Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 2021 Deletion review archives May 2021 >

30 April 2021

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

Non Admin Closure after only one vote for draftifying, not sufficient for consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderWaterford (talk • contribs)

  • Do you have any actual objection to the draftification? WP:NFF says that we shouldn't have articles on films which haven't started principal photography, and there wasn't any evidence this film had. Unless someone can show otherwise the article will need to be deleted, draftified, or merged/redirected somewhere else. Hut 8.5 17:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, endorse. This is an uncontroversial, obvious close and nobody has offered any argument against it, even now. Relisting it would be bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Anybody who thinks we should have an article on the subject is welcome to improve the draft. The fact the closer is a blocked sock does not affect that. Hut 8.5 07:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from closer: While I closed it without following the exact procedure, I believe this would have been clearly a delete or draftify. I have got a good advice from Barkeep49 regarding what exacly wrong happened from my side. I should have relisted this rather than proceeding with my own personal view since only one person voted there. Anyway, this article is surely a case of WP:TOOSOON as the production is not notable. But since the correct procedure were not followed, I am happy to leave it upto others. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help?
  • Endorse The nom suggested draftify, the one participant agreed. Seems like a perfectly non-controversial NAC, and a reasonable outcome: the article is placed where anyone can work on it and anyone can suggest it be moved back into mainspace when they think it's ready. Really, a far better and more encyclopedia-building outcome than actually deleting it only to have it restored later. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If there was some sort of argument made that the draftification was improper somehow, it's not made - there's nothing specifically wrong with this close and as JClemens says it's a non-controversial NAC. It could have been relisted but draftifying is almost harmless (yes I know it could get deleted after a few months, but it's easier to source the draft and move it back to mainspace than go to DRV.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article is at Draft:The Legitimate Wise Guy, so it can be seen there. Thus, no temp undelete. WilyD 11:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the draftification. It was a valid non-admin close for various reasons including that a non-admin New Page reviewer could have draftified it also. Submit to AFC when film is released. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per, if nothing else, WP:IAR. Since the article can be moved back to mainspace any time, there's no use arguing over technicalities. A relist probably would have been preferable, but at this point it would just be procedure for the sake of procedure, which I can't support. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really sorry, all, but this close can't stand. The closer is a blocked sock, and consensus exists that any editor in good standing may revert anything they did, even if it appears to be productive. CommanderWaterford lacks the technical permissions to revert them but he does have the authority, because sockpuppets don't have standing to close discussions, so it falls to us to revert the close at his request. If we agree that this content shouldn't be in mainspace then I'm afraid someone else will just have to re-close it as "draftify".—S Marshall T/C 00:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the light of Hut 8.5's comment above, I propose that we regularize this by re-closing the discussion in exactly the same terms with Hut 8.5's signature on it rather than the sock's. The community feels strongly about sockpuppetry and has worked to de-legitimize it, and I feel that this isn't to be dismissed as mere petty bureaucracy. The community has decided that socks don't get to close discussions, and it matters that we implement that consensus.—S Marshall T/C 10:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Void close. Out of deference to DRV, I'm not going to G5 the close, but I really should. Socking is bad enough. Having socks closing AfD discussions, especially when they admit they were biased (I should have relisted this rather than proceeding with my own personal view, above) is intollerable. Note: I was WP:INVOLVED in the SPI -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2021 (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.
The Book of Chad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Quick Non Admin Closure by "Article Rescue" Member based on sources which are only interviews and/or promotional, needed to be relisted instead CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from closer: I am not a member of the Article Rescue Squadron and have explicitly said I disagree with many tendencies of the group. I examined all of the sources given by @HumanxAnthro and found that they supported the consensus that had formed for inclusion. I note this was made within minutes of me commenting elsewhere about some non-AfD conduct CommanderWaterford was criticised for by a significant number of users. Vaticidalprophet 15:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Vaticidalprophet, I'm sorry but I'm afraid that's not how it's done. The closer doesn't examine the sources and make a decision. That's what the !voters do. The closer summarizes the arguments made, weighs them against policy, and then evaluates the rough consensus. Like you, I would have closed that as "keep", but I would have got there by a very different route.—S Marshall T/C 15:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I misworded my statement, because I'm stressed by the obvious timing of CW's actions here. Forgive me for quick-circuiting my words when I find myself dragged to DRV by someone whose sole interactions with me for several months have been the endless and persistent assumption of bad faith. I was attempting to make it clear that his claim I was making an ill-informed and idiotic decision in the name of some ideological claim was false. Vaticidalprophet 16:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Screw this, I don't care enough about some random dude's album to argue with someone who's been spending weeks apparently dedicated to following me around AfD over it. Let it be extremely clear just how offended I am by CommanderWaterford's utterly baseless and bad-faith claim that I am a member of a group I have explicitly stated I disagree with, and by the timing of this behaviour. Vaticidalprophet 16:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to get involved in fights between users, so I'll stay out of that. I do, however, want to state that I only voted Weak Keep with the sources I found. Even though I found a lot of Google results that were independent sources, only one was a major review and another was a feature of the making of the album, with the rest being WP:ONEVENT announcement articles. Although I strongly contest the notion that has been going around of interviews being "promotion", I wouldn't mind the sources I provided being examined again properly. Plus, they're all Southern African sources which their reliability hasn't been examined by mostly Western users on this English-language encyclopedia, so there's that to consider. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Vaticidalprophet has backed out their own close, I've re-closed this myself, once again with a "keep" outcome. The deletion review should therefore continue.—S Marshall T/C 16:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any thoughts on my explanation of my wording? Vaticidalprophet 16:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do, yes, but I'd rather not express them here and now because this page should be focused on the outcome of the AfD. Is it OK if I post them on your talk page after a couple of days' thought?—S Marshall T/C 16:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely fair. I am, for various reasons, much less concerned about the object discussion than the meta one here, but I recognize these reasons don't apply to the rest of the people on the site (let alone the participants in an AfD that happened to get swept up into something else) and that the object discussion is the one worth having here -- particularly as you've decided to take responsibility for the close. Vaticidalprophet 16:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the debate has to be closed on the basis of that discussion then Keep is a fair result, because the rationale for deletion was lack of sources and that became obsolete once sources were found. Nobody tried to argue that the sources aren't evidence of notability. However the debate wasn't relisted and the OP has raised a new argument, so I suggest that the best thing to do would be to relist it to see if that argument makes any difference to the outcome. Hut 8.5 17:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Hut 8.5, a relist is more appropriate here than a second non-admin close, even though I wouldn't be surprised to see S Marshall ultimately get the mop at some point. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are good reasons why deletion debates have a duration, and can be closed after that duration. I think that it's important that we don't create an incentive for nominators to drip-feed novel arguments at DRV after the deletion debate has been closed, because that would lead to abuses of process. I think it's clear that the nominator in this case was aware of the discussion and its duration, and had the opportunity to challenge the sources provided during that time.—S Marshall T/C 23:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. Why? Let's go over the five contributions: 1) nom, sourcing issue. 2) D, can't find sources, 3) WK, here are some sources, 4/5) K, sources look adequate. That's a perfect consensus, because after sources were introduced, not one editor opined anything other than that the sources were adequate. I'd say it looks perfect for a NAC, because there's not a back-and-forth over the sources (which, for the record, I have not examined myself) just a complete absence of deletion sentiment once any sources are found. Relisting would have been inappropriate, as participation was adequate and consensus was clear. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a further comment, I find S Marshall's closing statement functionally equivalent to the original closer's, which wasn't problematic either. I think a good helping of WP:AGF is called for, and a discussion on a more optimum wording would have been far more productive than taking these to DRV. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the closing statement that was the issue, but rather the explanation of how it was closed above.—S Marshall T/C 01:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not in panic mode anymore, so allow me to give an explanation for something that was launched on me with absolutely none at all. I was noting to CommanderWaterford (as opposed to anyone else) that I performed a basic sanity check of HxA's links to make sure they didn't go to, say, Facebook or something. I wouldn't expect HxA to do that, I've worked with him at AfD and elsewhere and have more positive feelings than not, but I consider it a basic function of closing any discussion that I sanity-check the background to make sure there isn't something weird going on that demands relisting or participation instead of closing. I do it at RM when I'm page-mover-closing lower-participation RMs, and I very much hope admins doing AfD soft deletions do it. I was clarifying to CW that I had performed a basic level of diligence in my role of serving as judge of consensus in response to his baseless accusations of partisanship and over-hastiness. Vaticidalprophet 01:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the current closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a rule on this Deletion Review noticeboard that, if you don't know if you have enough experience to make a non-admin closure at DRV, you don't. That should also apply to AFD. It is less problematic to leave dozens of AFDs waiting for a closer for days or a week than for one AFD to come to DRV because the non-admin closer made a two-part error in judgment, both in how they closed the AFD, and in the fact that they closed it. If you think that you have enough experience to make an AFD closure, you likely don't. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - S Marshall's closure is clearly valid, so I'll express no opinion on the previous closure except to urge adherence to both WP:AGF and WP:AAGF. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse current closure per S Marshall/Jclemens. Original closure in isolation is fine as well (closer, seeing consensus to keep based on sources provided, checks them to make sure they're not being wildly misinterpreted or something and mentions that in the close), but seems suboptimal if there was prior conflict between the closer and the nom. A relist would have been fine as well to allow more time for evaluation, but with the original closer also endorsing the provided sources, I don't think another outcome would be reached.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:01, 4 May 2021 (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.
Board of Student Advisers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page has repeatedly been deleted without a justifiable reason. This is one of the most significant groups at Harvard Law School. Over it's 100+ years, many highly influential and prominent individuals were members of the group, including justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. If you look at think link [1] you would see other prominent alumni who have referenced the organization on their webpage. I am struggling to understand why there would be copyright violation because the organization and its members were responsible for the creation of the page (the same individuals wo maintain the organization's website). It's been noted that the page is "the copyright-infringement makes the content irredeemable. There's no prejudice against you (or anyone else) creating a new article on this topic itself." First, organization has tried to recreate this page and it has been deleted. Is it possible that the page can be reestablished and to the extent there is information that needs to be changed / removed, we can do that on the live page rather than going through the process again. The administrators previously involved have not responded after outreach. David42419 (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly, we're an international encyclopaedia. It's rather unlikely that someone who searches Wikipedia for "Board of Student Advisers" is looking for something to do with a US law school. Board of Student Advisers should be a disambiguation page. The proper page title for the content you wish to create would be Harvard Law School Board of Student Advisers. Secondly, it's our policy to delete material that's a direct copy or a close paraphrase of someone else's copyrighted webpage. Wikipedia likes copyleft. To release the material for Wikipedia's use, you could release the text into the public domain or under a free licence. Thirdly, it's not clear to me why we would want to give the HLS Board of Student Advisers a separate page, rather than covering it in a section of Harvard Law School.—S Marshall T/C 15:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, are we discussing speedy deletions from ~5 years ago? Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. Why wouldn't we?—S Marshall T/C 01:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A7 seems rather dubious but it was promotional and it was at least in large part a copyright violation from the organisation's website. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and our articles cannot promote the subject of the article. This one was doing that. We strongly advise that people from an organisation don't write about that organisation on Wikipedia, in large part because it tends to lead to promotional content. I don't see any evidence that the article creators claimed to have permission to use the copyrighted text, and even if they did we would expect to see evidence of that claim. But there's no point in providing evidence because the advertising rationale would still apply. There's nothing stopping the OP or anyone else from writing a better article and submitting it for review, but it needs to be neutrally written and it shouldn't contain content copied from the organisation's website. Hut 8.5 10:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Downgrade Protection to ECP to allow a draft to be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the G11, expressing no opinion on the others. (They're probably correct, but there's no need to reach out and decide them.) I'd also support downgrading protection to ECP per Robert; full protection is unnecessary for a situation like this one. The petitioner is advised to go through the articles for creation process to prevent further incidents. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting/Protecting admin here. The claim that the admins involved did not respond is false. I responded within 30 hours of the first email explaining WP:G11, WP:G12 and copyright owners donating material, and what sources to use to pass WP:NORG, but was ignored. A week later, I also replied within the hour to a second email which did not reference my first reply at all. I know Wikipedia's email function works on my end, so hopefully this was a misunderstanding caused by something on David's end. Obviously, I endorse deletion, because a large part of the article was either lifted entirely or very closely paraphrased from copyrighted webpages and much of the remainder was fluff about how important the BSA was and how it was stepping up to do things even law school professors couldn't. What was left was essentially the claim that it's an old Harvard Law organization, which is at best borderline on A7. I also support downgrading to ECP to allow recreation through the Articles for Creation process as others have noted. I'll note that at the time of the protection (December 2016), ECP was only recently expanded to areas outside of Israel/Palestine, arbitration enforcement, and topics with community consensus and was still being mostly used for those areas. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 April 2021

