to trivial coverage, unreliable sources, or material written by the subject. One of the citations is to a copy of the deleted Wikipedia article. The subject hasn't had any new roles since the AfD so I don't think the roles claimed will make any difference either. Although strictly this should go to AfD to evaluate the sources I don't think it has any chance at all there so I don't think we should.
As an aside the "personal life" section is a clear BLP violation which should be removed if the article is restored. It claims the subject has taken a break from acting and is now pursuing a different career instead, but this has been inferred from primary sources showing that someone with the same name is pursuing that different career. There's nothing to indicate that these are the same person and no mention of a career break. If we get this wrong - if we claim the subject isn't acting any more and she is looking for acting work - then that could have an impact on her career. Hut 8.5 09:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Hut 8.5, It's the same person, It is confirmed on the subject's social media page. And on top of that the subject is doing her pathology work in New York. And the references I included mentioned her full name, Aleisha l. Allen. the reference also says she is an instructor at the same university she went to as a student,Columbia University Source 11. This why you must look at the sources before you critique them saying it's a BLP violation. I did hours of research and I found another source that I can add to her personal life so it shouldn't get deleted. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[6] says that Columbia University has a fee paying instructor called Aleisha Allen, it doesn't follow that the subject is doing that work now. Same for the other similar sources. You put these together to say that the subject is on a "hiatus from acting", which isn't in any of the sources. Aside from possibly the middle initial you have absolutely nothing to connect the two people, none of the sources for this part mention acting at all. I don't think the middle initial is enough and in any case you didn't cite a reliable source for it - [7] says it's "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!", in other words someone will print out the contents of the deleted Wikipedia page if you pay them money. BLPs such as this one should be based on secondary sources, and definitely shouldn't be basing chunks of content on editors' interpretations of primary sources such as these. See WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARY for the relevant policies. Hut 8.5 18:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I missed using the old wikipedia article as a source since I just did a diff comparison - that explains why they read very similarly even if all the words are in different order. SportingFlyer T·C 14:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. We usually say that if a re-created article gives plausible sources that weren't considered at the AfD, then that inoculates it against G4. I'd !vote "delete" at that AfD, but I think it does need to happen.—S Marshall T/C 15:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy and send to AfD Speedy deletions are intended only for obvious, uncontroversial cases that clearly and unambiguously meet one or more specific and intentionally narrow criteria. There is a very good case to be made that this article is not substantially identical to the 2018 version and makes several credible claims of significance, which disqualifies it for both G4 and A7. I think the article has a very poor chance of being kept at AfD, but we should take care to follow proper process here. I'm no more a fan of bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake than anyone else, but article deletion is one area where circumventing the process is a dangerous precedent to set. CThomas3 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It will need a second AfD. Speedy is for deletions that noboidy would reasonably question--if it isn't obvious, it should go to AfD. If non-trivial sources are added, it isn;'t obvious. If despite them, thesubject is still non-notable , that will be determined atAfD2. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy and send to AfD if desired, with any offending BLP material excised in the mean time as appropriate, per Hobit and DGG. Jclemens (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Loren Culp – No consensus. Opinions are divided about whether the AfD about this US political candidate was correctly closed as "redirect". If pressed, I'd say that the "endorse" arguments are stronger here because they mostly address the closure, whereas the "overturn" opinions try to re-litigate the AfD by arguing that the outcome was wrong on the merits. That is not the purpose of this forum. But I do not need to decide that because even if we give full weight to the "overturn" opinions we still do not have the required consensus to overturn to the closure, which therefore remains in force. The broader unresolved question of whether we (still) have widely accepted notability standards for major-party US political candidates for important offices should be addressed in another forum. Sandstein 19:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Loren Culp (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the decision failed to give proper weight to arguments based on policy rather than arguments based on politics (WP:IDONTLIKEIT because he's a Republican in a deep blue state). As a major party candidate for governor of a state, this subject received substantial coverage of their biography, so a quality article could easily be written about them. Please check Google News to see how many sources are available. Jehochman Talk 13:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn (for the avoidance of doubt) - I get it that the result was redirect, which in normal conditions is form of keep. But in this case the redirect was protected to prevent the article from being recreated and the closing admin said, Protected "Loren Culp": Edit-warring against AfD consensus. Anyone wishing to recreate this will need to challenge the AfD consensus at an appropriate venue and/or provide genuinely new evidence of notability, that should likely be run through a talk page discussion first. So here we are having that required discussion. Vandamond, thank you for all your work at XFD. To be clear, I do not think you have done anything ignoble. This decision just needs a broader review and more opinions to hopefully come to the correct conclusion. Why choose this venue rather than the article talk page? I want to generate new opinions and more opinions. This page gets more attention. Jehochman Talk 13:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Vanamonde correctly assessed the consensus in the discussion. Jehochman does not provide any new information or sources that were not available at the time of the discussion. I think that we should focus on giving Culp due coverage on the article about the election, rather than a standalone article, because he is basically known only for the one event. (t · c) buidhe 13:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you check this link that I provided? [8]. If none of that is new, then the decision was clearly wrong at the time it was made. Please consider WP:BIO1E, If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. This is not a low profile person so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Jehochman Talk 14:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I stand by my closure. The notability of political candidates has always been a thorny issue, but in this case the arguments that a) coverage independent of the election didn't exist and b) the total volume of coverage was insufficient to overcome BLP1E, were persuasive. It's been a month since the AfD was closed: if more coverage has been found since, that's not an argument to overturn the AfD, but to recreate the article (which is not something I'd personally recommend as yet). Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can't recreate the article, as far as I know, because you protected the redirect. I think the sheer volume of news coverage, now that the election has concluded provides more than enough material to write an article. In addition, I believe your interpretation is WP:BLP1E is flat out wrong. BLP1E does not say all biographies deriving coverage from one event are non-notable. There is a test, specifically one that asks whether the subject is "low profile" and likely to remain low profile. This subject ran for governor of a state the size and population of many countries. He was not a minor party candidate. He represented a major party and received 1.7 million votes. This is not a low profile person. Jehochman Talk 16:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A protected redirect does not make it impossible to recreate an article. Please familiarize yourself with our WP:DRAFT process, which allows you to work on proposed articles for review. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants, so I am kind of aware of that. However, with a protected redirect, that's a strong disincentive. I would be satisfied if the protection were removed and then we let editing take its natural course. Jehochman Talk 22:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I protected the redirect because people chose to edit-war over it, rather than challenging the AfD result at the appropriate venue. Simply recreating it would be perpetuating that, and is not what I'm recommending; but if the individual's notability has changed, any changes to consensus could be assessed via the draft process or a talk page discussion. None of that requires arguing that the original result was invalid, which I'm still not seeing evidence for. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Like it or not, we have an established consensus that candidates for political office are not "inherently" or enduringly notable just for being candidates per se — to qualify for an article without having to hold a notable office, a candidate must either (a) demonstrate that he was already notable enough for other reasons (e.g. having already held a different lower but notable political office, such as serving in the state legislature) that he would already have gotten an article anyway, or (b) he has a credible claim to being a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm, such that even though he lost the election he would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance. The fact that some campaign coverage exists is not, in and of itself, enough to get a candidate over the notability bar just for being a candidate, because every candidate can always show evidence that campaign coverage existed — so if the existence of campaign coverage were enough to exempt an unelected candidate from having to pass NPOL, then NPOL itself would be completely meaningless, because no candidate ever fails to have coverage and thus nobody would ever actually have to pass NPOL at all anymore. And exactly zero people said anything whatsoever in the AFD discussion about how he should be deleted just because he's a Republican in a blue state — so asserting that such an argument should have been dismissed is a moot point, given that nobody made that argument in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are mis-stating the consensus. I agree with your position with regard to local officials such as mayors. Here we are considering a major party candidate for Governor of Washington State. This person garnered 1.7 million votes and there are dozens and dozens of news articles about them. Jehochman Talk 22:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not missstating the consensus; we very definitely do not have any consensus that losing candidates for governor are automatically treated as more special than losing candidates for other offices, or any consensus that the number of votes a person does or doesn't get in the process of losing has any bearing on making them notable. As I pointed out, every candidate in every election everywhere can always show enough campaign coverage to claim that they pass WP:GNG and are therefore exempted from WP:NPOL — so if that were how it worked, then NPOL itself would be entirely meaningless, because no candidate for anything would ever be unable to exempt themselves from it.
    GNG, at its core, is not just about counting the number of footnotes and keeping anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number: we also evaluate factors like geographic and temporal range of coverage and the context of what the person is getting covered for, and we have an established consensus that simply being an unsuccessful candidate for political office is not a context that clinches notability all by itself, precisely because we do not want to turn into a repository of campaign brochures for unelected political candidates. The question a candidate has to answer is not "does campaign coverage exist", it is "does a reason exist why he would pass the ten year test for enduring significance?" Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong decision, weak endorse close We aren't sure where we are on articles like this. I'd hope we have gotten back to the idea that you can't be excluded from having an article when you have otherwise passing coverage just because you ran for election. But this discussion didn't go that way. I'd most certainly have !voted to keep and think this is a silly outcome, but I don't know how else the closer could have closed it. Hobit (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This, I agree with: we're in a grey area with respect to political candidates who gain coverage simply because they're running for a prominent position. As a community we need to sort out how we treat election-related coverage (just as we've had to have extensive discussions about local coverage, press releases, routine coverage, etc for local figures, corporations, athletes, etc). Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a brief discussion about trying to get started on an RfC this weekend on my talk page. We'll ping a bunch of people if we make enough progress (or if interested in helping the first phase, anyone can just pipe up there)... Hobit (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the area really isn't all that grey - we typically do not keep people who are only notable for losing an election for a large number of different reasons. This really comes up every two years and coincides with American politics, as this is generally an American problem due to the self-promotional nature of their election system. I'm not going to endorse this, even though it was correctly decided, because I participated in the discussion, but I absolutely want to push back on the reason why this is at DRV: my !vote was not an WP:IDONTLIKEIT on political grounds, as was said in the DRV nom, but rather because I didn't believe he had any notability apart from being a losing candidate, and I want Wikipedia to remain consistent on how it treats these sorts of articles. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Devil's advocate: it's this person notable under WP:GNG because there's been a large amount of fulsome news coverage, plenty sufficient to write a nice biography about them with good references? The fact that they win or lose should not determine their notability. The question is how much material has been produced about them and does it cover their full life story or just one event. This person has multiple biographic articles written about them in independent media. Jehochman Talk 19:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That argument was considered and correctly rejected at the AfD. Just because someone gets coverage does not mean they are entitled to a Wikipedia article, and this is not the place to re-litigate an AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 19:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Entitled? I don't think anyone, or anything, is entitled to an article. The question is if they meet our requirements for having one. Hobit (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct that no one is entitled to an article, but that wasn't my argument, which was vaguely waving at voters who !vote keep on "passes GNG" grounds when perfectly valid WP:NOT reasons exist for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 23:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You and I have gone back-and-forth on this enough times, I'll just leave it at the fact that I disagree with you strongly on that issue. Hobit (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the discussion definitely had a consensus for delete/redirect. There is a widespread opinion, even a consensus, that we shouldn't have standalone articles on people whose notability is as an unsuccessful political candidate, in particular because unsuccessful candidates usually don't have lasting significance. This is a reasonable reading of various policies/guidelines (WP:BLP1E / WP:BIO1E / WP:NOTNEWS / WP:NPOL). The only way this could be closed as Keep is if the closer decided to downweight that argument, and they were perfectly justified in not doing so. Hut 8.5 09:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse we have an inconsistent and maddening approach to what gets an article and why but NPOL is well established and has very wide community support. Coverage in the context of an election is kind of ONEEVENT and INHERITED from the election and the consensus is that you need to win for the election coverage to count towards individual notability. Is that right? Dunno, but its what the community has decided and AFD or DRV are not places to pick and choose unless the policy or sng is manifestly not supported by wider community consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 10:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn No matter how long standing the consensus, it never had copmplete agreement, and this particular instance shows how unrealistic it is. Coverage in the context of an election is why politicans get covered in the firstp lace; it's the defining event that makes them politicians. Oneevent is inapplicable--it's meant for minor temporary local celebrities or short0term coverage of a crime. There are no valid NOT reasons here: the only possible NOT criterion is NOT INDISCRIMINATE and NOT NEWS. This isn't indiscriminate--what would be indiscriminate is covering every local office, or everybody who runs in a primary. A person to get this far is quite unsual--in fact, it's just as unusual in a two part system as being the winning candidate. This doesn't fall under NOT NEWS, because it is part of the major political events in the recent election. Who won what, and the people involved, for posts at the congressional and state governor level is what makes history. It's in fact the basis of history , and it is impossible to understand the reason for the winning candidate unless you also look at the opponent. That this particular Republican candidate lost at this particular time is not temporary news, but of permanent interest. (I suggest, if this does not get overturned, trying in a few months to see if a more extended article could be written; and similarly for at least the others in the Senate and governorship races). I think consensus will change if the articles for the losing candidates are good enough. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The coverage is substantial, statewide, and meets GNG; his being a political candidate doesn't fundamentally change that. Will he have enduring notability? Uncertain. The bigger story isn't that Culp lost to Inslee, but rather that Culp, the entire police force ('chief' with no subordinates) of an inconsequential town became the Republican gubernatorial nominee. That's an interesting thing to consider and an article worth having, so trying to trump GNG with a politician SNG doesn't particularly make sense. Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Culp was a very significant political figure in Washington prior to the election. He stood up to the gun control measure, I-1639 passed in 2018, that was extremely controversial and started the movement for other law enforcement agencies to make similar policies to not enforce the initiative. The fact that a police officer from a one cop town could go on to become one of two candidates making it to the general election for the highest office in Washington shows his significance. The fact that every single Seattle City Council member has their own page and people are refusing to give Loren Culp a page is a shame. BlackBird1008 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep - the argument the article meets WP:N is convincingly demonstrated, while the argument that it doesn't meet NPOL isn't argued, it's merely asserted (and given that NPOL says politicians are notable if they meet WP:N, the argument is demonstrably false). It's also asserted it fails WP:BLP1E, but that's also demonstrably false (which Tim Smith demonstrates in the discussion - it appears to be the result of the common confusion who aren't familiar with BLP1E who think it applies to people notable for an event, rather than people notable only for their role in one event. Ultimately, there's really no argument presented for deletion/redirection that isn't demonstrably false. WilyD 08:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Vanamonde correctly assessed the consensus in the discussion. I believe there will be additional discussions about how WP:NPOL is interpreted or changed, but there was no other way to close this discussion. (voted redirect in the AFD). --Enos733 (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 November 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign staff members (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was non-administratively closed with very few participants. Nearly all comments were by KidAd (talk · contribs). Folks agreeing to keep specified constraints, such as requiring notability and "names who have their own wiki article". But the closer did not include those constraints in the decision.

