Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2020 May 28
2020 May 30 >

29 May 2020

[edit]
  • Tolu' A Akinyemi – No consensus to overturn the "delete" closure. Opinion is split between those who would endorse the "delete" closure as reflecting the clear consensus of the discussion, and those who would overturn to "keep" or relist because they consider the "delete" arguments to be mistaken. In a no consensus situation like this at DRV, I as the closer could relist the discussion. I decline to do so because the purpose of relisting a discussion is to obtain a clearer consensus, but consensus in this case appears to be clear. Moreover, it is accepted that the purpose of DRV is to remedy procedural errors, not to relitigate deletion discussions on the merits. To me, it follows from this that discussions should not be relisted from DRV for the purpose of changing an outcome considered to be wrong by DRV contributors. Accordingly, the article remains deleted for lack of consensus to overturn the decision to delete it. Sandstein 07:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tolu' A Akinyemi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tolu' A Akinyemi on the grounds that it lacks enough in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources meanwhile this this and this was referenced in the article. Olatunde Brain (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse deletion per this nomination, the source existed in the article and it's clear the delete voters considered them. Disliking the outcome of an AFD is not a valid use of DRV and I suggest this be withdrawn. Praxidicae (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please what do you mean by 'Disliking' the outcome of AFD, should i have Liked it when i feel the consensus was against me? I didn't just requested a DRV without discussing first with the adminstrator. He told me to move on and accept that the consensus was against me or request a DRV. The question you should ask is are the cited sources independent, reliable and verifiable?. Many of the editors shifted opinions during the discussion which leads me to ask if an article must meet all the criteria to be accepted. This is not a 'Dislike' it's the protocols and i'm following just that. --Olatunde Brain (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain on what basis you've filed this DRV. DRV isn't for arguing notability, it's for determining whether the close was correct. Was the close incorrect? There were six voters including yourself and the nominator. As per consensus and not just even counting votes, 5 voted for deletion and one (you) voted to keep. I don't see that any of the delete votes were flawed or otherwise able to be excluded. See this section, specifically for when it should be used. Which of this criteria does it meet? Praxidicae (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently their argument isn't that solid because my points rebutted theirs the WP:DELREASON was that it lacks enough in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources of which i have proved to be incorrect. The nominator also claimed to have made google searches before concluding which was clearly against WP:BASIC, because a subject who shares similar information with the subject of discussion will often appear first which is what i explained to the nominator that most times people talk about our subject of discussion with the picture of the other subject in mind. A clear example of this was Burna Boy's Ye and Kanye West's Ye. --Olatunde Brain (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources you provided were present at the time of deletion and per WP:AGF, the voters took them into account. So you're literally violating the purpose of DRV by arguing this and that other articles exist. I suggest you withdraw this now as it's an abuse of this process. Praxidicae (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion. So this is an appeal not an argument and as per this section #1 says i can--Olatunde Brain (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. You are arguing that it's notable, not that the afd itself was flawed or incorrect. You have presented exactly zero sources that are new that would override the AFD, so you're literally just arguing against the decision because you do not like it. Praxidicae (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brain7days please answer the following with a yes or no answer - no lengthy debate:
  1. Did the closer, Joe Roe interpret consensus, which was 5 delete, 1 keep wrong?
  2. Was it speedily deleted outside of the AFD?
  3. Has new significant information, specifically coverage in reliable sources that did not exist at the time of AFD, exist now? If yes, please provide them.