[edit]

28 April 2021

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ivory Tower (1998 film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Aseleste did a non-admin close that was I felt was inappropriate per their closing statement. I reopened the discussion because I was unaware that even non-admin closures couldn't be reopened by a non-admin, which I still think sounds backwards, but whatever. Sandstein reopened the discussion for that reason. My issue is not necessarily the no consensus close because that could actually be a correct decision, but my issue comes from the use of the sentence, "It is unknown how much effort was put into searching sources, so the argument of WP:NPOSSIBLE cannot be ignored entirely." In a way, that could be considered to be assuming bad faith on not just me as the nominator, but also the participants. While an editor that voted weak keep did say that they only did a passing search, the same was not even close to true for anyone else. WP:NPOSSIBLE can actually be completely ignored without there being any proof of such a statement being true. If the closure is really as no consensus, I am hoping that another editor can do the closure without it being partially based on an unfair statement that has no backing. SL93 (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC) SL93 (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse no consensus close as the most likely/reasonable reasonable outcome of a 2-2 split with multiple relistings, but I agree that an admin should have closed it and that the closing statement was inappropriate. In my mind, NACs shouldn't need to make closing statements: If you have to justify your rationale, it shouldn't be closed by a non-administrator anyways. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse in that No Consensus looks like the correct result. I agree that the closing statement doesn't help, and confuses things. The rules on non-admin closes confuse things too. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel like endorse/overturn is appropriate here since the nominator's not disputing the outcome but rather the rationale. I don't like non-admin closes, and I agree the closing statement is both mistaken and inappropriate, but the outcome is correct. Out of curiosity I just did my own WP:BEFORE search which didn't bring up any sources that haven't otherwise been found, which would probably put me in the weak delete to delete camp (it looks like it had a run on some cable channels in 2001 and 2002 but didn't get significant coverage, just TV listings, and I parsed a bunch of those.) Therefore, I'm somewhere between a straight endorse, a vacate and reclose, and a relist (for my own sake, to be able to contribute to the discussion.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No consensus" is the correct close, but as this is not a clear consensus keep, this should have been closed by an admin WP:NAC (unless no consensus is also an appropriate close for a non-admin.) --Enos733 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate BADNACs, but I actually don't think it's an inappropriate close per WP:NAC #2: The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator. That would seem to allow for no consensus closes where the no consensus isn't a close call, and not only do I think that slipper fits here, the result's not really being challenged by the nom. SportingFlyer T·C 21:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as closer) I should explain my actions per WP:ADMINACCT. So far, there seems to be three issues here:
  • Is the closure outcome correct?
  • Is the closing statement appropriate?
  • Is the close appropriate for WP:NACD?
Answering them one by one:
  • First issue: There are four !votes to evaluate:
    1. I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:NF.
      An notability argument. However, I do not know the extent of wp:before here. I understand WP:AGF, so I do not down or upweight this.
    2. Weak keep I found this on Variety. I'd like to believe that for a film in the internet-era of the late 90s, and starring Michael Ironside would have some coverage.
      An notability argument. To this participant, source x1 + wp:npossible is enough for a weak keep. This wp:npossible is explained by the age of the film (low accessibility of sources if they exist) and starring Michael Ironside (notability of a related subject → sources for the film; WP:NOTINHERITED describes notability of a related subject → notability of the subject). Overall, the argument is downweighted since wp:npossible is usually a weak argument, but there are some backing to not ignore it.
    3. Weak keep: In addition to what's in the article through Lugnuts or otherwise, I found this from DVD Review (which appears to have editorial control and other RS hallmarks). I checked newspapers.com and didn't find further reviews, although did find enough passing coverage to imply people were paying attention to it for a few years later. I don't know if 'internet era' is right here; a lot of stuff from around the turn of the millennium has surprisingly little online coverage.
      An notability argument. To this participant, source x2 + wp:npossible is enough for a weak keep. This wp:npossible is explained by the age of the film The argument is also downweighted for the same reason as above.
    4. Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFILM
      An notability argument. The argument is downweighted, not because I doubt their searches per WP:AGF but because it is a WP:PERX argument, which is a validation of the original argument, making the original argument more likely to be correct, but otherwise does not add anything to it.
I see four possible outcomes:
  • Relist: Relisted twice. It seem unlikely there will be further participation considering there were no participation after the second relist. Per WP:RELIST, the discussion should not be relisted more than twice generally.
  • Keep: The keep arguments are weaker.
  • Delete: The delete arguments are indeed stronger. However, the it is only stronger slightly, which I think is insufficient for a consensus.
  • No consensus: This is the fallback outcome.
  • Second issue:
    • Problem: Special:Diff/1020176299/1020262171 is the original statement. From my reading, it seems to be about wp:npossible not explicitly mentioned in the discussion. The above statement has clarified this a bit. Now it looks like the problem is that the closing statement is interpreted as assuming bad faith.
    • Response: While I do not intend to do so, the appearance of assuming bad faith should not be ignored. I agree that the statement should either not exist or be lengthened to be more clear. The former seems to be the better option since the closing statement should usually not contain lengthy statements.
  • Third issue: I do not have an opinion at this time.
I will refrain from closing WP:AfD until this is resolved. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aseleste I can honestly say that in my over 10 years as an editor and as a frequent AfD participant, I have never seen a closer refer to NPOSSIBLE. However, I am not surprised that a non-admin closer that has been an editor since 2019 would use such a thing. I am confused as to why a non-admin is closing a discussion as no consensus when they have a long thought process like the one that you stated. It is also inappropriate for you to explain your actions per WP:ADMINACCT because you are not an admin. SL93 (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ADMINACCT totally does apply to NACs. If you're going to stand up and close a Wikipedia discussion then you totally do need to be ready to explain your close. I agree that no consensus was the right close but the closing statement should be revised. I do not agree that that discussion was only closable by a sysop: we have plenty of non-admin closers who could have done an excellent job there.
The problem with NEXIST is that you can't prove a negative. You can't show that no sources exist. All you can do is challenge others to produce them, and if they don't, then we default to assuming that there aren't any.
WP:BEFORE demands that nominators make their own, thorough, search before starting an AFD. Acting like they haven't is an accusation, and it's rude. And that's the problem: no consensus was right but the close caused needless offence because it contained an oblique, implied accusation that was not justified.
The closer should revise their closing statement, preferably right now. They should not be discouraged from closing discussions. But they should consider apologizing to the nominator for unintentional offence.—S Marshall T/C 08:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). I thought the phrasing of the closing statement was a bit odd/curt, but in absolutely no way was it DRV-tier so. WP:NAC is a somewhat controversial essay with some questionable claims (I noticed recently its "NAC SNOW closes are inappropriate" statement directly contradicts WP:NACD, the relevant guideline), and BADNAC#2's incredibly broad realm of interpretation is "this is a statement anyone can see their argument for in". Other essays giving caution about AfD NACs, such as WP:RELISTBIAS, explicitly support no consensus NACs. I've commented before to Aseleste about the need for caution in close/relist statements, I am quite confident he's found incentive here to take those statements to heart, and I don't think "my reading of this essay" arguments are particularly strong. Vaticidalprophet 09:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As suggested, the closing statement has been deleted. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 00:58, 30 April 2021 (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.
Luke_Patel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted and re directed to the professional team he played for, all other players on there have active pages, why would one player be deleted for no reason having played professional sport when all other team mates are not deleted. This is a real person, who played professional sport, is notable alumni for 2 schools, has a grandfather and uncle who also played professional sport and ran the London marathon raising money for charity. Lukeyzero (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse The AfD was closed correctly based on the input of those participating. Note that the content isn't deleted as such, and can still be seen here. Honestly, based on that sourcing, I am not surprised at the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a correct conclusion by the closer. I don't understand the cricket notability guidelines, but it appears that no one understands them, so they end up here from time to time; but that is not a Deletion Review problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No error by the closer. Furthermore, I tend to steer clear of the lighter discussions where everyone agrees to redirect just due to the volume of these, but I would also have voted to redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 17:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 April 2021

[edit]

26 April 2021

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

Decision needs to be debated, source analysis is not correct. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you explain what's wrong with it?—S Marshall T/C 20:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that I can see at least one major problem with it. I'd still like to see what the nominator thinks is wrong, though.—S Marshall T/C 22:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inadequate closing statement. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a minor issue compared to the source assessment table being wrong on policy. The assessing user said about this source: Cannot verify content of remaining non-English sources and hence not suited as ref for enwiki. But WP:V specifically says, at WP:NOENG, that foreign-language sources are acceptable where there aren't English language sources of similar quality. He assessed this source as a primary source, which I feel demonstrates an incredibly poor understanding of WP:NOR. Also he assessed this source as unreliable, and I don't see on what basis.
    When I subtract that source assessment table and everyone who per-nommed it from the debate, what's left is a unanimous keep consensus.—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All of this raises another problematic point, which is that as of right now, there are only two Indian-nationality sources that Wikipedia thinks are "generally reliable": The Hindu (see WP:HINDU) and The Indian Express (see WP:INDIANEXP). The community has a reflex to doubt sources published in India. And there are in some cases good reasons for those doubts, but what it means is that our content about this nation of 1.3 billion people relies very heavily on sources published outside India. In other words, we describe Americans in American words, British people in British words, Canada and Australia in their own words, and India in our words. We need to stop deciding that people who aren't white can't be trusted.—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you open http://businessnewsthisweek.com/ you will see Business News This Week is considering press releases for publishing. This is a "news portal" which pushes press releases without verification. VV 13:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can see that the source publishes press releases, as many other sources do. But I can also see that this piece is attributed to Neel Achary, and identifies him as the editor of Business News This Week. This is not a press release.—S Marshall T/C 14:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the award is notable then there should be another source that fully complies with WP:RS, which I have been unable to find. A second point is the wiki page used a WP:REFBOMB technique to overwhelm the reader to presume notability. A simple solution to this whole discussion is for the nom or the previous page creator to show WP:THREE sources that satisfy notability and this entire exercise is done. BTW the nom is the creator of the new draft and not the creator of the old page. VV 15:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I looked up Neel Achary and the link says he is a digital marketeer. There has to be some standard to show an author writes reliable pieces, no? VV 16:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not saying the award confers notability. What I'm saying is that the source assessment table was wrong, at a policy level, in the three respects I mentioned above (and you've only disagreed with one of my points there, so may I take it that you accept the other two)? I certainly agree that the article was refbombed, but that doesn't prove the case for deletion. It just means that some of the sources should be removed.—S Marshall T/C 16:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know what point I have missed while replying to you here and in my own paragraph below. Can you point it out to me please and let me if I can address it. Thanks. VV 17:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd note this piece is also attributed to Neel Achary, and reads pretty much identically to this on prnewswire.co.uk, which attributes it to the subject of the press release. I cannot see the attribution on the article on this topic as particularly meangingful. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article in question here could also be found here and here (the latter is blocked from adding as a link even if it's indirect to archive.org, so would need to edit to newpatrolling in the url rather than newt to get to the article), showing "Posted by: Team | NewsPatrolling 12 hours ago in PR" (emphasis mine) --81.100.164.154 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not confident that the source analysis table is well done. It is tedious work. Would someone like to suggest three good sources? Translating from Hindi is not a problem, and sources are not required to be in English. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus:
      • An overturn to No Consensus is the least drastic action that can partially right this mess.
      • Either a close of Keep or a close of No Consensus could be consistent with the input.
      • If the source analysis table is intended to show that all of the sources are worthless, it doesn't do that. If that wasn't its purpose, then it does not support the Delete finding either.
      • Even given that the closer is bound to consider strength of arguments, it doesn't come to Delete.
      • Am willing to reconsider if the deleted article is undeleted for review (but I might still view it as an Overturn).
      • Since the closer had a well-formed opinion at Relist time, they should instead have !voted Delete and provided solid arguments, which might have resulted in a Delete, or might not have. But the closer should have let someone close,