At the time of nomination, it consisted almost entirely of Original Research and rampant WP:SPECULATION. Even the first citation in the lead (Biden campaign grows more diverse with people of color making up nearly half of staff) literally has no mention of any names. All it verifies is that there is a campaign, and it has staff. After careful examination of every reference, I'd found that only one subsection (Economic policy) comes close to WP:LISTN, where a single ref has a list. That would be better merged into the main campaign article. There is no reliable source listed for such important positions as "campaign manager" and "deputy campaign manager", and most remaining are listed as "senior advisor".

Speaking as a subject matter expert, who has 30+ years of experience as campaign manager and staffer and volunteer at all levels from local city council to congressional, state, and national: most of these names would not consider themselves "campaign staff". For example, elected officials who have endorsed the candidate are not staff. Therefore, I'd carefully removed inappopriate names, with nearly two dozen detailed edit summaries.

More recently, much of the speculation has been moved to another entirely speculative article, Cabinet of Joe Biden.

My preference would be to merge everything remaining to the Biden 2020 campaign article, and delete this page. William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since an overwhelming majority of the !votes—including respected, long-standing editors—were for keeping, it could hardly be closed any other way. Issues with the content or constraints were not mentioned in the closing statement because those are editorial decisions, whereas the deletion discussion (except extreme cases) focus on the notability of the topic, not the current content of the article. (t · c) buidhe 18:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse although I personally do not think that the list is encyclopedic. This is DRV, not another AFD (and another AFD would be tendentious). It is often said that an AFD is not a vote, but it does have aspects of a vote, and a closer should not disregard the weight of community opinion. Community opinion was to Keep, and DRV should not be used to complain that the closer forgot to supervote. Maybe the closer was prudent not to supervote. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse but I agree with Robert McClenon - the keep !votes were terrible and WP:LISTN isn't justified by the sourcing, but at the end of the day keep was the effective consensus and the best way to close this if you're acting as a closer. I don't close articles but I would probably have ended up voting on this one instead of closing it had I come across it. I also thought buidhe was an administrator, but there's a possible outcome where this gets re-closed by an administrator. SportingFlyer T·C 19:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and re-close Rhododendrites didn't technically !vote and the first delete !voter's rationale was rebutted, but I agree with W.A.S. below and I think this really should have been closed by an administrator. This was a very bad discussion which could easily have been closed as a no consensus - vague waves were made at LISTN, and the nominator did discuss the notability of the topic (and considered some of the information could have been moved elsewhere), even though buidhe doesn't note that above. SportingFlyer T·C 23:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse given that the opinion of the discussion was on the side of Keep, much of what the nominator was complaining about has been removed and the only other person supporting deletion made an argument which is clearly wrong and not that great to start with, I don't think this could have been closed any other way. Expecting entries in lists to have their own articles is a common selection criterion. I'd suggest renominating after some time with a nomination rebutting the LISTN argument. Hut 8.5 20:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, but we've already been down that path.
    1. KidAd recently mass reverted all the carefully documented individual removal of the poorly chosen content.
    2. He was supported in doing so, on the Talk page, "... not to use individual discussion comments made at AFD as rationale for your editing behaviour, especially as there was a non-admin closure by Buidhe at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign staff members, which set no conditions."
    3. I'd already mentioned the WP:LISTN guideline ("if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines;")
    4. and already cited "violation of WP:NOR and WP:SPECULATION, policies that trump a mere argumentation essay or guideline."
    5. The closure shouldn't be based upon a meager majority (4:3) of unsupported !votes that ignore policy. Every closer should prioritize policy over popularity of !votes.
      William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, noting that there's an opportunity here for the nominator to read the room.—S Marshall T/C 13:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as the room understands that all of the proposed alternatives mentioned heretofore have already been done. Again, the closer mistakenly described a meager majority (4:3) as "overwhelming" and did not take into account policy.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion was closed accurately and I must endorse the closure. I don't especially like the outcome of the discussion; I think it is US-centric, recentist, and problematic in several other ways, but that is not an argument which is eligible to be aired here.
    I would suggest relisting in 6-12 months; or, if a merge is desired, starting a discussion on the talk page and using {{mergeto}}. Stifle (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deletion nomination did not persuade. The article meets LISTN. To the extent that criticisms are valid, they can be addressed by editing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A merge to Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign, when that article de-bloats, I think is a likely good solution. There is no role for deletions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As already noted, the article in its entirety does not now and has never met the LISTN guideline: "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Only a single sub-section currently meets that guideline. I agree about the merge, and that will be my penultimate step. But I'm seriously concerned about administrators not upholding policy over guidelines and essays. We spent a lot of time working on policies 15+ years ago, and I'm a bit horrified to discover that they aren't being followed anymore.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, AfD participants said “LISTN”, and I misassumed which guideline that was. The list does NOT meet LISTN, an independently notable list, but meets WP:CLN, as every listed entry is a bluelink, and so it is justified for its navigation assistance. Now, it may not be reasonable for me to say here to read the participants “LISTN” as “CLN”, but I do. That said, just because it may meet CLN doesn’t mean it is a good idea, and I think a merge with debloat of the target is what needs doing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 November 2020