  4. Was it deleted in a manner that any reasonable editor would be unable to tell the reasoning?
  5. Were there substantial procedural errors in the AFD?

Praxidicae (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae But my decision to request a DRV is not against the closer now, or is it?, if it is then i'm sorry . I believe i was appealing that the discussion be reviewed, i have nothing against the closer infact he gave me the option to request a DRV.--Olatunde Brain (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as a flawed discussion. I'm seeing no evidence that the sources listed above (book reviews listed in The Guardian, The Sun (United Kingdom), and The Punch) were discussed. In fact the first delete !voter says "None of books have been discussed in reliable sources", which is just untrue. Rather issues of Amazon book rankings and the like were the focus of the discussion. Given those sources appear to be enough to meet WP:N and at least one book would meet WP:BOOK. It may well be that we require authors to have more than just reviews of their work, but that should be discussed in an AfD. Hobit (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you insinuating that none of the five delete voters actually read the article or sources? Also The Sun is definitely not reliable, it's tabloid trash. Also, The_Guardian_(Nigeria) is not the same as The Guardian, it's not even the same company. Praxidicae (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources were not discussed, at all, at the AfD and at least two delete !voters specifically said there were no reliable sources, when there plainly are. So either they had deep thoughts about Nigerian sources (and The Sun) and didn't share them or they didn't notice them. In any case, the sources weren't discussed at the AfD and so I think we should relist and see what happens once the sources are discussed. If you are right and folks think those sources are poor, we'll get to the same place. If not, we will have kept an article on a notable topic. Seems like a low-cost way forward. Hobit (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Votes do not have to detail every source they read, we have to assume per WP:AGF that they've done their due diligence. It's not about being Nigerian sources either, The Sun is garbage as per WP:RSP. Equating The Guardian.ng to The Guardian is also misleading. My point has been this entire time, that there was no error in the close nor procedural mishaps. It's quite a hefty charge to assume that five editors didn't bother reading any of the sources. Praxidicae (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Nigerian sources are garbage? The Guardian Nigeria was established in 1983 by Alex Ibru here you are saying it is not reliable, somebody explain what is going on, the subject is registered with the british library. What exactly are reliable sources if i may ask? Infact i've got more sources see Business Day The nation northern insight AgeUK and Daily sun (was cited also) London Connected if all this sources are not reliable, then what is, We might as well delete many articles on wiki because 5 in 10 articles have cited these sources. I am flabbergasted. The nominator claimed to have made thorough research. --Olatunde Brain (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brain7days do not misquote me. I never once said Nigerian sources are garbage. I said The Sun is garbage because it's tabloid trash and it is, as per consensus. I also never said that theguardianng wasn't reliable just that it is not the same as The Guardian and isn't even the same company as the above editor wrongly stated. Please redact your false statement. Praxidicae (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also this is a press release and ldnconnected is definitely not an rs. Praxidicae (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae Ok you never said Nigerian Sources are garbage (i take that back) But you assume that the editors who voted that the same Nigerian sources are unreliable have done so as per WP:AGF when all they did was Basic research? Even though the articles did not violate any of the WP:DEL#REASON because the article clearly met atleast one criteria in WP:LIVE where is the good faith?. Anyways remove AgeUK and LondonConnected we still have atleast 6 sources, Not enough? --Olatunde Brain (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply makes no sense at all. You can't accuse people of not assuming good faith for criticizing your poor choice of venue all while assuming bad faith about the editors in the DRV. How do you know they didn't read these sources? Are you a mind reader? Praxidicae (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are 'no editors' criticizing my 'poor choice of venue' it's just you who think this article doesn't deserve a review and i shouldn't be here, and you want me to 'assume' you are doing so as per WP:AGF and it's fine. Let a sleeping dog lie, there are other things to do. I Apologise Thank you. --Olatunde Brain (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (if not a straight overturn to keep.) This was a badly flawed discussion. The keep !voter tried to save with sources and did not convince the other participants, in part because the discussion went all over the place. The subject of the article clearly passes WP:POET with the reviews at [1] [2] [3] Those (along with the Sun, which is different than the UK Sun) clearly demonstrate the fact this should be kept. There is a little bit of confusion because he shares a name with another notable modern Nigerian poet, but easy web searches uncovered these sources. I want to note there was absolutely no problem with the close on the closer's side, as consensus was for delete, and that while I believe DRV is not a place for a second AfD, I think this is a particularly exceptional case. I'm not looking to get into an argument about whether the sources presented do or do not meet WP:GNG, but I would like to make that case at an AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 02:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun source here may not be the tabloid but there is still no evidence its reliable. Take a look at their contact page and completely blank about us page. Considering they also use the exact logo of The Sun UK, it's not unreasonable to believe they are the same and not entirely reputable given they are depending on someone else's name recognition and same goes for Guardianng. Praxidicae (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence it's unreliable, either. It's one of the top newspapers in Nigeria, #1 according to one source, #5 according to another. Furthermore if you want to disqualify it for the sake of arguments, you could easily add in other reviews from other top Nigerian newspapers such as [4] or [5]. SportingFlyer T·C 04:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, possibly relist/refund, but frankly the arguments of the single keep is all over the place. It's true that "sources not discussed at AfD" would be purpose #3, but I'm not convinced that a relist/renom would see more focused discussion. I would favour refund and eventual creation via AfC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, as always I disregard John Pack Lambert, who's the one-man counterpart to the ARS and demonstrably has a history of voting without doing basic searches. That leaves us with Versace1608, GPL93, and Newshunter12.
    Newshunter12 alleges that there's no significant coverage in third party sources; but the article cited three national newspaper articles directly about the subject. Some editors might give Newshunter12's vote less weight because of that -- but I don't. I give his vote zero weight, because there's direct evidence that what he's saying is counterfactual.
    GPL93 goes for "delete" because he's applying a specific notability guideline ("SNG") to someone who passes the general notability guideline ("GNG"). I think he's objectively wrong to do so. We've had many discussions at DRV about whether SNGs can overrule the GNG, of course.
    This leaves us with Versace1608 who says the article subject doesn't pass the GNG, and he too is objectively wrong.