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus. Once again, we have a Spartaz close against numerical count with an inadequate closing statement. In this case, multiple experienced editors here have examined the debate and found no clear and obvious rationale for the close. Spartaz has gone 24 days now without edits, and we have no expectations he will return to enlighten us. If someone else wants to renominate the article, that would be fine, but given the elapsed time, I think overturning to NC and restoring the article is the least bad option, such that relisting a debate is not productive at this point. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was Vincentvikram who analysed the sources. So pinging him for clarification. I would also like to totally agree with him. Plenty of sources have been provided, but the creator has failed to provide three best sources. Most of the sources are making some mere mentions and some are unreliable too. There is no sigcov at all. And please see this [2] discussion on Celestina007's talk page to get a better picture of whats happening here. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 09:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the outcome of the AFD. Hi! In the AFD, if you scroll down you will see that I have done a source analysis for three Hindi sources I pulled from the references. This is much after the English sources. The article creator was asked to show WP:THREE sources from any language to support WP:N but failed to do so. Even in the current draft, if the creator can show WP:SIGCOV the draft can be approved. The problem is the non- WP:RS sources being used like the links referenced such as "businessnewsthisweek", "vifindia". I dont think the "patrika" link gives coverage of the subject. VV 12:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You did mention WP:THREE as an aside in your comment after the relisting. It was not phrased as a request to anybody in particular, nor was the significance of the userspace guideline mentioned. I don't find your characterisation of this to be accurate. If those arguing for delete want to put weight on WP:THREE, they should either mention is early in the AfD or explicitly direct the request to particular people, and they should make clear the significance of rule of thumb, rather than expect those arguing for keep to figure this out. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The creator of the page that was deleted is well aware of the requirement since they made it a point to comment on every AFD I had nominated in that period. The above nom is not the creator and has no locus standi here. However, let me tag the current nom, Shatbhisha6, and place a request to show at least three sources that can be used to substantiate WP:GNG. Best! VV 16:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse based on the statement in the relist, it appears as if the keep !votes were properly analysed and discarded. I have no problem with restoring this, but would like to see WP:THREE good sources before agreeing to do so. SportingFlyer T·C 12:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- The article was relisted once, and the discussion afterwards amounted to a refutation of the alleged sources. Inferring a consensus to delete from that is perfectly fine. Reyk YO! 12:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, I dropped by DRV after being away for a while to help with the backlog, and didn't notice I was closing a discussion which had only been open for 1 day. I've backed out my close of this. I'll go work on the other end of the pile :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't like the suggestion that we overturn and close as no consensus. The keep votes claim that there are enough reliable sources for the article, while the delete votes agree with the nom's source analysis. The AfD has come here because the source analysis is disputed. If we overturn the source analysis, then we are taking a position on the arguments made in the AfD. I think then (i) it is not right to treat as valid !votes whose argument has been undermined, (ii) if the debate here tells us which of keep and delete should carry the day, then we can reclose in the light of our discussion, and (iii) if we are unable to determine that either keep or delete prevails, then that itself is information that might influence the discussion if it were to go back to AfD. In short, I think we should choose between 'endorse', 'overturn and keep', or 'overturn and relist'. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Three best sources is not policy, but a reasonable request that may be made at AfD. We should not hold the fact that three best sources were not provided by the keep side against them when they were not asked to provide them. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the Keep supporters didn't really try to rebut the source analysis with specifics, despite a relist specifically so they could do so. Nor has the OP tried to do this. Hut 8.5 19:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn- Least that can be done is review and asked for more reliable sources, than just outrightly delete it, moreover, if someone is not published enough in English media does that mean that personality/subject/place doesnt qualify/notable enough to be included on Wikipedia Shatbhisha6 (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • these sources are national news media:

https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/pm-modi-phones-swami-avdheshanand-giri-requests-symbolic-participation-in-kumbh-mela-amid-covid-19-scare/746195 "PM Modi urges to keep Kumbh participation symbolic amid COVID crisis" https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/kumbh-vs-corona-the-logic-of-hindu-nationalism/cid/1813581 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbg03xyZ1s0 Shatbhisha6 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks! First, the telegraphindia link is an opinion piece with the following text, Modi waited for days to pass and for lakhs of people to gather and bathe and then, after a week of spiking Covid infections, he prayerfully petitioned Avdheshanand Giri of the Juna Akhara, and asked that the mela be scaled down on account of the pandemic. Second, to support what claim would I use the YouTube link? From this itself it is clear there are no proper sources to support WP:GNG. Best! VV 14:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shatbhisha6 (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shatbhisha6 (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Shatbhisha6 Since you are the nominator, your vote is only one. I have struck out your repeated overturn votes. All the references you have provided either individually or collectively do not amount to WP:SIGCOV and is infact considered WP:REFBOMB. That being said, I do not know what Robert McClenon is referring to as a mess since we dont do head counts at AFDs. Rather it is the quality of the arguments and none of the keep votes evaluated any of the sources. I think this review is ripe for closure. VV 15:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shatbhisha6 (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, WilyD. I think that both the nominator and Vincentvikram have become highly invested in the outcome here and their long argument above includes sources and thoughts that AfD hasn't considered. After checking the source assessment table again when I can actually see what references like "source 4" mean, I'm not fully confident that the source assessment table was correct. We need to relist this, and we need to post on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics to attract the attention of people who can read the sources without google translate (because google translate can misrepresent or even invert the meaning of the source text).—S Marshall T/C 16:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 April 2021

[edit]