[edit]
  • Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 – No consensus - DRV procedures treat that "sort of" like an endorse, in that I won't pre-emptively restore the article, but I, or any other admin, can send it to draft or undelete it for a relevant merge or the like. Since there isn't really a consensus for any specific one here, I'll leave it undone for now. If you want to do it, ask me, or anyone else who's available. WilyD 11:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC) WilyD 11:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like this close reviewed and request that it be relisted for further discussion. I do not feel there was a consensus for deletion and it is now being used as a precedent for deleting other similar articles (see 1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle). The closer made a good faith close, but I feel it was incorrect.   // Timothy :: talk  13:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse My guess is that this will probably be overturned to no consensus since the vote count was close, but it seems to me that delete is not only a correct outcome but the proper outcome here - even though the keeps were more numerous, there was a lot of back and forth about whether sources existed, but the delete !voters arguments (notdir, OR, failing GNG) seem much more compelling than the "sources must exist" arguments of the keep !voters, especially after the back and forth. SportingFlyer T·C 14:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus - The two questions should be:
      • 1. What was the consensus of the participating editors?
      • 2. Was that consensus supported by policy arguments?
  • The answer to the first question is that there was no consensus, that the arguments both ways were about equal. The answer to the second question is that both Keep and Delete had policy reasons. So the close does not accurately reflect policy-based consensus and should be overturned. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Numerically the AFD was no consensus, but unfortunately none of keep !votes offered policy-based reasons to do so, nor any independent reliable published secondary sources to establish notability of the subject. The keep side attempted to show that WP:NEXIST is met because of the existence of classified documents that describe the Austrian Armed Forces in detail; this was effectively countered by the delete side by pointing out that classified documents fail WP:V and WP:PUBLISH. The remaining keep rationales were various forms of WP:ITSIMPORTANT and WP:ITSNOTABLE; I didn't see any other policies being cited or implied. The delete !votes challenged the entry on WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:GNG, and WP:OR grounds, none of which were refuted by the keeps. I don't see how this could have been closed any other way. CThomas3 (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comment Ultimately I don't have a stake or even belief in whether this article should be kept or deleted, which is why I felt myself an appropriate closer. I view my job as closer to reflect back the consensus of participants considering the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. In this particular AfD the lens of Wikipedia policy played a more important role than the sheer headcount and I acted accordingly as a closer. The argument the keep side advanced is that 1989 is a significant year in Military History. There were no sources provided at the AfD to back this up, arguably making it WP:Original research. However, when closing I give the benefit of the doubt to arguments advanced by the participating editors. According to our 1989 template (which can be seen at 1989 but is not easily linked directly because of how the template works) we have articles on 1989 Archaeology, Architecture, Art, Aviation, Awards, Comics, Film, Home Video, Literature (poetry), Meteorology, music plus three specific genres of music, Rail transport, radio, science, spaceflight, sports, football, television, and video gaming. So we don't even have an article on Military in 1989 to fall back on. As we have no article and we have no sources presented at the discussion for this claim, I could lend the "1989 was an important year" argument less weight given it's issues with our WP:No original research policy. There was also a suggestion that this kind of article should be considered under list notability. Again no policy or guideline (or even essay) was linked to support this, and delete participants challenged this assertion, but again I attempted to give it full consideration. When asked for sources that supported its notability as a list the most meaningful responses were Independent sources establish the notability of the subject. In this case, the Austrian Army. Articles are sourced from reliable sources, which have been provided above. which was challenged as the Austrian Army was not up for deletion its notability was not important to the discussion. It was also suggested that classified documents exist which do document this topic. It was pointed out that WP:V does not let us consider classified documents. Again for policy based reasons I afforded these comments little weight. Given this, according to our policies, procedures, and practices I arrived that those participating had reached a delete consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • An oddly bad-tempered debate about an oddly specific article. I bet there's a wikia that wants it, so as a minimum outcome, I'd encourage userfication or draftification to enable that. I also think that even if this wasn't notable there may be scope to merge it somewhere.—S Marshall T/C 00:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. That discussion is a mess and I don't think it should be a basis for any decisions going forward. The endless arguments about the significance of 1989 seem to me to have an obvious solution, which nobody seems to have suggested: retitle the article to something like Austrian armed forces during the Cold War. I'd be amazed if that topic isn't notable, and the deleted article had a large amount of prose discussing general Austrian strategy and doctrine during the Cold War which isn't specific to 1989 anyway. The deleted article had citations to 16 sources at the time of deletion, so I'd have expected somebody supporting deletion to have at least gone through them and demonstrated why they don't meet the GNG or WP:V. Nobody seems to have done that. Admittedly most of the Keep arguments made during the discussion weren't great either, but I'm not seeing as much of a cast-iron case for deleting as the closer did. Hut 8.5 20:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-titling it was indeed not suggested which means it would not have been appropriate for me to close it that way and given the level of participation at the AfD I'm skeptical that it would be an appropriate outcome at DRV. As for the sources present while there was no source chart it was clear that several editors favoring deletion, most prominently the nominator Fram, had gone through all the sources and made statements about their lack of suitability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, re-titling wasn't discussed, but the fact that it wasn't suggests the discussion was defective. Per policy deleting pages is a last resort and shouldn't be undertaken unless the problem is not fixable through editing. An argument that something should be deleted because of a fixable problem is flawed. I am confident that the participants didn't read all, or even most, of those sources because they weren't in the article at the time. When nominated on 13 October the article was completely unsourced. It remained completely unsourced until late on 17 October, halfway through the discussion, and most of the sources weren't added until the 20th of October. Only one person commented after the article had reached that point, and they supported keeping it. Hut 8.5 08:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I had seen the sources, and none of them were at the same time reliable, indepth, and about the actual specific subject. Feel free to list whatever sources you think supported the notability of the actual article under discussion. Having a large number of sources is completely irrelevant if they don't meet these requirements of course. Fram (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Restoring and retitling the article doesn't really make sense any more either; the contents of the article are largely repeated (but without the specific 1989 focus) in Austrian Armed Forces#Army (both textual background in the first few sections, and then the structure of the army during the later years of the cold war in "Initial dispositions" and following). Fram (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'm happy with the solution of having the content as part of Austrian Armed Forces, it doesn't look like we need to keep the edit history for attribution reasons, and it may well need to be split out into something like Austrian Armed Forces during the Cold War if the article gets too big. Nevertheless I think the discussion should have considered an option like this instead of just trying to get the material deleted. Admittedly most of the content in question wasn't added to this article until late on 20 October after the discussion had died down, but that doesn't mean there was a consensus to delete it either. Hut 8.5 08:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- The votes were numerically even, but most of the keep offerings were unsupported claims of ITSNOTABLE or "it can be improved". The !votes on the delete side were more thoughtful and of higher quality. I don't think this was an unreasonable close. If people are using this discussion as an unsuitable precedent for others, that's something you should mention on those discussions. It's not a reason to revisit this one and say that suddenly there was no consensus when there actually was. Reyk YO! 08:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
1989 Swiss Army order of battle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like this close reviewed and request that it be relisted for further discussion. I do not feel there was a consensus for deletion and it is now being used as a precedent for deleting other similar articles (see 1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle). The closer made a good faith close, but I feel it was incorrect.   // Timothy :: talk  14:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 November 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Northern Arizona Wranglers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Similar to the Craig Foster case, this page was speedy deleted solely because it had been created by a sockpuppet, with no regard for any other detail added to the page. As a team of the Indoor Football League with several notable players with NFL experience signed, this team meets the criteria for notability (and I had added some information to spruce up the page beyond what it had been before. Therefore, I would like this page to be restored, and for the admin to be more careful when automatically speedy-deleting pages going forward. Tom Danson (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow Re-creation (and more). I also support re-creation by an editor in good standing. However, I do not support the suggestion that the admin needs to be more careful. we have policies and guidelines for a reason. I won't suggest for a second that every single one of those policies and guidelines is written perfectly; there is undoubtably room for improvement in many of them, but when one disagrees with a policy or guideline, I think the best approach is to open a discussion about that policy or guideline and persuade the community to make a change to the policy or guideline. When an editor chooses to ignore those policies and guidelines, not just once or twice out of ignorance or even good faith disagreement with the interpretation, this can lead to blocking or banning if the offenses are serious enough. The entire point of blocking and banning is to send a message to the editor that there blatant disregard of policies and guidelines is a net negative to the project, even if some of their edits, evaluated in isolation, might be acceptable edits. The editor has to show a commitment to understanding and respecting the policies and guidelines before continuing to contribute to the community. If we permit sock puppets, we are essentially saying that if you violate our policies to the point that the community feels the need to ban you, or an admin blocks you, you can avoid the responsibility of living up to our policies and guidelines by creating a sockpuppet account. some of the edits of that sock puppet may be problematic but if any are acceptable, we will accept them. This sends a message to a sock puppet that they have no need to care about our policies or guidelines they can edit as they choose and some of the material will remain. This will encourage the sock puppet to continue editing rather than rethinking their approach to editing, and will create a significant burden on the community who now have to carefully evaluate every single edit by that sock puppet. I support the notion that an editor who has shown blatant disregard for policies and guidelines ought to be removed from the community until such time as they show a willingness to follow our policies and guidelines. Permitting an article to stand that has been written by a sockpuppet is essentially saying that we decided to ignore the sock puppet policy. if you agree that sock puppet should be allowed to contribute, change the policy, don't simply support the retention of an article created by a sock poppet because the community is too lazy to re-create the article. If the article ought to be written, energy is in good standing can start it over from scratch, which will help remove the incentive for a sock puppet to continue to ignore the communities policies and guidelines.