    So, when I subtract all the "delete" votes that I feel deserve no weight, I'm left with zero "delete" votes. I can't agree with the closer in this case.—S Marshall T/C 15:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've temporarily undeleted the page so non-admins can review the article for purposes of this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closer has correctly reflected the consensus at the debate and I have to endorse the closure. However, it does seem to me that many of the arguments in the AFD were fatally flawed, by alleging that GNG was not met when there is quite a lot of evidence that there is. I would suggest restoring to draft but would not object to relisting. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It is clear that the subject of article passes WP:GNG with sufficient evidence to prove it, and those evidences (sources) was not discussed at AFD. Moreso, the discussion was completely flawed by a suspected stratagem because three(3) of the voters at AFD including the first voter at DRV were all listed on the nominator's INFLUENCERS LIST (and that explains why he (praxidicae) was hellbent on defending his endorsement) the nominator however deleted that list after we had this conversation. A coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous - Albert Einstein. Since wikipedia is not a final draft and other stuff exist relisting will only take us back to square one --Olatunde Brain (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brain7days, I would advise that you please don't cast aspersions on other editors' motives, as that is pretty close to making a personal attack, which is not allowed. Also, nominating a DRV is implicitly an "overturn" !vote, which makes your bolded overturn here redundant and generally frowned upon. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brain7days I have no idea what that influence list is nor why my name is on it. There is no motive here. DRV is not about disliking the outcome of a clear consensus as noted below. I suggest you strike your ridiculous comment immediately. Also, for the record, I am not a he, I am female and prefer to be referred to as such. Praxidicae (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Brain7days, Please always assume good faith, refrain from casting aspersions & always endeavor to remain civil. What you stated above “the nominator however deleted that list after we had this conversation”, is the inverse of assuming good faith. You came into this collaborative project & your first article was an article for yourself which was eventually deleted then you went on to create an article for this individual whom you most likely are quite familiar with(which i AFDed) & was deleted as well but nobody assumed bad faith with you or thought of you as a promo only account but rather, we directed you accordingly to helpful policies & guidelines you needed to understand before attempting to create any more articles but you have however chosen to see conspiracies where there isn’t any & assumed the worst in other editors seeking to aid you in your journey as an editor & that isn’t proper neither is it fair. Celestina007 (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha3031 Actually my vote came after an endorse deletion vote by the nominator, I believe in balance and fairness, Praxidicae sorry for a mistake in Identity and for the last time, i did not dislike the outcome of AFD, i just feel the consensus was against me and look we can not continue to say DRV should primarily be about the consensus without looking at the authencity of the WP:DELREASON there is a reason it is called an appeal to review right?--Olatunde Brain (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Celestina007 I already predicted that your next comment will be about my article but unfortunately you are wrong, i have created an article before that and i explained here how that happened.So my account is not a promo account i don't have anything to hide or fear here. My edit history is available for anyone and everyone--Olatunde Brain (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Brain7days, apologies but you’d agree that my point is still very much valid. we assumed good faith with you & it wouldn’t be too much to ask to in turn assume good faith with us. The consensus was a clear delete & the admin who closed the AFD was very much apt, so this DRV isn’t necessary & is an abuse to the entire DRV process & what it represents/stands for. You not accepting or liking the outcome of an AFD isn’t what a DRV is for. Quit rushing to reply or react for the sake of it but rather start to actually listen. Furthermore creating articles for yourself or for someone you are familiar with are all traits of a promo account. But in the end don’t “anticipate” like you stated above, this isn’t a battle contest nor a game where we gain points but rather this a collaborative project & here we work together. Celestina007 (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do say that "DRV isn't 'AfD, round two'", but I think it's fair to treat this as a WP:DRVPURPOSE#3, since it does (correct me if I'm wrong) bring up information that wasn't discussed at AfD. On the other hand, yes, the nominator could perhaps familiarise themselves a little more with what DRV is allowed to do (for #3, that's usually a relist or refund), since otherwise it's just going to be a source of fustration. We don't overturn closures that aren't wrong, and we don't overturn discussions either, even if they are wrong. That's why we have things like "I would have voted keep, but endorse" comments like Reyk makes below. AfD is where people who are familiar with things like Notability congregate, so that's where we discuss things like notability (it doesn't really matter that there's probably an overlap—sticking to the point of these noticeboards will make topical discussions easier to find, for those who want to contribute). We really can't, and shouldn't, just redo an AfD on the spot here, much like how we shouldn't amend policies—that's for VPP and RfCs—even if it's policies that would concern us. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha3031, you make a valid point. Celestina007 (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- I didn't participate in the AfD and, if I had, I probably would have voted keep. But it would take exceptional reasons to overturn such a clear consensus, and there is nothing exceptional about "I think people should have voted keep". Reyk YO! 10:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Reyk: I think failing to recognise sources which clearly contribute to WP:GNG is exceptional enough. WP:AUTHOR typically requires two or three critical reviews. Akinyemi has at least four amongst the five largest Nigerian newspapers as well as several Nigerian literary journals, and they were used in the article that was deleted. This is clear error. This point was not made at the AfD, in part because the users advocating for the article to be kept don't appear to be regular AfD participants. I've edited Nigerian articles in the past and I also don't expect your average AfD participant to know that Pulse NG or Vanguard are top sources for Nigeria-related topics. I would like this to be relisted specifically so that I can make that point. SportingFlyer T·C 15:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, well, I would have voted keep, but disagreement alone is not a reason to relist. However, there is substantial evidence that the Delete voters did not actually analyse the sources, and so a relist so they can actually be discussed seems appropriate to me. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:19, 4 June 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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_May_29&oldid=1039558637"