24 April 2021

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to apologise in advance if this message comes across as abrupt, mea culpa. But I created this account to share my thoughts in relation to, “the list of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming”. I believe the deletion of the article is a great disservice to the community. The reason I think so is as there now does not exist a place within Wikipedia where I can find a set of names who may be inclined to disagree with the consensus relating to Global Warming. This is a disservice to the community as it reduces the socratic discussion surrounding important issues, and disables us researchers to investigate ideas and follow up on research which might resolve the issue at hand, i.e., Global Warming. Epimonide (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we must be doing something right. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Epimonide provides no argument to support any issues with the AfD close. I read through the AfD discussion and believe the closer accurately summarized the consensus. Category:Climate change denial exists to find a set of names who may be inclined to disagree with the consensus relating to Global Warming. Schazjmd (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Climate change denial exists to find a set of names It should, but actually, it does not anymore. See Category talk:Climate change denial#Criteria for adding biographies and the three sections following that one. In that discussion, WP:OPINIONCAT has been abused for a fake consensus that even people whose job is climate change denial, or who wrote books denying climate change, cannot be categorized there, although WP:OPINIONCAT does not justify that. I stopped editing Wikipedia categories after that because if something like that can happen, it makes no sense for me to invest any time in that part of Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that clarification, Hob Gadling; I don't follow category discussions so wasn't aware of the contentiousness of BLPs in that category. (I had glanced at the cat when I posted above, and saw some BLPs.) Those are some intense discussions. Well, at least they made me aware of Phantom time hypothesis, an interesting little conspiracy theory that I'd never heard of before. Schazjmd (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epimonide, if we did say "Sure, you can host this list on Wikipedia", how would you define "scientist"? How would you define "the scientific consensus"? How would you identify those who disagree, and what sources would you use? I'm struggling to see how this could work.—S Marshall T/C 15:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and I'm quite surprised that this wasn't deleted years ago, given how inappropriate a topic it is. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the Deletion and the Salting. Is the appellant asking for permission to submit a draft for review? If so, they can create a draft, because the title isn't salted in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I would say a scientist is an academic who has published in a scientifically aligned academic journal, and perhaps this individual is also associated to a University User:S Marshall. And of course, there is no such thing as “a scientific consensus”, if there exists such a thing then it is, quite surely politics and not science. As a scientific inquiry pertains to a method (see Husserl, Ideas). Anyway I wish not to participate in this any longer. I have no interest in arguing, I have made my position clear. If the decision is made to discard the article, then so be it. The others do not ask any question, so I see not any need to respond. Epimonide (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I thought it might be something like that. The problem I have is that there have been medical doctors who've linked vaccination to autism, and astronomers who've denied the big bang theory, and organic chemists who've espoused intelligent design. I think there are very few ideas so idiotic that you can't find someone with a PhD who believes them.—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This has already been discussed, and no new arguments have been presented. The important distinction is not between opinions of the general public and opinions of "scientists", however those are defined. It is about opinions on one hand and scientific results on the other. Since scientists are not required to accept the results of research (which is a good thing, because those few who don't accept the results may find errors in the mainstream's blind spots), their opinions are not to be expected to be reliable sources. That is why Wikipedia prefers peer-reviewed publications, which weed out the opinions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The purpose of a deletion review is to review whether the closure of the deletion discussion was performed in line with policy and accurately reflected the consensus of the discussion, not to re-open and continue the deletion discussion itelf. In my view the closure was in line with policy and did accurately reflect consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, an argument for the scientific method. People keep saying “I see no argument”, so I would like to elaborate slightly on the point which I tried to convey in relation to the socratic method. It is where an opposing view is presented to something generally accepted as right. Presenting an opposing view is valuable as it promotes critical thinking amongst people. And in this case, the article can allow researchers to identify and investigate real issues. An example of this is the Iris hypothesis by Richard Lindzen et al. By burying the article, you are burying a place which connects to his alternative research, and in the process hindering researchers to investigate what the causes behind global warming are. I would like to further add, I have come across no interesting arguments from the discussion I glanced over for the deletion of the article, nor are any present here. It seems to me the debate here is about trying to decide “what is right for people” and not “what is right for science”. Either way I have proved now how the article can promote research in relation to important issues concerning the climate and the environment in general. Epimonide (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a great example; the articles that link to Iris hypothesis are likely starting places for researchers (for example, Global warming controversy and Climate variability and change), without the need for a List of names article. Both of those articles actually provide content on the subject and references of value to a researcher, while the list of names did not. (Also, please see Boing! said Zebedee's explanation of the purpose of deletion review above.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    First, in relation to Boing! said Zebedee's point, I believe the closer did not interpret the consensus discussion surrounding the value of the article sufficiently, as I can see persuasive comments in support of the value of the article. Second, in relation to your statement, "Not a great example", this is a subjective statement. Epimonide (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So "Not a great example" is a subjective statement, but "I can see persuasive comments..." is not? Oh, and the reason User:Schazjmd refered to my comment is that your Overturn argument just above is arguing for the merits of the list article, and not addressing the discussion closure, and so it will be disregarded by whoever closes this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just add (and I'm trying to help you here) that if you want this review to overturn the deletion discussion close, you will need to address specifically which "keep" arguments you believe the closer misjudged, and which "delete" arguments you believe they rated inappropriately. You will not achieve what you want by stating the reasons you would have argued to keep it had you been involved at the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "I can see persuasive comments" is a statement made in the first person, so yes it was clearly made out to be subjective. If you were trying to help, surely you could help by pointing out the important keep arguments with me. There were 35 to 19, however most of the delete arguments gave no reasons behind why the article should be deleted. "Lacks utility" or "should have been deleted a while ago" do not come across as substantial reasons for deleting the article. Epimonide (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, let's follow the dots... a statement being subjective is actually not a problem then, as you expect us to accept them from you? Or is it only a problem when others make subjective statements, but not you? And you want *me* to do the work to support the result that *you* want? Who am I, your mother doing your homework for you? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop wasting reading time with statements like “I am not your mother”. You say, “I am helping you”, and I am saying, to me, you are not. Also to me, “Not a great example” is not the same as “I think this is not a great example”. As the former statement lacks the human subject. If you think it is the same statement, then we can agree to disagree. Epimonide (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If "socratic method" were a valid reason for keeping the list, it would also, by the same reasoning, be a valid reason for keeping any other article containing worthless crap - since every bit of worthless crap presents an "opposing view" to "something generally accepted as right". But Wikipedia does not have any rule that things "generally accepted as right" need to be balanced by fringe ideas. The other way around, yes, fringe ideas need to be balanced by the mainstream view, as per WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree fringe articles are not the same as articles such as this, wherein you find names like Freeman Dyson associated to it. And for the record, Wikipedia does house articles relating to pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and propaganda. As long as the article is written appropriately, the article can promote awareness and develop rounded opinions amongst persons. Epimonide (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How you would define fringe articles does not matter. Instead, reliable sources determine what is fringe science and what is not. Dyson is an example for the dying-out opponents from Planck's principle. Also for the record: My watchlist contains about 20.000 "articles relating to pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and propaganda", so I already know Wikipedia houses them, thank you. Several other fringe ideas have high-level scientists supporting them too - see Nobel disease for examples. That does not diminish their fringe status because argumentum ad verecundiam is a fallacy.
    That article has existed for many years, and nobody succeeded to write it "appropriately". That is because the basic idea of having such an article is wrong - it is based on the illusion that every opinion of a scientist is worth something. All the information the article could contain is more appropriate in other articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should have the article IMO. Losing a highly utilized article with so many hours put into it (I probably spent more than 5 hours learning enough to be able to contribute what little I did, which was probably just on the talk page) is a real shame. I think the arguments for deletion other than the BLP ones were largely wrongheaded at best. And I honestly feel the BLP ones weren't great. When I'd last worked on this, we limited those who were listed here to people who had a real claim to being experts in the area. And, as someone who things climate change is probably the most important issue we have as a humans, many of those voices made good points. I think most would be proud to stand behind their words and thoughts on the issue. I think deleting this also hurts our claims to neutrality. As I said, I think this is a hugely, hugely, important issue and easily justifies an article covering those people who think the overall consensus is wrong. I feel that a large number of those !votes were about deleting opinions people didn't want to give a platform for. That shouldn't be what drives our inclusion decisions.
Beyond that, deleting harms what I think is at the core of the scientific endeavor--considering all angles and viewpoints as we move forward. I can't say that the closer didn't read the consensus correctly. I can say it's a sad day for Wikipedia. I very much doubt *this* will be the thing that people look back on and say "this is where humanity messed up" with respect to climate change. There are far too many things that are larger. But in the 10 volume set on the topic, this will likely have a paragraph. It's sad to see. IAR overturn to NC because people's lives are more important than the consensus of a discussion. And I honestly think we may be spending them. Sorry to be so dramatic. But I believe that shutting down a key place for people to read well-curated contrarian viewpoints about something so important is just a bad, and possibly dangerous, thing. For the record, I am no expert in the area, but I think we are likely massively underestimating the impact of climate change. In particular I think the acidification of the oceans is going to matter more than hardly anyone thinks. Not just on marine life, but it is acting as a carbon capacitor and if it the oceans stop grabbing all the carbon, we've got real problems. Hobit (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • so many hours put into it By that reasoning, you can prevent any article from being deleted by putting lots of work into it.
    largely wrongheaded [..] weren't great [..] good points This is not reasoning. All it says is "I think we are right and you are wrong"
    deleting opinions people didn't want to give a platform for Well, we do have Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories.
    deleting harms what I think is at the core of the scientific endeavor But Wikipedia is not doing science. Its articles on scientific subjects report on the results of science. You are free to write an article on climate-change-disbelieving scientists and try to publish it in a scientific journal.
    IAR overturn to NC WP:IAR I understand. WP:NC is something that exists but I cannot think of a way to make sense of it in the context of that sentence. If you think something is "dramatic" and "spending" "people's lives", maybe you should be clearer. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're a bit lost on my argument here. I should have been more clear. In this context, "NC" is "No consensus". And people publishing work in mainstream journals about climate science aren't what "Fringe theories" is supposed to be about. Those are minority opinions. Let me know if you have anything else you'd like clarified. Hobit (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is veering into re-litagating the original discussion (which I was part of), But a quick trip to Archive dot Org reveals that the original list was pretty light on climatologists who published contrary views to major journals, and heavy on people from unrelated fields who wrote an op-ed.
    Fritz Vahrenholt was on the list, for example, because he has a doctorate and is therefore technically a scientist, though not by profession. ApLundell (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless there is more than one Fritz Vahrenholt publishing in the area of climate, yeah, he's done a fair bit in the last few years. [3]. Nothing amazing, but yeah, he's a climate scientist these days. Hobit (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I retract my example. ApLundell (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse: badly argued AfD, but an strong and I think justifiable consensus to delete. The problem here is that the nom and most of the delete arguments argued that the topic was non-notable and failed WP:LISTN, which I think is baldly at odds with the facts: clearly the level of interest in the phenomenon of scientists who oppose the existing consensus is high and comfortably exceeds the GNG bar, as keep-voter Dmcq argued and was not effectively refuted. Instead the problem is that such an article is hard to maintain and is bad for editor morale: a matter of not notability but maintainability. UnitedStatesian argued that having such a list was a good thing specifically on maintainability grounds and no specific counterarguments were made, but reading the discussion, it is clear that maintainability concerns were foremost in the minds of many editors.
Having said all that, I am somewhat uncomfortable with endorsing Bishonen's close summary, since it flatly asserts the article fails WP:LISTN, which I think is simply untrue, and I think there is a bad tendency for some AfDs to be closed for one reason when the consensus rested on quite different concerns. I would prefer a close that drew attention to the fact that the keep side made unanswered arguments, but that the weight of concerns and opinion clearly favoured delete. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the deletion because I think that was indeed the consensus of a poor discussion. However, overturn the WP:SALT because I do not see consensus for that (and the close indicated that the page protection was a result of the discussion, not a separate administrative action). For the close to be contrary to WP:Protection policy (I think) should require rather a clear consensus. In this case there were not so many "salt" !votes and a couple were wholly irrational (as I commented at the AfD, seven failed attempts at deletion, none successful, no recreations, should not invoke salt). Thincat (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow the deletion process, not to re-argue deletion discussions. Neutral on removing protection, but I'd rather see a draft with platinum-quality sources first. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the fact that somebody thinks the list is useful doesn't in any way overcome the numerous serious problems with such a list which were spelled out in this discussion and in several previous discussions, and DRV is not supposed to be for re-arguing the merits of the case. Salting is reasonable given the number of times this has been discussed, anyone who wants to recreate it should really get some sort of consensus first. Hut 8.5 11:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both the salt and the discussion. Consensus on deletion was clear and no clear rationale has been raised here which would overcome the delete position. SportingFlyer T·C 12:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The nomination does not actually provide any reason to think that the AfD was badly closed. Frankly, this attempt to re-litigate the AfD is a strong indicator that salting was necessary. XOR'easter (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The challenger does not provide any arguments for why the AFD was badly closed. This is not the place to challenge an AFD plagued with bad arguments. A consensus is a consensus. I endorse the salting too since this has come up a lot. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There are a number of issues with having such a list, including Gish gallop: a more valid criterion than scientist would be climatologist; Wikipedia is also not in the business of blacklists (in this case it would amount to scientists that are probably wrong and promote misinformation, since the consensus is strong among relevant experts and is well informed)... The number of previous deletion discussions and the consensus to delete are other excellent reasons not to have this article. —PaleoNeonate – 14:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hobit, the science aside, it has been almost six years since Physics Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever spoke at Lindau Nobel Laureate summit, warning the world Global Warming is becoming a religion. It has gotten to the point we cannot even have a page which simply presents a list of reputable scientific names, who have bravely come forward to defend the scientific method. In a politically polarised world, the notion Global Warming has been thrown around by politicians, 16 year old children, and government organisations such as NASA. It is sad to see the sharpened faculty of scientific discourse repressed by a shallow consensus, which is informed by ill-equipped editors. I wonder what ever happened to your Wikipedia principal, “information is a fundamental human right”. Epimonide (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd argue those that think climate change isn't happening, or isn't human-caused are the ones who are behaving based on some form of faith--the science is pretty clear. The *details* of the issue are pretty plain. Hobit (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 April 2021

[edit]

22 April 2021

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

I requested unSALT at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Unprotect creation of Anushka Sen, I was told to request here. The article was salted 2 years ago but now she has become notable enough. The Draft is Draft:Anushka Sen. All deletion discussions are at Draft talk:Anushka Sen. -- Parnaval (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 April 2021

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

This redirect to Rain gauge that I created was immediately R3ed upon creation. However, this is not an implausible search term at all because the press commonly mention it in weather information. If someone is unsatisfied with the target, they could just retarget it. Rain gauge mentions how rain is usually measured in millimetres per square metre, so it is not an implausible target. SCP-053 (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question for SCP-053: Are you here to create an encyclopedia? Looking over your edit history, it is not clear to me that your contributions to date are improving the encyclopedia, while you do seem to have been good at wasting the time of other editors. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am here to improve the encyclopedia. User:Charles Stewart please don't block me. SCP-053 (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not an admin and have no power to block. Reviewing your contributions led me to consider drawing attention to you on WP:AN/I. To be a constructive editor, the ratio of the value of the content you add to the time of others you waste has to remain high, which I don't think on the most charitable interpretation could be said of you. If you are sincere, I think you need to have a good look at what you are doing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Chalst: if you believe another user has engaged in disruptive editing, that should be raised either as a note at theor user talk page, or at WP:AN/I, and it should be accompanied by proper evidence. Making vague claims that they are "wasting editors' time" at a deletion review like this, without providing concrete evidence, looks like casting WP:ASPERSIONS, and is frowned upon. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am aware of how admins prefer these things be handled. I am also aware of what tends to happen to editors who lack connections once "concrete evidence" has been provided on AN/I, and I'd rather give SCP-053 a chance to turn around their editing before I call in the goon squad. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - many articles do use, e.g., "750 millimetres (30 in) of rain" in Rain shadow. However, (i) having this snippet of text be the redirect suggested would not obviously be helpful to users of the encyclopedia and (ii) a template would be a better way of capturing the actual pattern of use than a redirect, so SCP-053's redirect does not seem like it would have been useful. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither endorse nor overturn but leave deleted - I'm not convinced this is a valid CSD, but I think IAR can be applied in situations where editors don't appear to be trying to improve the encyclopedia, and I guess a PROD of this article would have nonconstructively been challenged. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bar for a redirect avoid R3 speedy deletion is not usefulness, but plausibility. There's nothing implausible about this. I dispute lack-of-usefulness, too: ease of linking is not the only purpose of redirects, and while searching for millimetres of rain and inches of rain both already show me rain gauge in the first hit or two, very similar phrases - including the most common around here, inches of precipitation - do not. (Also, you can't prod redirects, as suggested above.) Overturn and refer to RFD. —Cryptic 00:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as per User:Cryptic, and send to RFD.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 April 2021

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

they are trying to speedy-delete this article, due to some random blog which seems to mirror some portions of Wikipedia. I never heard of this blog when I made the entry. please assist. -Sm8900 (talk) 🚀🌍 21:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 April 2021