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get a temp undelete please? Or at least a judgement from an uninvolved admin if it is clear if there were substantial contributions by others or not? Hobit (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's absolutely no issue here with recreation, and I literally was just looking at this league's page (trying to gauge whether indoor american football was still a thing) and was surprised this team didn't have an article. The only question is whether we restore the prior draft or require a recreation from scratch, which requires a history check which I, like Hobit, cannot see. SportingFlyer T·C 23:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and WP:TROUT the deleting admin. [9] shows that someone other than the creator of the article had significant contributions. Not G5 eligible. Hobit (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn clear misapplication of WP:G5. Cheers to WilyD for the temphistrestore. SportingFlyer T·C 09:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do you think we should close the discussion now? Because I think we've reached a clear consensus to restore this page and nobody's commented in a couple days. Tom Danson (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. This edit prevents this from being a G5 case. As to the deleting admin,  it sounds like a trout quacking into a megaphone to me. 147.161.8.192 (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Craig Foster (filmmaker) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was apparently deleted because it had been created by a sockpuppet. However I had structured, tidied and added some detail to the page (spending quite some time to hunt down one specific detail), and I think the subject passes the notability test. I and another editor had posted a comment on the talk page as per instructions to contest the deletion at the time, but there didn't seem to be any response to these before deletion. I don't really have the time or inclination to create a new page, and having lost the history this would take quite a bit more work. It just seems a shame to lose a bit of good information, and his latest film My Octopus Teacher is popular on Netflix. (I don't know how to find the deletion discussion, so I'm not sure what to do about instruction no. 5 about listing this deletion review, sorry.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laterthanyouthink, It's my practice, when reviewing a G5 nomination, to confirm that the article was created by someone who has been banned or blocked, and if so to delete the article. It is not been my practice to assess whether there are substantial contributions by others. I am very sympathetic to the fact that good-faith editors may have worked hard on an article whose subject meets notability requirements, and thus it would be a shame to lose all that work. I don't have a complete sense about the communities views, but I am happy to participate in a discussion to determine how this should be handled. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sphilbrick, thanks for the reply and info. It's not huge but potentially useful, so it seemed a shame to lose it. I am equally happy for admins to review the history and come to a decision based on usual practice, not knowing enough about how these policies are applied, myself. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Robert McClenon. Is it possible to recover the history so I can use what has been done though? I'm not sure of the process. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Content emailed to LaterthanyouthinkS Philbrick(Talk) 20:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete because it appears the deletion was contrary to policy. WP:G5 "applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others". From S Philbrick's statement above I am not clear whether they ignore this statement of policy because they personally disagree with it, or whether, in their view, WP:G5 is actually a (severe) mis-statement of what the community's policy really is. I note they did not assess whether the edits by others were substantial. An assessment should have been made and acted upon. Thincat (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do disagree with the wording of G5, that was not why I deleted it. I apparently misremembered the policy and applied a policy that made sense as opposed to the actual wording of the policy. I don't object to and deletion of either of these files given the wording of G5. I'll try to remember not to act on G5 nominations in the future.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to do so, just check the page history first. SportingFlyer T·C 23:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't see why you shouldn't continue with G5 deletions though if you feel very strongly the written criterion is wrong you could leave them to someone else. Quite recently WP:G13 was changed to allow G13 with less checking[10] after discussion[11] (making it even more mindless in my opinion). So changes of policy are possible. Thincat (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thincat, Although Wikipedia:Deny recognition is merely an essay and doesn't carry the force of guidelines or policies, I don't think there's any dispute that dealing with banned and blocked editors is a time-consuming and exhaustive exercise. G5 is an important tool in that never-ending battle. However insisting that an article created by a banned or blocked editor is not eligible for G5 if it has been substantially edited by others is not just a loophole large enough to drive a truck through, but actually encourages sock puppetry and meet puppetry. I don't think we should be crafting policies that actually encouraged problem we are trying to stop. I am not missing that such editors sometimes create articles that are acceptable. However, if we think that the creation of acceptable articles is so important that it should be an exception to G5, then we ought to simply stop trying to block or ban anyone, and judge each edit on its merits. I trust it is obvious that such an approach would be unworkable, yet the exception to G5 essentially says we don't want any edits by block or banned editors unless they are good enough to attract some other editors who might be sock puppets or meat puppets) to the article. Yes, I know that policies can be changed, but I have far too much on my plate to take this on, so I'll let others work on deletions and I will work in other areas. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have now received the content of the article from Sphilbrick (thanks for that!), so I could re-create it, but obviously it's not all my work - and without being able to review the history again, I cannot say with certainty exactly how much I contributed. I move through so many articles that I forget after a week or two! But I did structure it with headings, and added some content and citations, and possibly categories and projects on the talk page. I won't do anything until/unless someone pings me and lets me know what if anything I should do here (and if I should re-create, what should the edit summary say?). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In practice, if you use any of the content other than the wholly new stuff you added, it'll need to be undeleted rather than re-started, to comply with the licence conditions WilyD 06:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I thought that might be the case, thanks WilyD. I have just thought to have a look at the page views, and it has been fairly popular (averaging 900-1000?), so it would be good to have it restored asap, if everyone's agreed. Thanks to all for your participation and education on this one (with apologies to Sphilbrick- I did not intend for you to be trouted!). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temp undeleted for discussion Requested by multiple people WilyD 06:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, this article has significant edits by an innocent user. See this edit. According to Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors, "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion under the G5 criterion. If the edits by the good faith editors are substantial, G5 no longer applies." All I can say to the deleting administrator is that this looks like a trout quacking into a megaphone to me. 147.161.8.59 (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment (I !voted above). I'm not serving trout in my restaurant. The matter of G5 has been discussed very many times over many years at WT:CSD (too many times to list). Not particularly about the "no substantial edits by others" clause but whether G5 should exist at all. People feel very strongly for and against. Last night I discovered "no substantial edits by others" was added back in 2007 so far as I can see without discussion before or afterwards by someone who shortly afterwards was blocked by Arbcom for sockpuppetry (diff). So the clause has a very bad provenance. Should policies be adhered to strictly as written? Well, some think they should and that a policy statement, if no longer appropriate, should be changed rather than disregarded. But policy statements are often said to be descriptive rather than normative in which case they should be adjusted retrospectively to fit any changing community norms. We can never know for sure whether a time for change has come. Thincat (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A) because speedy deletions can often happen with no review by a clueful editor, it's really important that admins follow those rules. B) Sure we can know, start an RfC. Until the rules change, they should be followed. I think the deleting admin has taken all that on board, but I'd urge folks not to just wing it with CSD. Hobit (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If in 2008 someone had come along and said the "no substantial edits by others" clause shouldn't have been added, the details of who added it may have been relevant. Once this clause has been there for 13 years, it's clearly part of the policy and should be followed unless a consensus shows otherwise. 147.161.12.192 (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Came across the page notice and conduced a search. There seems to be some coverage of a viral video, on three continents. If its a single sock/group of socks/UPE only worked on it, then perhaps somebody could create a wee 1.5k/2k article, sufficient to fill the space left. There is certainly enough there. scope_creepTalk 10:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 November 2020

