Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 20

20 September 2023

Pidge (company)

Pidge (company) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was reviewed twice & there was no change. First nomination & no votes. Soft delete & article refunded. Second nomination 2 votes with Delete. Both nomination was addressed by same person (checked his edits which was below 100). I have read about notability, and all the references were reliable. Still article got deleted. Am I missing with Notability or we can make the article back to mainspace? Or shall I go through AfC review rather than directly publishing? VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 20:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse The discussion was unanimous and could not have closed any other way I have read about notability, and all the references were reliable is a non-sequitur - notability, especially for companies, has to do with far more than reliability. It may be time to accept that the the community has decided that this company should not have an article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Pppery, I will read about notability again, and respect the decision. VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 07:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse. Two additional notes. First: Number of edits has naught to do with DRV. If the nominator believes that there be a specific conduct issue, it should be raised with evidence at an appropriate venue. (Number of edits also does not constitute sufficient evidence for anything) Second: Beyond reliable, coverage must also be significant, independent and secondary. An example of what might be excluded as not-significant coverage would be funding announcements. As a general comment on notability, I will also add that independent and secondary refer to different things and both must be met. At this time, I would suggest that AfC review is a good idea. Continuing to familiarise oneself with the notability guidelines is also a good idea, andkI would suggest doing both, time permitting the second. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Alpha3031, Agreed with both the pointers addressed. Definitely, I will opt for AfC from now on. VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 07:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse both closes, if they are being appealed. Both closes were closed the only possible way. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Robert McClenon. VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 07:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Allow Submission of Draft - The title has not been salted, and the appellant is free to create another article, but it will almost certainly be taken to AFD. It is much better to submit a draft through AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Robert McClenon, copy that. We can close this discussion as I have understood what needs to be done. Thank you very much all for clearing all my doubts. Let me invest more time so that I can contribute precisely & in constructive manner. Will introvert & investigate my learnings. VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 07:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Princess Anna of Saxony (1903–1976) (closed)

Princess Anna of Saxony (1903–1976) – Procedural close: requester is evading a block, with all other editors !voting endorse. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Princess Anna of Saxony (1903–1976) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Clearly a no consensus result but closure's decision is redirect, also WP:IDONTLIKE bullied by anti-monarchy gang, who trying to deleted many royalty articles since 2020. The princess was a daughter of a reigning monarch, and her life received extensive coverage from various sources, also notable enough for a biography to have be written about her "The Struggle for a Royal Child, Anna Monica Pia, Duchess of Saxony", ISBN:  9781332933518. For example AfD outcome see wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane, Duchess of Württemberg. Unfair decision! Why not have an entry on Wikipedia because she was not a princess of a British monarch?. Thanks 62.181.221.7 (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Endorse close reasoning: AfDs are closed based on sources, policy, and guidelines. The only way this is no-consensus is by counting votes and hoping NOTINHERITED is ignored. Keep voters had a lot of assertions, but no sources and this article does not meet notability guidelines.  // Timothy :: talk  09:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Long time no see old friend, you r still shameful! Well, Subject of a book is Enough to pass WP:GNG. GNG rule is not created for a weapon. 82.209.191.153 (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Please tone it down a bit, anon. Calling other editors "shameful", "disgusting" and "shameless members of a gang" isn't going to help your case here, nor is suggesting that there is an "anti-monarchy gang" conspiring to have articles deleted. Can you demonstrate here that "her life", and not just her parents' custody dispute, received "extensive coverage"? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Endorse. You're just rehashing the keep arguments, which as Vanamonde93's closing statement (you forgot to discuss this with him first, by the way) already said, failed because assertions of importance and pleases of unfairness are very weak in the face of an actual policy- and source-based evaluation of notability. The anti-monarchy gang sounds like a blast, though – where do I sign up? – Joe (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Given the tone being employed here, I don't especially mind that this wasn't raised with me; I don't think that would have been terribly productive. I stand by my closure. Members of royal families who never ruled themselves are sometimes notable because of other activities, and sometimes not. The arguments that this particular individual was not were far stronger. I'm persuaded by the argument that coverage of a custody battle is not SIGCOV for the child subject of that battle, though it may be for the parents. And while I didn't downweight !votes based on conduct, tossing around personal attacks isn't helping your case. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Endorse I agree with the closer that the Redirect arguments were stronger. Since the arguments for redirection were that the subject has little coverage outside of the custody dispute, the most convincing way to undo the redirection would be to write an article or draft about her which has substantial coverage of the other parts of her life. It's true that she was the daughter of a reigning monarch, but the monarchy was abolished when she was still a child and it wasn't a monarchy of an independent country anyway, so it shouldn't be that surprising if she isn't notable. Hut 8.5 17:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.