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mohammad Ilyas (cricketer, born 1996) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Apologies for another cricket DRV, but given the poor rationale of the close (that the conflict between WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG could not be resolved), this should be re-closed as a delete. While the votes numerically were about equal, all keep arguments were that WP:NCRIC was passed, however four different delete !votes, Wjemather, Reyk, Pontificalibus, and JoelleJay, clearly demonstrated that the conflict could and should have been resolved in favour of the GNG. Other similar AfDs, all closed within a day or two of this AfD by different admins, resolved the NCRIC/GNG conflict and closed as delete: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahid Ilyas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salman Saeed (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qaiser Iqbal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obaidullah Sarwar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Laeeq. Therefore, I'm asking that this be overturned to delete. SportingFlyer T·C 19:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn the keep arguments are certainly weak in that they are a vague wave at an SNG and do not address the concerns of the delete arguments. Despite what looks like a tight numerical count; NOTAVOTE should have led to the delete arguments having been given more weight. FWIW, the proper outcome might have been redirecting to a list article, but that was not mentioned by any of the participants. The issue about NCRIC and editors not following notability policies is however not something that DRV can resolve; and even an RfC at NSPORTS doesn't seem to be getting decisive approval for a change. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. I !voted in this AfD and participated in the discussion on the closer's talk page. From the closer's later rationale, it doesn't seem they were aware/accept that NSPORT is superseded by GNG, per the NSPORT guideline itself. JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to RfC the unclear consensus that in the case of conflict between WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG, the WP:GNG trumps. Endorse the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Ilyas (cricketer, born 1996) in the meantime, but noting the inconsistency in result with the other three linked AfDs. Overruling one AfD on the basis of three others smacks of vote counting, it will be much better to establish the rule with an RfC. Alternatively, if this AfD is simply an outlier, follow the advice at WP:RENOM, but I strongly recommend the RfC route, it will record the precedent much better.
On the more general issue of conflict between an SNG and GNG, having watched and engaged for 15 years, I note that consistently the GNG is found to trump SNGs, except for WP:PROF. If you want to address the question of SNGs vs GNGs, carve WP:PROF out of the argument. For all the non-PROF SNGs, we have seen a great many of them wound back or even merged, and nearly but not all have become explicitly subservient to the GNG. Wikipedia:Notability (sports), including NCRIC, is currently drawing attention as a holdout.
Another caveat is that the GNG does not mean deletion if there is a viable merge target. Whenever a cricketer is judged non-notable, consider whether they can be listed in their team article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (to delete). I am convinced by replies that NSPORTS defers to the GNG, and so arguments at XfD citing the SNG over the GNG should have been discounted. My requested RfC happened in 2017. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noting the late run of "endorse" !votes at the end, clearly it is not clear consensus that not meeting the GNG irregardless of meeting the SNG means "delete". If this ends as "no consensus", then another RfC is needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there were clear universally accepted consensus on the issue we would not have ended up here. I do not think I have a demonstratable track record or closing discussions against consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply thread to original struck post below:
NSPORTS as written already says that it is a rule of thumb used to help determine if something meets GNG. Therefore that's already the existing consensus. This closure is obviously inconsistent with our policies on deletion (where GNG is the rule much more often than not). Essentially every single keep vote (besides one) was unambiguously "passes NCRIC" without regards to anything else. As for redirecting, while I already said that's the likely correct outcome, that would have been a SUPERVOTE because nobody mentioned it in the discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the lede of Wikipedia:Notability (sports), This guideline is used to help evaluate whether ... is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia., you appear to be correct. NSPORTS in its lede sentence defers to the GNG for the decision. Does the closer User:Ymblanter read it that way? Is the converse implied? Does not meeting the GNG mean that NSPORTS say it does not merit an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, FWIW there was a well-attended RfC where the closing statement included: There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. Since then NPROF has been affirmed as being in its own non-GNG-based class, but NSPORT has remained subordinate according to its own guidelines (The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. and

Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met.

And please consider this ongoing discussion on whether NSPORT/particular subguidelines need to be reconfigured so that they are better predictors of GNG -- that the SNG is a rebuttable presumption of meeting GNG, but does not override it, is already assumed by almost all the participants. Also, it wasn't just those three AfDs where the outcome hinged on NSPORT v GNG -- it's been every single one in at least the last two weeks (except a pair closed specifically due to a very common misinterpretation of NSPORT's wording). That's thirteen well-discussed AfDs with !votes split between keep (based on NSPORT) and delete/redirect that were closed as delete or redirect by 8 admins and 1 non-admin, with 9 of the closes explicitly stating NSPORT is not sufficient and/or that GNG must be met.
Closing arguments from all recent NSPORT v GNG split-!vote AfDs

Roughly equivalent vote balances bolded.

  1. Qaiser Iqbal; 4K, 4D; close by Nosebagbear:

    The result was delete. Consideration of this discussion was almost perfectly balanced in terms of numerical consideration. Moving to consideration of policy, two major disputes occur: the traditional NSPORTS/NCRIC vs GNG one, and the belief that there must be sources in other languages and it should be kept on those grounds.

    Meeting an NSPORTS criterion does not remove the need to pass GNG when challenged, as multiple editors pointed out. Those arguing that NCRIC was met did not generally also argue that GNG was met.

    Beyond that, at least 2 Keep !voters felt that it should be kept as there were likely (or almost certainly) were sources in other languages. However, this was not made with firm evidence, such as giving a source we just don't have access to check. An article could not indefinitely be kept on these grounds - though if you gain access please get in touch with me.

    Factoring these in, the policy-backed consensus reaches the level of delete, rather than no-consensus.

  2. Arif Saeed; 5K, 6D, 1R; close by Nosebagbear:

    The result was delete. This is a fairly standard NCRIC vs GNG dispute. As NSPORTS specifically requires GNG to also be met, and there isn't a clear IAR exemption case made here, and there is a very clear consensus that GNG is not met, deletion is the appropriate outcome.

  3. Emily Henderson; 3K, 5D; close by Fenix:

    The result was delete. I'm sorry but the keep votes here don't even begin to discuss sources which might indicate GNG whilst the delete votes have a clear assessment of avaliable sources. Whilst the votes themselves might not indicate a clear consensus, it is the job of the closing admin to assess the strength of arguments presented and the keep votes are neither grounded in any guideline nor do they even begin to rebut the delete arguments presented.

  4. Obaidullah Sarwar; 2K, 8D; close by Black Kite:

    The result was delete. As pointed out by a number of editors, passing an SNG is irrelevant if an article doesn't pass GNG.

  5. Mohammad Laeeq; 7K, 9D; close by Barkeep49:

    The result was delete. While there is some consensus that he satisfies the SNG those suggesting that the SNG was met have not provided any sources exist and there is a consensus that he does not pass the GNG. As WP:NSPORT says meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. and so in this case there is a consensus to delete.

  6. Shahid Ilyas; 5K, 10D; close by Dennis Brown:

    The result was delete. Inclusion requires that WP:GNG is met, which requires WP:SIGCOV (significant coverage) from multiple, reliable sources. This means coverage that is more than trivial and mentions more than stats. Whether it is cricket, football, underwater basket weaving, whatever, it doesn't matter. That is the core of what is required to pass the first test for inclusion for any article, regardless of what any other guidelines on notability says, simply because they all derive their authority FROM WP:GNG. Through this lens, weighing the !vote not on their numbers as much as on the strength of their policy based rationale, I see a consensus to delete.

  7. Zulqarnain; 4K, 5D, 2R; close by Randykitty:

    The result was redirect to Federally Administered Tribal Areas cricket team. The "keep" !votes argue that this person meets NCRIC. However, that is only a guideline designed to be a shortcut to identify persons that are likely notable according to GNG. Once notability is challenged, however, NCRIC is not enough and it has to be established whether or not the subject meets GNG. The argument that he's still young and likely to garner more coverage is turning things upside down, we do not keep articles if we think someone might one day become notable (see WP:CRYSTAL), we create articles if the subject can be shown to be notable now.

  8. John Ford; 6K, 5D, 1R; close by Randykitty:

    The result was delete. The "keep" !votes argue that this person meets NCRIC. However, that is only a guideline designed to be a shortcut to identify persons that are likely to pass GNG. Once notability is challenged, however, NCRIC is not enough and it has to be established whether or not the subject actually meets GNG.

  9. Salman Saeed; 9K, 8D; close by Randykitty:

    The result was delete. Whether or not the subject passes NCRIC becomes moot when notability is challenged. SNGs serve as shortcuts to determine which subjects are likely to pass GNG, but once challenged, sources have to show that GNG actually is met.

  10. Peter Rumney; 2K, 1D; close by Seraphimblade:

    The result was delete. While there is a large amount of discussion, it does not indicate that substantial quantities of reference material are available about this individual. This result should not be considered prejudicial against recreation should such material be in fact located in the future.

  11. Mushtaq Ahmed; 3K, 6D, 1R; close by Seraphim blade.
  12. W.P. Bailey; 4K, 4D, 2R; close by RandomCanadian (redirect).
  13. W. Baker; 2K, 4D, 1R; close by PMC (redirect).
JoelleJay (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be fair to mention these two though - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftab Ahmed (cricketer, born 1931), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kant Singh - which were closed as keep and where you also failed to concvince the closed to overturn (posting similar walls of text). And, taking this into an account, my close can not be classified as an outlier anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ymblanter. To be fair, all the similar cases should be on the table. User:Swarm also closed similar AfDs as delete. User:Swarm, did you overlook the lede paragraph of WP:NPORTS, which gives deference to the GNG, and does this mean that "meets the SNG" !votes should be discounted as the GNG is being discussed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We probably both, Swarm and I, have the same motivation. If everything is such black and white as described above, WP:NSPORTS must have been deprecated as redundant (because if the subject passes GNG, it is irrelevant what NSPORT says, and if the subject does not pass GNG it is irrelevant either). However, NSPORT is not deprecated, it is alive and well. I intetrpret it in the way that NSPORTS indicates that the subject is likely to be notable, and search for reliable sources must be throroughly done before deleting the article. Therefore, voting keep per NSPORTS is valid, and 50% voting per NPSPORTS means there is no consensus to delete the article. It just means that people believe that sources are out there, just nobody cared to thoroughly look for them. If I understand my opponents correctly, their reading of the policy is that at the time of AfD the compliance with GMG has not been demonstrated (read multiple GNG-compliant links have not been added to the article), it must be a delete outcome does not matter what. I do not think this is a correct reading of our policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This introduces the logical fallacy that just because a SNG ultimately requires GNG to be met, that the SNG is somehow irrelevant or deprecated as redundant. This isn't true: SNGs provide guidance for editors on what topics should be notable. The guidance at WP:NSPORTS clearly shows the SNG is tied very very closely to the GNG. This isn't unique to NSPORT - for instance, everything at WP:AUTHOR, though it doesn't specifically mention sources, makes clear that anyone passing the SNG should have GNG sources available. The "voting per NSPORTS" argument doesn't respect the fact that in order to properly AfD an article, the subject must not pass GNG, and a source search which looks to improve the article also doesn't bring up any GNG-qualifying coverage. The article doesn't need to pass GNG, but the subject does. Simply voting that the SNG is met - especially when other voters say GNG hasn't been met, when those voters have actually exhibited effort in making that determination, and when there's no additional comments to the "meets the SNG" (specifically, specific places where sources which may be able to improve the article might exist) - makes absolutely no determination regarding notability, and if respected, will leave us with a bunch of articles that we can neither improve to ever meet GNG nor delete, only because a particular walled garden likes to have the article around. SportingFlyer T·C 09:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I agree all the similar AfDs should be considered, and I did reference those 2 (except a pair closed specifically due to a very common misinterpretation of NSPORT's wording). The deletion rationale on their talk page basically boils down to NSPORT's second sentence having an "or", which is a frequent enough misinterpretation that it has its own FAQ (Q5, which I quoted above). I guess that brings the tally to 3/16 recent AfDs? Although that doesn't include the 100+ NCRIC-meeting players who have been uncontroversially redirected to lists in the last few months. JoelleJay (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as (well) within discretion. We are invited to overturn a no consensus close, where the discussion clearly showed no consensus, on grounds that some (many) of the !votes should have been discounted. To have discounted these !votes would have been contrary to best practice. Why so? WP:Notability and WP:Notability (sports) are guidelines. They are not policies as wrongly claimed above. It is arguments contrary to policies that should be discounted. The difference between policies and guidelines (they really are different) is explained at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines (itself a policy) and the instructions for closing AfD discussions at WP:CLOSEAFD says Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. and also eventually links to a guideline WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS which says Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Are the delete !votes not stronger? Well, maybe, but that depends a lot on the meaning in WP:NSPORTS of The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below We are advised above that those adopting its naturally expressed meaning should have had their !votes discounted in favour of an interpretation based on FAQ #5.I don't find that convincing. Thincat (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note your opinion (and thank you for reading mine). Thincat (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: I'm actually confused by the claim. Are you saying that the advice given there is that it's okay to only include sources that meet the SNG and not the GNG? And why is such a direction given in an SNG to begin with? I just don't find it plausible that the sentence is there simply as writing advice and think it much more likely it is there to provide direction about sourcing needed for inclusion. Is there some history here of this that indicates your reading is correct? Hobit (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit:, the FAQs on NSPORT state:

Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

; that interpretation was supported by this discussion in May 2017. A month later, the 2017 RfC referenced above closed with clear consensus reaffirming that NSPORT does not supersede GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: Yes, that's exactly what I think it says. What should be clear from WP:NSPORTS is that any sportsperson must ultimately meet the GNG. Any sports SNG should be tailored to the GNG, i.e. meeting the SNG should positively predict that the GNG is met. So, when you're creating an article on a sportsperson, all you have to do source-wise is show the SNG is met. However, just meeting the SNG doesn't prevent the article from being discussed for deletion. It depends on the sport though. For instance, WP:NBASE is tailored to major league baseball players - you should almost always be able to find GNG-calibre sources for those players. If I create an article on a new major leaguer with just a WP:V source showing they played in the majors, that's lazy, but that's okay. The reason why there's so many cricketers at the moment is because WP:NCRIC is not tailored to the GNG, so there's lots of players who technically meet the SNG but don't meet GNG (the way I like to think of it is that we can't write any sort of encyclopaedic article about them beyond what's listed in statistical databases.) It's also why I believe many of the endorses here aren't technically correct, since they ignore the relationship between the sports SNG and the GNG, seeming to prefer a broader view of "SNG or GNG" when in reality SNGs are quite complicated and have many topic-specific nuances. In the sports world, that means articles must if challenged pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete - per the 2017 RFC and the language of NSPORTS, all of the "keep meets NCRIC" votes should have been discounted. Levivich harass/hound 15:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete - Levivich says it all, I have nothing to add. --Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've allowed an article to exist, when that article doesn't have two independent reliable sources, and that's always problematic. In this case there's one reliable source, and we can't publish anything that isn't reliably sourced, so we've literally taken someone else's website, converted it from a table into prose, and published it as Wikipedia content. And the website that we've ripped off is copyrighted. If this DRV doesn't reaching consensus to overturn to delete, then we should refer it to the copyright team to be purged of all the infringing revisions. Which is all of them.—S Marshall T/C 16:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1000. Our NOR policy (rightly) prohibits our adding any creative or original content to our articles. When we summarize multiple sources, we are creating a new work that we license CC-BY-SA. But when we copy information from just one copyrighted website onto our website, even if we paraphrase it, we are still just copying someone else's copyrighted work without adding anything original or new (without combining it with anything from any other source). And worse, we're purporting to relicense that copied work CC-BY-SA, which we have no right to do. This is why every article must have two sources in order to be legal. This is why GNG. In my humble opinion. Levivich harass/hound 16:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I completely agree with Levivich. WP:N, and Wikipedia-notability in general, derives from WP:NOR, specifically WP:PSTS, as an extreme case. Without any secondary sources, there can be no WP:NOR-complaint prose content. I believe that all these single-team cricketers should be merged to a list section of the article on their team. Lists are the suitable place to record database information provided by the single reliable database source. As were some of the closes, I think they should all have been closed as "Redirect, noting the policy WP:ATD-R. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an aside to whether or not the article meets English Wikipedia's standards of having an article: facts are not copyrightable. Taking someone's vital stats and putting them into an article isn't a copyright violation. Regarding adding something original or combining info from another source, neither of those would resolve a copyright issue: they both create derivative works, and adding info from another source just adds another potential source of copyright infringement. isaacl (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete It's well within an admin's discretion to discount vague hand waves at policy general, and I wish more would be proactive in doing so (<---general comment). The SNG subservience to GNG needs to be iterated and reiterated until it becomes the norm, not relitigated until everyone gets bored of the argument. In this case, since the SNG already acknowledges this relationship, the discounting of !votes which ignored that would have been painless. ——Serial 16:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete - There's been a pretty good consensus establish that NCRIC does not overrule a GNG failure. Thus, the arguments that the article should be kept due to marginal NCRIC pass cannot compete with the arguments that GNG is not met - especially when the only source put forward in the AFD was determined to not be relevant. Hog Farm Talk 19:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse the !vote was split and I think claims of consensus about the SNG vs. GNG are overstated. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Decision reflects the consensus of the debate. Suggesting GNG must be met as well as SNG is a nonsense as it would make SNGs otiose. From the lead of WP:NSPORTS:

    The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. ... Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines).

    It is abundantly clear from the use of "or" and "other ways" that meeting an NSPORTS guideline is itself sufficient to show notability. The nominator here is continually using DRVs to get their misinterpretation of guidelines applied, whereas they should instead be seeking a consensus to change the guideline (which I would support; personally, as a deletionist, I would prefer to delete all of these tiny cricket articles, but the policy and guidelines currently in effect do not allow for it). Stifle (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - While I appreciate that the closer was put in a difficult position, since there were two opposed factions making policy-based arguments and two relistings had not brought the opposing factions any closer, I do think this was a bad call: there is enough evidence and discussion for the admin to decide which arguments were. I do not agree with the 'bivalent' view that says (i) that the WP:GNG on the one hand and the various SNGs on the other have sharp criteria that unambiguously allow the meet/fall-short decision to be resolved by pure application of the rules to the policy-relevant facts about the topic and (ii) the GNG with perhaps one or two exceptions trumps SNGs, with the consequence that (iii) if GNG considerations were raised and not answered, the SNG-based opinions should be discounted. Instead if there is a conflict between GNG-based arguments and the SNG-based arguments, it is up to the closing admin to act as referee and weigh up the strength of the arguments, a task of judgement we cannot fully capture in sharp-line rules.
I personally, if I were an admin, would have closed this as delete. The reason there is talk of certain SNGs being trumped by GNG is that they lead us to include vast numbers of articles whose informative value is about that which a program could assemble if the RS content was put in Wikidata and most editors don't think the maintenance burden of the encyclopedia should be spread thinly over such feeble content. The closer should have borne this in mind. However, (i) I don't think policy determines a delete close to this AfD, and (ii) it has been suggested here on DRV that perhaps some content is worth salvaging. Therefore I think it would be better to relist to see if either of these directions are taken up in the AfD. In the event that the relisted AfD sees no activity, then I recommend the new closing admin deletes. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the fact that coverage meeting the GNG hasn't been found doesn't mean that SNG-based arguments are worthless. From WP:N: an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. It isn't unreasonable to argue that passing an SNG means that GNG-passing coverage is likely to exist. That is what the SNGs are supposed to do, after all. An AfD can certainly decide that GNG-passing coverage isn't likely to exist for a topic, but this one didn't. A comment which says "Fails WP:GNG" in an AfD often means "I, a monoglot English speaker, Googled the subject and didn't find much". Given that the subject is Pakistani it's distinctly possible that any available sources will not be in English, for example. I don't see any evidence that anyone tried to look for any. Hut 8.5 12:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the subject of the article is no longer active, the likelihood that sources or editors with the relevant language competence will appear that justify inclusion are low and getting lower. If we delete and enough good sources appear that an article is clearly justified, then it's a shame that a little bit of work of past editors has probably been wasted and perhaps there are active editors who suffer the demotivation of having an article deleted, but the existing article is of poor quality and recreation is not so onerous, so it would be no great tragedy. In the meantime, the encyclopedia suffers the burden of much poor quality sportscruft while the population of skilled editors to police it is declining. I really think the best place for speculation about keep arguments that were in fact not made in the AfD would be in a relisted AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to object to the idea that this article is somehow harmful to the encyclopedia. Yes it's very short, and will probably stay that way, but there's nothing inherently objectionable about it. We can have a discussion about exactly which obscure professional cricketers we have articles on, but there's nothing unencyclopedic about having articles on obscure professional cricketers. The exact reasoning I've used above may not be in the AfD itself but it is part of the reason we have SNGs and use them. Hut 8.5 19:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as per above I'm not convinced that GNG supersedes SNG, and don't agree on principle.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as per primarily User:Thincat and also User:Ortizesp:
      • There was no consensus. No Consensus is a valid close when there is no consensus. The closer might have discounted one or the other set of arguments, but had no obligation to do so.
        • There was therefore no error by the closer.
      • I have the possibly minority view that GNG and SNG should be complementary, and that GNG should not be used to ignore positive SNG.
      • A conflict between SNG and GNG should permit discretion by the closer as to what the consensus is.
      • General notability is often awkwardly vague, which is one reason why we also have special notability guidelines.
      • These conflicts between general notability and sports notability seem to happen mostly with cricket. Maybe WP:WikiProject Cricket should be tasked to review, or the cricket notability guidelines should be tweaked.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, the Cricket project has been attempting to rework their criteria to be better predictors of GNG -- that NCRIC is so poor at this is why there have been hundreds of cricketer articles deleted in the last couple months. Most of these are deleted/redirected despite meeting NCRIC because the consensus (as reflected in NSPORT's language, and by majority practice at AfD, and in the close of the 2017 NSPORT RfC There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline) is that meeting GNG is ultimately required. Current NSPORT criteria and the ongoing NCRIC RfC proposal operate under the explicit intent of predicting when GNG will be met: this is so an article doesn't have to be sourced to three SIGCOV refs from the get-go, it just has to have RS verifying the topic meets the SNG and thus is likely to have BASIC SIGCOV. But since the whole premise of NSPORT is to be a placeholder for GNG, if a topic's BEFORE search does not find SIGCOV then NSPORT's prediction has failed for that topic and it is no longer presumed notable. JoelleJay (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it is not for the closer to assess whether an article is or is not notable, nor what that means in terms of SNG and/or GNG. It is the job of the closer to asses the consensus of those commenting in the discussion and there none in this discussion (neither side's arguments were so clearly erronious that they should be discounted) so the "no consensus" closure was the correct one. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. As a disclaimer, I think that the keep !voters should not be discounted due to a differing opinion on the scope of NCRIC - even if it really is at variance with the text of NCRIC, that would just mean that the !voters think that NCRIC should be modified to explicitly override a need for meeting GNG. That said, WP:BLP is a core non-negotiable policy. If a deletion debate on a living figure of marginal notability is borderline, we should generally defer to deletion. As others have noted, the !delete camp has had very strong arguments, so I'd want to see a higher standard met to merit a no consensus or keep close - one that doesn't apply to this case. SnowFire (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2021 (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.
The End Poem (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would have voted Keep because it's by a famous author. What makes Gwendolyn Brooks' We Real Cool any more notable than this? Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse there is no other way the discussion could have been closed and arguing that another article exists that isn’t notable is a case of WP:WAX.--67.70.101.238 (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close/Endorse as there is no valid rationale here - what you would have voted is not a valid rationale for DRV (and your !vote would also be WP:NOTINHERITED/WP:OSE). Additionally, there is absolutely no way a reasonable closer would have done anything but deleted this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- the closure was obviously valid, and we don't relist AfDs just to give editors a second bite at the apple. A SNOW close may be in order here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Correct close. One more "Keep because it's by a famous author" !vote would not have made a difference, as "it's by a famous author" would be rejected as crossing WP:NOTINHERITED. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - This DRV is just a relitigation of an AFD that had a clear consensus that this content was not appropriate for a stand-alone article. The DRV nomination does not argue that an error in judgment or procedure occurred. There's nothing to see/do here. Hog Farm Talk 04:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Well-attended near-unanimous delete consensus; the DRV does not allege a mistake being made anywhere in the process. SportingFlyer T·C 20:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address issues of failure to follow deletion process. It is not for the making or re-making of arguments that could have been or were made at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the majority of 'keep' arguments were WP:ATADD, and speedy close per WP:TIMEWASTING. ——Serial 10:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - While I think WP:NOTINHERITED is often misinterpreted at AfD, this is a clear example of its correct application to see that the most promising-looking RSes do not support notability. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is, as noted several times above, a bad argument: at DRV we try to get deletion practice on course one AfD at a time; as a volunteer encyclopedia we cannot make a radical commitment to consistent application of policy. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly Endorse. I honestly suspect the sourcing is out there, it's just hard to find. But until that's proven we've reached the right outcome. I feel like there must be reviews of this poem in "the literature" at least in sources that cover children's lit. Hobit (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse:
      • Several editors have said to Speedy Endorse, but do we have a criterion for speedy endorse?
      • If not, the close was the correct close for the AFD.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 April 2021