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Islamic languages (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted per WP:G8 despite being marked as {{g8-exempt}} (the page has since been recreated by an IP with what looks like useless placeholder content). It contains a broad discussion that provides the background for the AfD of the article, and that should be required reading for anyone who tries to create any other sort of article at this title. – Uanfala (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Given the page was already present as the unhelpful IP recreation, I've restored the history for review too. Note also the precursor to this DRV at the deleting admin's talk page User_talk:Scottywong#Islamic_languages. ~ mazca talk 15:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore, I don't think this was a good use of CSD G8, which is a very broad speedy criterion with a correspondingly broad exception - "any page that is useful to Wikipedia". The presence of {{g8-exempt}} really should be sufficient to indicate that it's controversial, and that it would be better sent to MfD. I can totally understand Scottywong deleting it routinely as part of the AfD closure, as the closer script doesn't listen to that tag and it's unusual, but I don't understand the reticence to restore it when it was raised. G8 really shouldn't be a replacement for a deletion discussion when there's good-faith disagreement over the utility of a dependent page, even if the article itself had a good deletion consensus at AfD. ~ mazca talk 15:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from admin who closed the AfD related to this talk page: - I closed the AfD on Islamic languages and deleted the article. I also deleted the talk page of the article, because that is what is usually done with talk pages of deleted articles. User:Uanfala politely asked me to restore the talk page because they believed that it contained significant discussions that applied more broadly than just the article that was deleted. I considered the request and inspected the history of the deleted talk page. I found a talk page that had a grand total of 17 edits (only 9-10 of which actually contributed discussion to the page) over a 3-month period. There were two discussions on the page: the first was titled "What is an Islamic language?", which attempted to define inclusion criteria for this disambiguation page. The second discussion was a user arguing that this page is not a legitimate disambiguation page, which eventually lead to the successful AfD. I concluded that these discussions were not "significant", and also disagreed that these discussions were broad, or that they applied to more than the deleted dab page. Additionally, the extremely strong consensus at the AfD made it very unlikely that this article would ever find consensus to be recreated, and thus the discussions on the the talk page (which were constrained to the inclusion criteria of a dab page that will never exist) were not likely to be useful to anyone in the future. Therefore, I ultimately concluded that these pages were not "useful" enough to escape G8 deletion, and I declined to restore them. If the community disagrees and believes that I've misjudged the usefulness of the discussions on this page, then I have no problem with them being restored. ‑Scottywong| [spout] || 19:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's useful about this page, specifically? I'm not seeing it.—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's useful, in my opinion (as the person who started the AfD and who's been whining for the talk page to be restored), because it contains broad discussion about what kind of page could conceivably be located at this title. The AfD was for a dab page, but someone could try creating an article or a list (as actually happened shortly before the AfD concluded) and there isn't much in the AfD discussion that would tell them this wouldn't be a good idea. If a new article is created at this title, we'd have to go through AfD all over again, whereas if the talk page discussion were at hand we could just point to it and say "article doesn't make sense, discussed before". Of course, that doesn't make it supremely useful, but it makes it more useful than a non-existent page. – Uanfala (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see what's useful here either, but it's certainly more useful than many of the pages tagged G8, such as Talk:Jin Li (violinist) or Talk:Raquel Reyes (model). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Talk:Raquel Reyes (model) contains the extended rationale for the PROD that got the article deleted. I don't think it is any less useful than an AfD discussion. It makes sense to keep this talk page for the same reason that it makes sense to refrain from deleting an AfD discussion page upon the conclusion of a discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not personally convinced as to how useful this specific one is either, but I feel fairly strongly that if someone tags something with {{g8-exempt}} in good faith, then we, well, shouldn't be G8ing those pages. We have perfectly good deletion processes that can handle any disputed cases, and I really don't like the idea of G8 being basically a single admin deciding that, contrary to another editor's opinion, this page is not "useful". ~ mazca talk 21:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be very surprised if many admins who close AfDs would catch a {{g8-exempt}} template on the talk page of an article that is being deleted at AfD. Most of us use scripts to automate the process, and those scripts don't (yet) recognize that template. Ideally, yes, we'd examine and fully read the talk page of every article deleted at AfD. But practically, the amount of time and effort required to do that doesn't justify the 1 in 10,000 chance that you might see a {{g8-exempt}} template on a talk page. It's exceedingly rare that article talk pages are kept around after deleting the associated article. ‑Scottywong| [spill the beans] || 07:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scottywong: Yeah, I really do appreciate that, I could totally see myself doing exactly the same in an odd corner case like this, there's no particular reason you would have even looked at the talk page. I really don't object to your initial deletion of this - it's the refusal to restore it afterwards that I'm not comfortable with. An individual admin making a decision, over the explicit objection of another established editor, that a page is not "useful" just doesn't feel like something that really works as a speedy deletion criterion. This is probably something that wants clarifying in G8, and I'll probably look into that after this DRV regardless of the outcome, but I'm not sure what the point of {{g8-exempt}} is if it's just freely ignored. ~ mazca talk 23:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps there is no point to {{g8-exempt}}. There is nothing in WP:CSD#G8 that says you can't delete a page under G8 if it has that template on it. Anyone can put that template on any page; to me, it's just a suggestion that an admin should take a second look at the page before deciding to delete it. I never even knew that template existed until this incident. I'm concerned about your discomfort with all of this. A user made a request to me, I looked into it and came to the decision that I should decline that request (which is my right, I'm not obliged to grant every request made of me), and the next step is to bring my decision to a discussion with the wider community (i.e. DRV) to see if I made a mistake. I'm not sure what's making you uncomfortable about my refusal to restore the page; I contend that everything is being done by the book, and I'd actually commend Uanfala for staying civil, polite, and cordial despite my refusal to do what they wanted me to do. This is the way WP is supposed to work. ‑Scottywong| [chat] || 23:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, this is how WP is supposed to work, this DRV is absolutely the correct way to attempt to resolve this. I think we just disagree on the meaning of the wording of G8 - I think the "by the book" way of resolving this would have been restoring it as an ambiguous use of speedy deletion and encouraging an MfD for a discussion on the merits of this particular page. WP:CSD#G8 states that This criterion excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia. [...] Exceptions may be sign-posted with the template {{G8-exempt}}. The {{G8-exempt}} template is explicitly mentioned in the speedy deletion policy as a means of flagging exceptions to what's usually one of the less controversial CSDs. It's entirely possible that there's no point to the template, but we really shouldn't be expressly encouraging its use if administrators view it as such. CSDs are for unambiguous cases, and deleting it through a template added by a good-faith editor makes it ambiguous, in my book. ~ mazca talk 00:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My experience here is very similar to what I've often seen when trying to query pages deleted by criteria like G6, G8, or G14. These are supposed to be the least controversial ones, but once a page is deleted, it paradoxically becomes really difficult to have it restored. And I don't think I see a very good reason for the disparity that exists between challenging a CSD before and after a deletion. If the page is CSD tagged, then anyone (including, for G6 and G8, the creator) is free to object by removing the tag. Then, if the user who originally tagged it, then tags it again, they will be rightly chastised and pointed to WP:FORUMSHOP. And yet, if an objection is raised after deletion, all of a sudden it becomes really difficult to do anything about it. In practice, the deleting admin will either ignore the request, or find themselves unwilling to grant it, with the only available path then going through the heavy machinery of DRV, a process that most people who don't have strong metapedian inclinations will probably try to avoid. – Uanfala (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore as a matter of policy and courtesy. The speedy deletion policy says frankly that If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. Now of course no CSD tag was ever placed since Scottywong has access to the delete button, but that's merely a technicality. The spirit of the policy is quite clear that speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases, and if an editor objects to a page being speedily deleted, then the page is not eligible for speedy deletion. Using {{g8-exempt}} amounts to a proactive objection, essentially stating an intent to remove any G8 tag. The purpose is to prevent a fait accompli where an admin summarily deletes a page without giving anyone a chance to object, and it serves as a check on administrator power by preventing first-mover advantage for deleting administrators. Now, of course we use automated tools which don't necessarily recognize {{g8-exempt}}, but to me that means we should be more lenient with undeletion in these cases. We are still ultimately responsible for our edits with automated tools after all, and by my understanding of the CSD policy, this page was not eligible for deletion under G8 because of an obvious good faith objection. For that reason alone it should be restored. While we may disagree about whether to keep the page, those discussions are for MfD not DRV. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 November 2020