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

Can somebody who is actually an admin review this? It shouldn't have had a non-admin closure. The original article was created based on GNIS data, and the implication that there was ever two towns with this name is just a hoax. Why does the redirect need to stand when the original article had no reason to exist in the first place? See a similar discussion that resulted in the article's uncontroversial deletion (NOT a redirect) here. Why should this be treated differently? Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse !Vote was unanimous, no other way this could have done, and participants cited policies and guidelines to explain why it should be kept. Furthermore nobody seemed to be asserting that there were two completely diffedrent towns with that name, they were quite clear on what the situation was, so that's an irrelevant argument. That being said, if an uninvolved admin really thinks it's a productive use of their time to revert the NAC and reclose on their own with the exact same result, they can do so on their own and a DRV is not necessary. Smartyllama (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Adminship is no big deal so asking for the closure to be undone because it wasn't by an admin is no valid reason. The keep arguments seem valid per policy, and I don't see a plausible outcome other than the current one (if the keep arguments were much weaker, I might personally have relisted, but that's not the case here). BTW, Canebrake, California does include the information that was in the redirect (not sure if it was merged - in which case the redirect needs to be kept; or whether it was come up with independently). The reminder of the comment here seems like relitigating and WP:OSE - if the original article had no reason to exist, it should have gone to AfD (where it would likely have been merged/redirected to its current target, anyway). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the close was completely correct, given the discussions had. In terms of DRV-relevant reasoning, there's no issues. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse:
      • The appellant did not enter the RFD information correctly. I have entered the RFD information.
      • The close of the RFD appears to be correct, and the RFD itself appears to be correct.
      • What is the problem? (Or is this DRV the problem)?

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2021 (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.
Dhadi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Dhadi was a disambiguation page that got overwritten when Materialscientist boldly moved Dhadi (music) over it. I ask for the article to be moved back, and the disambiguation page restored.

An argument for a primary topic can be made, and I can even see some editors agreeing if that were brought up in an RM, but I don't think there is a primary topic here. The move itself doesn't appear to have been predicated on such an argument, but – if the discussion with the admin is anything to go by – rests on a series of misunderstandings about what sorts of "non-typical" disambiguation entries are allowed by the guidelines.

Normally, if I see a bold move I disagree with I can revert it and invite the editor concerned to start an RM. But here that editor was an admin and the move was accompanied by a deletion. Given that they have refused to self-revert, DRV seems like the only way forward. – Uanfala (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural note the other possibility is WP:RM/T (revert undiscussed move - admins are just editors with access to some tools and their actions can be reverted on the same grounds as any other undiscussed move), at which point a regular WP:RM can happen (or a regular WP:RM can happen right now without having to undo anything, and whichever consensus emerges can then be applied). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought of RM/T, but reverting the move would also require undeleting the dab page; that may not be practical (most who staff the venue are page movers), but also I was under the impression that admins at RM/T, like those at REFUND, may not always be willing to revert an administrative action where the admin themselves have been asked, and have refused to do the same. I don't think I can start an RM because one of the two pages concerned – the dab page – will not be visible to participants (and I won't try to reconstruct it out of memory). I'd also be unwilling to start an RM myself at this stage, because of the signal this would send – effectively, shifting the burden to seek consensus away from those responsible. I just don't like the implication of that – if a regular editor performs a bold action, then anyone can revert them, but if that editor happens to be an admin then the reversal can only be done via a full-fledged formal discussion.
      I don't know what's the procedurally better way here, but if it helps things, we can assume that what I'm requesting a review for is the G6 deletion of the dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If I understand correctly, an administrator, User:Materialscientist, made a move/rename with which the appellant disagrees. If I understand correctly, a Requested Move should be held. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rename issue is separate from the disambiguation page that was deleted, which was in no manner a proper G6 as logged, no matter which metric you judge G6s by: nontrivial history, nontrivial content, somebody able to object in good faith (and in fact doing so).
    I'm undecided whether the second entry, "Dhadi State, a former tributary princely state (thakorate) in the Simla Hills, one of the Hill States of India", qualifies as a second extant Wikipedia page as defined by G14. —Cryptic 19:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (in light of the above) entirely deleting a dab page is not G6. This should have been subject to an RM. The dab page needs to be restored and a proper discussion had to see if it should be kept ("Dhadd" and "Dhadi" could conceivably be confused; though whether a disambig page or hatnotes are necessary is a valid question - but one for AfD or some other forum, not for G6). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't think I'm following everything exactly, but I believe what I'm seeing is an admin doing something that requires admin privilege boldly and not being willing to undo it when presented with what looks like a reasonable request. Do I have that right? If so, that's can't be allowed to stand. It's contrary to BRD if nothing else. Hobit (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2021 (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.
Zhou Chengzhou (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First of all, I would like to put forward a point of view that AFD should be proposed by a person with political orientation and rich experience. I think it is unfair and I think it is targeted.

Then I put forward the point that I think this entry can keep:

First of all, I would like to put forward a point of view that AFD should be proposed by a person with political orientation and rich experience. I think it is unfair and I think it is targeted. Then I put forward the point that I think this entry can keep: No.1, His works have been selected and won many international awards. For example: Lensculture Award(https://www.lensculture.com/2018-lensculture-art-photography-award-winners), Aesthetic art prize(https://aestheticamagazine.com/artprize/artists-profiles-2019/), 1x award(https://1x.com/magazine/permalink/8349), and FAPA award( https://fineartphotoawards.com/winners-gallery/fapa-2018-2019/professional/conceptual/hm/8237/). There are exhibitions in many famous art galleries, such as the exhibition in the aperture foundation(https://aperture.org/editorial/aperture-lensculture-celebrate-opening-beyond-boundaries/), York Art Gallery, Nat Geo, and Today Art Gallery. In addition, he has published works in many world-famous media, such as Fortune magazine, National Geographic magazine (home page), China Daily, books and newspapers, etc. All of the above can be found in his sources.

No.2, He has independent sources. The first is the special report twice in China Photo press, which is in line meet the WP: SIGCOV(a master piece shape and color hatching square Zhou Chengzhou ". China Photo press: Fifth full page. 2018/" field of view multidimensional nature Zhou Chengzhou ". China Photo press: the eighth full page. 2016.) The second is the independent report in 1 X（https://1x.com/magazine/permalink/9044 )Then there are also professional websites in the global photography network（ http://www.g-photography.net/file_auditorium/excellent/zhouchengzhou/index.php )Special topic interview. Finally, there is a separate report page in aesthetica magazine（ https://aestheticamagazine.com/profile/zhou-chengzhou/ ). I think the above is meet WP:RS.

No.3, In terms of films, his works have won many nominations and winners, such as Adirondack Film Festival, which is a well-known film festival (100 best reviews in filmfreeway, Also a professional professional there company – the Adirondack there Festival.), LAUFF is a very professional and well-known film festival in the industry, and LIFT-OFF film festival is also a very well-known film festival In addition. The film festival does not mean that it will be able to win the similar Oscar film festival as a similar standard, because there are many kinds of film categories. Thanks. }} Armidazhou (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion I do not see anything in the AfD discussion that would have led a sensible closer to anything but delete; and the above appears to just be re-litigating: interviews, awards, and profiles on niche and unreliable publications seem to have already been addressed at the AfD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This would also indicate that OP is a shared account (regulars here certainly need no reminder of our policies on shared accounts); in addition to the obvious COI concerns. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with the following comments:
      • It is hard to know what the proponents are saying in the AFD, and it is hard to know what the appellant is saying in the DRV. It should be the responsibility of an appellant to present a case that doesn't need to be deciphered. Long rambling statements are often useless, and they are useless here.
      • It is not hard to know what the opponents were saying, and so they clearly have strength of argument, which supports the close.
      • It appears, but this is a guess, that the proponents were saying that there must be sources. If that is what they were saying, that is a deprecated argument. Otherwise they were making some other deprecated argument.
      • This appeal seems to be re-litigation rather than citing any error by the closer (which didn't happen).

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close, DRV is not the place to argue content. If Armidazhou really believes the above new material could take the article into the realms of acceptable-quality articles, I don't object to recreation of the article in draftspace and going through the AfC process. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 April 2021