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

It's been nine years. This person is much more likely to be notable today than he was nine years ago. I request, at the very least, a removal of the indefinite create protection. I'm posting this here as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Joey_Primiani, since it seems that this is the only place to overturn an AFD.

I have no connection with this article other than that I activated the indefinite create protection, back when I was still an administrator, to reinforce the outcome of the AFD. I have no time to write a new article but I'm hoping others will, as a lot has happened since we deleted this page so long ago. Thanks, —Soap— 19:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've come to DRV, when I have prepared a brand new or heavily revised version of an article that had been deleted years previously. I was generally told that the old AFD were "stale", and it was a waste of time for DRV to conclude with an opinion on them. I was generally told to move the drafts to article space, where they could take their chances.
Whoever started Draft:Joey Primiani, which has been deleted as an abandoned draft six times in the last two years, would not have been able to move the new version to article space, so it can stand or fall on its merits, due to page protection that is eight years old.
So let's remove the page protection, and restore Draft:Joey Primiani. Geo Swan (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect, obviously.—S Marshall T/C 20:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • An eight-year-old creation protection on notability grounds is obviously unsupportable. After looking at the deleted draft, though, I'm loathe to unprotect - it fairly reeks of either self- or paid-for promotion, and I wouldn't hesitate to G11 it if I saw it in mainspace. If someone writes a draft that can get past AFC, or someone with more than two edits takes an interest, I have no problem with the mainspace version being unprotected at will. —Cryptic 00:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see the deleted content, but I did some google searches, and I too doubt a standalone article on Primiani would measure up to our inclusion criteria. He did play a role in the founding of a technology company named Backplane. Primiani seems to have been a fan of Lady Gaga, and did some work on helping her with social media. Near as I can determine, when venture capitalists invested $15 million he got sidelined. In my opinion Backplane may be notable, even if it burnt through the $15 million investment, over the next 4 years, with practically no tangible result. If the deleted article has some encyclopedic content, if it is restored to draft space, or userified, I suggest it would best if the interested party created Backplane (tech company), and incorporated the encyclopedic content on Primiani into that article. Geo Swan (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a G13 deletion for a draft. I have absolutely no issue with reverting a G13 deletion if someone wants to work on the article, but I'm also with Cryptic - there's no need to unprotect at this time if the draft is promotional. There's also absolutely no reason to overturn the AfD, since the deletion request overturn was a G13 speedy. SportingFlyer T·C 00:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Downgrade Protection to ECP, which was not available eight years ago. Most repeated re-creation can be dealt with by ECP, which is less restrictive than full protection. No reason to unprotect completely. No reason to leave fully protected. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt per nom. Encourage new editors to use AfC for long ago deleted articles, allow re-creation if WP:BIO-notability can be demonstrated with sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Downgrade to ECP per Robert. It's weird to me that this came up at DRV, and had I seen this at requests for unprotection I probably would have acted on it unilaterally. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
David Kellogg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I'd like to request userification. Talk page too, please.

I came across the AFD, and it concerned me. One justification in the nomination seemed to be that David Kellogg, director of two Hollywood movies, had more famous namesakes, and since they didn't have articles he shouldn't either. I think that is a bad argument for deletion. Rather its an argument for looking into the namesakes to see what kind of coverage they merit.

I think the nominator overlooked the significance of the rest of Kellogg's career, as a successful director of commercial and music video. He won several awards, and, contrary to what the AFD claimed, they were in his name.

Ridley Scott, Tony Scott and David Fincher are famous film directors now, but they were successful directors of commercials and music videos, first. Kellogg would be the counter-example, the successful commercial and music video director who tried directing feature films and went back to what he did best.

I don't know whether I want to make the effort to prepare a David Kellogg version 2.0 ready to move into article space. But I'd like to look at version 1.0. If I am not ready to move an improved version to article space, in one month, I'll put a G7 on it.

I think policy would allow me to put any version of a David Kellogg article that wasn't subject to a {{G4}} into article space, but if anyone here says they want a heads-up, first, I'll do that.

FWIW Kellogg has been a film Professor, for the last decade. While that falls far short of WP:ACADEMIC, I think it was a mistake to not at least mention it in the AFD.

FWIW, I did try to contact the closing admin before coming here. They seem to be on a break. Geo Swan (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • So that was indeed an exceptionally weird AfD with three !voters who either only had one edit and disappeared, five edits and then disappeared, or twelve edits over the span of about a year. I think the delete outcome was correct. I don't object to userfying, though I did a BEFORE search of my own and had an exceptionally difficult time finding any qualifying coverage of him, which I found surprising, so this may be an uphill effort. SportingFlyer T·C 00:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a persistent blp vio affecting about half the revisions of the article, which I don't think is reparable with revision deletion, or I'd just userfy this on the spot. (Other admins: this is the one I'm talking about, if you don't want to go looking.) The bulk of the article was lists of films, music videos, commercials, and awards, which I'll happily paste into a sandbox if you like (just gimme a preferred pagename in your userspace); other than that, I can't find any revision that referenced anything other than this, or had more than four or five short sentences of prose; and those didn't really manage to say anything more than what was in the lists, other than his birth year (1952) and that he was formerly with Anonymous Content. —Cryptic 00:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m at a loss to guess what the BLP violations might be. If there is BLP violation in the history, I encourage proving the deleted article’s references, and other non-creative (stuff not requiring attribution) to anyone who asks. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cryptic, if you think the nature of this BLP lapse that you see, and SmokeyJoe couldn't see, is so radioactive you can't state it openly, on en.wiki, I request you give me a brief explanation via email.
    • If your concern is that the article said he was responsible for some Playboy videos, that's documentable, so, I believe, not a BLP lapse.
  • Logan Hill (2010-08-16). "Mad Men Recap: You Look Swellegant!". Vulture. The David Kellogg whose biggest successes were directing Playboy videos and who is widely believed to be one of the worst directors who ever lived.
  • "David Kellogg: Filmography". British Film Institute.
  • It determined that the 1991 Playboy Calendar video he directed could be distributed without cuts. If I am not mistaken this Playboy video, and perhaps all the ones he directed, were modeled after the current state of Late Night talk shows, in 1991, where, for instance, their equivalent of Johnny Carson would have bikini-clad women as his side-kicks, instead of Ed McMann - ie material that would be PG14 rated, today.
  • If you don't send that email, and you don't return here with less, well, cryptic, assertion of a BLP violation, can we assume you took a second look, and concluded the article didn't lapse from BLP, after all? It is September 9th now, if I don't get that email by, let's say, September 11th, can I update other respondents here? Geo Swan (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Kellogg directed a video, entitled Jam, where Michael Jackson meets Michael Jordan, for the first time, on a basketball court, where Jordan tries to show Jackson basketball moves, and Jackson tries to show Jordan dance moves. Jordan is one of the wealthiest former sports players in the USA, and some sources I read said this video Kellogg directed represented an early instance of his augmenting his wealth in ways that went beyond salary and endorsements.

    Jared Zwerling (2013-03-14). "Oral history: MJ meets MJ for 'Jam' video". ESPN. Archived from the original on 2020-06-30. Retrieved 2020-11-08. Here is "Jam" director David Kellogg and producer Phil Rose, who are both still actively working together on commercials, with their vivid memories from the once-in-a-lifetime shoot, which also featured rappers Heavy D and Kris Kross:
    Also referenced here...

    "Michael Jackson's 20 Greatest Videos: The Stories Behind the Vision". Rolling Stone magazine. 2014-06-24. Archived from the original on 2020-09-22. Retrieved 2020-11-08. The production went into the neighborhood under the guise of a mayonnaise commercial. Neither the police or the landlord really knew what we were planning.

May I question your call on the authority of WP:THREE, here?
  1. Userification is not solely for restoring an improved version of a deleted article back to article space. Cutting and pasting bits from a userified article, to incorporate into related articles, is a perfectly reasonable use of userification. I am going to point out that I explicitly said that I would put a WP:CSD#G7 on the userified version if I didn't think it could be improved enough to be moved to article space.
  2. WP:THREE is not a link to a policy, or guideline, or wikipedia space essay. It is a cross-namespace redirect to a user essay that has been read barely more than 1000 times since it was started. Some essays, like WP:ATA are so widely read, and so widely accepted, that it is okay if people think they are actual policies or guidelines. Their wide acceptance gives them de facto authority equivalent to being an official policy of guideline. I suggest a user essay read barely more than 1000 times lacks that authority.
  3. WP:THREE says nothing about userification requests, so I question extending it to userification here. It is too high a bar. If the arguments in the essay hold merit, apply it in article space. When someone requests userification, and then moves what they regard as an improved version to article space, wouldn't that be when the essay becomes relevant?

    I am going to point out that I explicitly said that I was willing to give any interested parties a heads-up if I thought I had prepared a version ready for article space? If your doubts are really serious, why not just ask for that heads-up?

  4. I have a record of fixing articles facing deletion, or articles that have already been deleted, so they belong in article space. I'm sorry that I didn't keep a list, but I think I have done this dozens of times over the last ten years. English_surnames_of_Norman_origin is an example. When I encountered its AFD it seemed to me it was clearly a notable topic, yet its current state was very weak, being unreferenced, and full of bias original research. So I totally rewrote it.

    I'd like to be trusted to continue to try to rescue challenged articles, like this one, without having to prove I deserve to be trusted, in each particular instance.

I left a note on the user talk page of the essay's author. Geo Swan (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The links you've posted are interviews with him, which don't count towards WP:GNG. Also, WP:THREE shouldn't impact whether this gets userifyed, but I don't see any harm in asking to see if there are enough sources to move it back to mainspace. If the best sources are presented here, I think you'll have a difficult time making it stick in mainspace per WP:INHERITED, but that shouldn't preclude allowing you to work on the article. SportingFlyer T·C 21:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Cryptic's explanation for their BLP concern. I offered an email reply, one I wish I could feel free to share here. Geo Swan (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Okay, I looked at closing this, but as far as I can see, it's not possible to do so without assessing whether there's actually a BLP problem, which is asserted but not demonstrated or explained. If you're sufficiently concerned, explain it on a deleted page, any closing admin will be able to see it there. Otherwise, an unexplained assertion there's a BLP violation is hard to give much weight (but now that I've commented I won't close). WilyD 08:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks WilyD. Cryptic did reply to me, with their explanation, via email. I am sure their concern is good faith based, but I strongly disagree. First, the specific adjective that concerned them has been applied to lots of other articles about people in the film industry. Second, if, for the sake of argument, it were the kind of adjective that could not be included in article space, without a reference, I argued that the concern should be considered moot, because I supplied a reference to them in my email reply. That reference did not include that specific word, using synonyms, but SKYISBLUE.

    FWIW, I would not use that particular adjective in this article. A couple of years ago I started an article on another filmmaker, and disputed this word being used there, and got absolutely zero support for its disinclusion. Geo Swan (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been open longer than usual.

    I am going to repeat that while I respect the contributor who voiced the concern that an adjective in the deleted article was a BLP violation, I disagree.

    I won't include that word here, in this discussion. But I am happy to email anyone an example of a BLP article I started, where that word was added by later contributors, and I received absolutely zero support for disincluding it.

    I am going to repeat that it if its inclusion was a BLP violation, in the deleted article, because it lacked RS substantion, there are RS that do substantiate it, which I think would make that issue moot. I am going to repeat that I would not use that particular adjective. I wouldn't use it, not because it can't be substantiated, but because it is too ambiguous, and there are other ways of covering that aspect of film-maker's careers that no one would think were problematic. Geo Swan (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Duoyunxuan – No action taken - but the situation is resolved by draftication; leaving the suggestions the article should be restored for a deletion at AfD, or the suggestion that it should be overturned despite being a proper A7 deletion because it's contested, even though it's no longer contested, aren't actionable. Everyone should be happy with me closing this without taking any action. You can call it no consensus if you like, I guess. WilyD 08:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC) WilyD 08:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Duoyunxuan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The [12] I created was speedy deleted. This is a misunderstanding. Because it is as important as Rong Bao Zhai. Duoyunxuan and Rong Bao Zhai are equivalent to Sotheby's and Christie's in the West. Please review the references below:

  1. China's commerce department has identified the Duoyunxuan as the first auction companies established and the time-honored brand in Chinese mainland.
  2. Artnet, an international professional art website, introduces the Duoyunxuan;
  3. The Duoyunxuan is introduced in the Encyclopedia of China.

So this article should be restored. --Jujiang (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that I've reformatted this in Special:Diff/987458810. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh. Probably depends on the content of the page at the time as to whether an A7 was warranted. There may well be enough here (at a glance) to go to AfD at least, but I think it's quite unlikely to survive. And I find it slightly strange that it seemingly doesn't have a listing on Baidu Baike or zhwiki. But is it worth a listing? Probably. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire prose content was "'''Duoyunxuan''' ({{zh|t=朵雲軒|s=朵云轩}}}}, Studio of Glorious Treasures) is an old [[stationery]], [[calligraphy]] and [[painting]] shop in [[Shanghai]], China. It is located in Nanjing East Road in Shanghai. It was founded in 1900 (26th year of the [[Guangxu]] reign in the [[Qing dynasty]]).<ref>[http://www.duoyunxuan.com/getDyx_about.do 上海朵云轩拍卖公司简介]</ref>" —Cryptic 05:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an article 朵云轩 in baibu.--Wolfch (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is perfectly possible to have a valid WP:A7 deletion of a (poorly written) article on a notable or even highly notable topic. This looks to be the case here. English Wikipedia requires references and, at the very least, an indication of importance. A prior A7 speedy deletion in no way prejudices the creation of a suitable article. Thincat (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thincat: The speedy deletion is not because it is poorly written, but because it says "promotion". Can this article be recreated in AfD? Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy deletion A7 mentioned "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". I think it is suitable for the previous content.--Wolfch (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Duoyunxuan has twice been deleted, not because it was promotional but because it "does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject".[13] Judging by the text quoted by Cryptic above I think that was a valid claim. Have other articles been created on this topic which may have been promotional? And, by the way, a promotional article will indeed have been poorly written from a Wikipedia point of view. You do not recreate articles through AfD. Wait for this discussion to be closed and you will be told what may then happen. Thincat (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. (In fact, the above three references are enough to prove its importance and significance.) --Jujiang (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thincat are you suggesting good faith contributors tag poorly written articles with an {{A7}} - even when they realize the underlying topic of the articles were unquestionably notable? That surprises me. Shouldn't any non-BLP article, that was poorly-written, be subject to an alternative to deletion, like editorial tags? If the underlying topic is notable, surely deletion should be the last resort?

    I am going to ping the deleting administrators, @Anthony Bradbury and Amortias:. Perhaps they could ping to original tag placers? Geo Swan (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a sign of the most notable of topics that they are first tagged (and sometimes deleted) as A7![14] Thincat (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wolfch noted the chinese wikipedia has an article on this topic. Thanks! I tried looking at the google translation of the entry in the Encyclopedia of China Jujiang mentioned above, and google translation the article from the Chinese wikipedia. Neither are fully coherent. Near as I can determine it is a 120 year old organization, that now has official Government of China backing, to support traditional Chinese arts, like traditional Chinese calligraphy.

    If I understood the translation I would be amazed to see a well-written article on this topic that wasn't easily recognized as notable. Geo Swan (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Deleting admin here. The article in its entirety described it as an old stationary shop and made no references or claims of meeting WP:NOTE or any other notability criteria. The tagging editor has been around longer than I have and im confident in their (and my) judgement in this case and A7 was what appeared to be a reasonable criteria for deletion. Without additional work i cant see this would survive at AFD either. Amortias (T)(C) 20:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geo Swan - I wouldnt be adverse to this being drafed if requested. Amortias (T)(C) 20:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calligraphy is not an important field of endeavor in the Anglosphere. Steve Jobs studied Calligraphy, and it is said that the influence of looking for beauty in communication played a very influential role in the development of the Macintosh, and later Apple products. But he may be the only person notably influenced by Calligraphy, in the West.
    • Without claiming to be an expert in China, it is my understanding that Calligraphy is an enormously more important in China, for a variety of reasons. So, no matter how much you respect the original tagger, he or she likely made a huge mistake for writing off Duoyunxuan as just a stationary store. I await their weighing in here. Geo Swan (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we click on the website of Duoyunxuan[15], we can see that it includes Chinese paintings, calligraphy, ceramics, furniture and many other types of arts and crafts. The size and importance of Duoyunxuan in China is equivalent to that of Sotheby's and Christie's in the West. --Jujiang (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine. Create an article that either has sources that approach the requirements of WP:N or make some claim of importance. Without that, it can be deleted by an admin under WP:CSD#A7. My understanding is that the article, as it existed, was basically a line or two. Just do it again, but with a bit more. Hobit (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Amortias: Do I have to wait for the discussion here to end when I recreate the draft? --Jujiang (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A7 simply because it is being contested, and allow AFD. If there is reasonable doubt about a speedy deletion, it shouldn't be a speedy deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The A7 was fine and defensible. The remedy here is exactly what's been proposed - getting the article over the GNG threshold. SportingFlyer T·C 10:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What does A7 have to do with the GNG? A7 isn't about sourcing at all. We don't speedy for GNG. It may well be a reasonable conclusion for an admin to reach with the info they had, but we have more info here than the deleting admin had when they deleted it. And I cannot see anything here that suggests this topic doesn't deserve, at minimum, an AfD listing. I agree with Robert above; if there's a dispute on the notability of a content here, and it has never had a fair listing yet, it should not be speedied. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you mis-understood me. A7 has absolutely nothing to do with sourcing, and I never said anything to imply it did. Based on what I've seen, this was a defensible A7 (I'm not sure I would have A7'd it, but it's defensible.) My latter comment only related to the fact that the remedy here is writing an article which is good enough for main space, i.e. an article which passes GNG, like others have said, as opposed to restoring the old article straight up. SportingFlyer T·C 23:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I see what you're saying now. But isn't that #3 on the purpose? I feel we've determined here that the topic probably has merit, and it's likely possible to write an encyclopaedic article on it. This is a collaborative project after all, we can work on articles in the mainspace and give this editor a hand. An endorsement here and this likely encyclopaedic article will probably never exist. We have to make at least some effort to show tolerance to articles when editors try to cover non-Western encyclopaedic content. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jujiang started to write a draft Draft:Duo Yun Xuan--Wolfch (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this isn't a purpose #3 but rather a #2, this is specifically to review whether an A7 deletion was proper which is based on the content in the deleted article, not on the notability of the topic - and since we're already down the road of re-creation, I don't see the point in restoring an article which was validly A7'd. SportingFlyer T·C 14:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this article can be recreated, I have written the Draft:Duo Yun Xuan. Can I revoke this deletion review request? --Jujiang (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't withdraw this, unfortunately, since multiple participants have voted not to endorse. You can just do your thing anyway, including moving your draft to mainspace once you think it's ready. Don't worry about this DRV, a closer will come along and deal with it in due course. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks. --Jujiang (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy -- it should never have reached here. A speedy contested in good faith should get a discussion. It's the basic principle of speedy. I make no prediction about the outcome of the afd, but that, not here, is where good faith contested speedys get decided. My speedy deletions sometimes get challenged. Unless its a troll or someone editing in violation of the terms of use, or copyvio or something similar, I do the only reasonable thing an admin can do, which is undelete and send to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 November 2020

[edit]

5 November 2020

[edit]

4 November 2020

[edit]

3 November 2020

[edit]

2 November 2020

[edit]

1 November 2020

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

I'm asking that this close be overturned, or at least reopened and relisted, as the close does not appear to address the rationale for deletion (which includes "[the navbox {{Karlheinz Stockhausen}}] contains all of the links in the nominated template"), nor points raised in discussion (in particular, "there is not a single article using {{Licht}} which is not also using {{Karlheinz Stockhausen}}"). TfD is not a vote, and the two (only) keep comments amount to no more than "I like it" (expressed as "I don't like the alternative"). The closer has declined my request to reconsider. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer comment: Discussion on my talk. My view is as I say there. I've closed a good number of TfD discussions at this point, and none without evaluating the arguments, regardless of the vote tally. Course, like all other closers at TfD, I don't see the need to write paragraphs for every close I make, although I do it often enough (probably more than the average closer, tbh), especially in cases where I think it would increase confidence in the close, provide helpful advice to editors, or for less clear outcomes. So really I can only refer back to the answer I gave at my talk, and in addition reference various portions of WP:NAVBOX for the PAG-based support of the keep arguments (which asserted that the template provides good navigational value), whilst the deletion argument is not supported by the same guideline. Hence I see no reason to wholly discredit the keep arguments, which is what would be required to achieve the "delete" result requested here. I will also note that I did relist it for further comments initially, so this discussion was already open for two weeks. Further, the achieved quorum is not atypical in the context of navbox TfDs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A navbox listing 11 articles serves a very different purpose from a broader one listing more than 200 articles, so the rationale for deletion is unpersuasive, and the "Keep" closure was correct given that no one other than the nominator voted for deletion. I don't understand why this was brought to DRV. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I regularly close TfDs and would have made the same call if I were to close this. The only somewhat reasonable alternative here would be to relist it, but given that there already was a relist, noone has supported the proposal except for the nominator and no new arguments for deletion have been introduced since the relist I would not do so. In fact Primefac reverted an attempted relist here the day before the close. --Trialpears (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The nominator here will be well aware that deletion review is used to address issues of failure to follow deletion process, not merely because they disagree with the outcome. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but I don't think the chiding of the nom above is appropriate - this was a non-admin close (though those are common at TfD) with minimal participation (also common at TfD) so if the nom thinks the closer didn't weigh the !keep arguments properly we can have a look. I don't think this is the case, though: the general rule is The template is redundant to a better-designed template, and the !voters disagreed with that, and the !voters didn't misapply policy. SportingFlyer T·C 01:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The deletion nomination wasn’t persuading anyone. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_November&oldid=986296821"