[edit]
  • Emily Henderson – Vacate close. No comment on the actual correctness of the decision, but the arguments that the closer was WP:INVOLVED are persuasive. I'll WP:AGF that the closer was legitimately unaware of their involvement in the previous AFD (because the alternative implies we're well beyond trout territory) but this still needs a clean close from somebody else. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Emily Henderson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AfD discussion was closed prematurely before WP:CONSENSUS made clear. It seems more appropriate for this to be re-listed rather than closed. Discussion initiated on closing editor's talk page per WP:CLOSEAFD was mostly met with uncooperative responses. Hmlarson (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse in one of the clearer Endorse cases to come this way:
      • There was a numeric rough consensus to Delete. As the closer said, it was 6 to Delete and 3 to Keep.
      • Closer explained their closure in terms of strength of arguments.
      • There was discussion on the closer's talk page, in which closer restated their reasons for the close.
      • The appellant considers the closer's response to be "uncooperative" apparently because the closer disagreed. The closer doesn't have an obligation to Relist after a valid closure, not after there have been 9 statements.
      • It is true that the closer told the appellant that they were finished with discussion, after the appellant was repeating the same arguments. The closer was not required to continue the discussion indefinitely.
      • If the appellant thinks that there is systemic bias against women footballers, they can discuss that at the sports notability talk page or the Village Pump.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Robert McClenon. I appreciate your assistance providing direct links even when not asked (as opposed to the closing editor's uncooperative responses to ping me in their response and point me in the direction of where to challenge the deletion - neither were provided and the responses were defensive and accusational rather than cooperative). Many other editors I've interacted with in over 15 years are similarly helpful when asked or know enough as tenured editors when to offer suggestions.). I'd like to withdraw this review now as I better understand how it works. Many thanks. Hmlarson (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Robert McClenon. Bottom line is that there was clear consensus in the discussion that the subject did not meet notability guidelines (neither GNG nor the applicable SNG). We don't normally discuss conduct at DRV but I find the statement in this appeal accusing the closer of "uncooperative responses" to be extremely galling considering the very poor tone displayed by editors in the discussion with the closer, and in the AFD as well. An almost ANI-worthy lack of AGF. Levivich harass/hound 06:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate close The closing admin is involved specifically with this case, having voted "delete" in the previous AfD for the page. The admin claimed that they did not recall having an opinion about this, but I expect the closing admin to review previous AfDs of page when considering the discussion and comments prior to closing. Asking to continue discussion at AfD and let an uninvolved admin close. --SuperJew (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - AfD is not simply a vote and admins have a right to assess the strength of the arguments presented and how they relate to the inclusion guidelines. Keep arguments were largely WP:ATA ("if Henderson gets deleted then we need to delete Jais Malsarani as well") whereas delete arguments related to the relevant guideline, which is WP:GNG. At no point was a clear argument put forward as to how Henderson meets GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be preferable for a different admin to close because of the first AfD but not essential. Each AfD is a brand new discussion so I'm not entirely sure that Fenix down is in any way not actually allowed to close the 2nd AfD. I imagine most, if not all, admins would have closed the same way, though. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - as closing admin for the following reasons, many of which have already been already given:
  1. Clear 6 to 3 consensus including nominator to delete
  2. Detailed source by source analysis in the delete arguments clearly indicating no significant coverage
  3. Not a single keep vote attempted to rebut this nor did they add any sources that might indicate GNG, focussing instead on personal opinions and whataboutery
  4. Delete votes clearly carrying more weight than keep votes in both number and significance of contribution / weight of argument
  5. Clear deletion rationale provided in the close outlining the thought process behind the close
  6. Outcome of previous discussion (from nearly 5 years ago) irrelevant. We don't look to aggregate votes across multiple AfDs, each discussion is viewed on its own
The bottom line here is would any other admin or editor have closed the AfD differently based on the argum,ents presented in the AfD. My personal view is clearly no.
I would also note the behaviour on my talk page here prior to this DRV of editors involved in this discussion consisting of demonstrably false accusations towards me amounting to bad faith - as echoed by another editor above, a refusal to acknowledge them or take any ownership once called out and shown clear proof that they were false and that the editor who started this discussion lacked the courtesy of informing me, as closer of the AfD that they had opened this review and I found out simply by chance cheking this page. I'm sure an oversight, but nonetheless a lack of action that serves only to make it more difficult for relevant individuals and opinions to be heard. Fenix down (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Fenix down (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as somebody who !voted delete. OP says "closed prematurely" - no, discussion was open for the requisite 7 days and there had been no comments for 4 days when closed. OP says there was no clear consensus - no, there was, 6 delete !votes and 3 keep !votes, with rationale for consensus clearly explained. I sometimes grumble about the closes of this admin, but have no concerns at this time, although given they !voted delete in the first AFD it would have been preferable for them to allow another admin to close, although I am sure sure any other admin would have made the exact same decision. GiantSnowman 12:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Another bad close by an involved admin with a track record of abusing his position to !supervote in these discussions. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I actually agree with SuperJew and BbDS about the involvement, which isn't a good look, but I: 1) don't think it had any impact on the close, since I think the admin would have been unlikely to have been aware of their AfD participation from five years ago and 2) don't think this could have been closed any other way by any other administrator. Furthermore, in order to make sure we weren't making a mistake, I also conducted my own WP:BEFORE search and could not come up with any sources that would suggest the AfD was improperly argued. SportingFlyer T·C 18:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In light with the comments below, I do not mind vacating the close - it is not my preference, but I would support that result as long as it is re-closed the same way. SportingFlyer T·C 20:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate close Could have been closed as delete, but as the closing admin previously !voted delete on the same article in a prior AfD, he was involved and shouldn't have closed it, especially given it was a marginal delete at best. Smartyllama (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate close WP:INVOLVED should be broadly construed. Most often we think about it in terms of personalities, but topics are just as important to receive impartial attention as people are. Now, if anyone else wants to reclose it the same way, would there be an issue? Probably not, which is why it was a poor choice by the closer to do so. Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Prior involvement five years ago seems like a very long time off and likely bore little influence on the closure (I've surely commented/!voted/closed more discussions than I remember even in the past few months), therefore I don't think this is a violation of WP:INVOLVED. With that said, the close seems reasonable, given that the keep !votes are very weak appeals to what seems like "I like it" or "It's unfair"; nothing policy based (an appeal to not even meeting even a somewhat liberal SNG is entirely convincing, and there's strictly noting about GNG from the keep side, which is the actual requirement). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was the right close by the wrong closer. It's not enough to get the close right, it must also be seen that the closer was impartial and unbiased, and in a collaborative project it matters that our people have faith in the system (FairProcess). There's a lot of useful thought about this in R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy. Yes, I'm recommending that we literally vacate the close and then reclose it in exactly the same language with a different person's signature on it.—S Marshall T/C 18:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems convincing; but one could object that the current precedent within this jurisdiction, established by what is effectively our equivalent of a statute (excuse the language) is that Wikipedia is neither a court of law nor a bureaucracy... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct. DRV isn't a Court of Appeal; and the role of Wikipedian discussion closer is pretty different from that of Justice's Clerk. But we have to be fair and transparent, and that case contains a lot of thought about fairness and transparency. And I think that our principle of closer uninvolvement isn't to be dismissed as mere bureaucracy.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The notion of vacating the close is not something I object to in principle. Its a clear contradiction of the WP:BURO policy to my mind given there is no significant view that this was the wrong close, but if someone wants to do that I don't mind. Fenix down (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus was clear, the discussion was open for the requisite time, and the prior involvement is trivial. I don't see a need to vacate the close and re-close it the same way (Wikipedia is not a court of law), but to the extent anyone wants to do that, I will readily re-close as delete. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate close per arguments by S Marshall (though I think NC would also be a reasonable outcome). Hobit (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate close per S Marshall as the course of action involving the least pointless bureaucracy that ensures the close is done by an uninvolved admin. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn / vacate close for someone else to close. WP:SLAP closer User:Fenix down for closing an AfD on a page on which they had !voted in the preceding AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 April 2021

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:African Championships in Athletics medalists in men's 10,000 metres (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Template:African Championships in Athletics medalists in men's 100 metres (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Template:African Championships in Athletics medalists in men's 200 metres (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Template:African Championships in Athletics medalists in men's high jump (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

These templates containing medalist data were deleted without input from the creator or those working in the topic area. I am building articles that need this data (e.g. Draft:List of international medallists in men's 100 metres). These were deleted. Draftify would have been a superior option. I believe they were unused due to their removal from the corresponding athletics event pages. Please can these be restored so I can save time recreating? I messaged the deleting admin (User:Galobtter), but now I see they are not very active. Thanks SFB 14:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sounds like a job for WP:REFUND if, as I understand your request, all you want is the data back for inclusion in a different format. Regardless, I see no reason someone shouldn't be able to provide you this data for inclusion elsewhere, and I'm not hearing an argument that the deletion needs to be reversed, just that you need the information back. Is that correct? Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: I restored the pages to your userspace for the purposes of creating articles. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:14, 19 April 2021 (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.
File:McDonnell Company logo.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

On this page I discovered the author provided some images scanned from a newspaper published in 1990s, which discussed the historical logos used by McDonnell Douglas and its predecessors:

From which I saw it was reported that McDonnell was actually used that logo to symbolize the company's relation to the Project Mercury. So I think it's reasonable to recover this image back. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse and don't restore The deletion discussion was poorly attended, but was a pretty cut-and-dry copyright violation. A single blog post discussing the logo wouldn't be enough to include it in the encyclopaedia, unfortunately. The Sun Microsystems analogy in the XfD is improper since the Sun logos are apparently in the public domain. SportingFlyer T·C 18:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the FfD decision to delete. To move forward with an argument to overcome the reason for deletion, do this by establishing consensus by discussion on an article talk page. This level of detail does not belong in deletion review. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Here, DRV first considers whether User:Fastily stuffed up with the close, or maybe we can offer him some constructive advice on how do close better. The close looks good. Next, was the process followed properly? Yes. Next, was the process itself flawed? No. Finally, DRV can be asked whether a deletion (or non-deletion) is wrong. For this we need the detail. DRV is not FFD#2. So where is the detail? Did Great Brightstar (talk · contribs) talk to the closer, Fastily (talk · contribs)? The conversation should have been linked. I can't find it at User talk:Fastily. I'm looking for evidence that Fastily or others are denying a reasonable case to re-create. I can find no evidence. I can find no thread seeking consensus to re-create. No, User:Great Brightstar has come prematurely to DRV. There really is little more to say here than "Endorse the FfD". Following any deletion, if someone thinks that new information overcomes the reason for deletion, DRV should NOT be the first port of call. That would mean that once deleted, DRV becomes the micromanager moving forwards, and that is not the scope of DRV. "Textbook WP:NFCC#1 violation". There was no real deletion, the image still exists, the question is about fair use. Asking DRV to investigate and cast opinion on the WP:NFCC rules for a particular image is not what DRV is for. It is what article talk pages are for. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 April 2021

[edit]

14 April 2021

[edit]

13 April 2021

[edit]

12 April 2021

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

An earlier version of this page appears to have been deleted back in 2018 because it was flagged as overly promotional. Is it possible to revert this to a draft status so I can edit it and bring it up to Wikipedia's standards, or is it gone forever and I should start a new page from scratch? Grn1749 (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - Why would you want to start an article from a previous article that was deleted from both WP:G11 and WP:A7? That means that after the canned meat was thrown away, there was nothing left. If there is anything of substance to build a draft or an article, it isn't in the deleted article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're interested in writing a new article about it then I suggest you start from scratch. The deleted article was written by the company using material taken from their website (e.g. here). While this isn't a copyright violation because they gave permission, the text was very promotional and would need to be mostly or entirely rewritten. Hut 8.5 11:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon and Hut 8.5: Thanks for the info. I'm not familiar with the deletion protocols so I wasn't sure if there was possibly anything usable left from the original page. Based on your comments I'll start a new page from scratch. Thanks! Grn1749 (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2021 (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.
TechEngage (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

TechEngage is a recognized news agency which is covered in in-depth by The "News & Observer" and "Honolulu Star" articles are multiple examples of significant coverage from independent sources for the site to pass GNG. Unless you have an indication they are not reliable then they are acceptable sources. A quick glance suggests the Bizjournals and Kinza articles are examples that support GNG. 39.46.90.207 (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The DRV text doesn't allege an error by the closer, this isn't a place to re-litigate the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 00:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse:
      • This is a badly written appeal, but if it were a well-written appeal, I would endorse the close anyway, because the closer reached a well-reasoned conclusion.
      • This is also a self-contradictory appeal, because the appellant says that the closer only considered SIGCOV and ignored GNG; but SIGCOV is a necessary part of GNG, so that the closer determined that GNG was lacking because SIGCOV was lacking.
      • This appeal is re-litigation, and DRV is not for re-litigation.
      • I don't see a provision for Speedy Closure of a DRV because the appeal is absurd or bizarre, so maybe we just let it run for 7 days and endorse the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the closer correctly summarized the consensus. While a reasonable participant might have !voted differently, there's nothing unusual about concluding that the sources weren't sufficiently independent/substantial for purposes of WP:NCORP (the correct standard) or for that matter the GNG. We don't review AfDs de novo. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus was to delete. If you think that was a mistake, wait six months, made a draft, and follow the advice at WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 April 2021

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

In the German deletion discussion (btw filed by the same IP) it becomes clear that this is not a self-promotion, but a musicologically highly relevant work, since several encyclopedically relevant contemporary composers around the world are represented by this editor! There is a difference between an author who publishes (promotes) his own work and a music publisher who edits and publishes the works of countless composers from whom he has been commissioned to do so. This fact in itself indicates sufficient encyclopedic relevance. The editor has 7,694 publications listed on WorldCat and got referenced at least in a total of seven libraries within Germany and Switzerland, see particularly hundreds of entries in the German National Library. His work was, among many other projects, the basis for the album D'Indy - Dupuy: Sonates, recorded in the studio of the legendary piano master Stephen Paulello in HiRes-Audio (also distributed by jpc). Furthermore, no monetary (advertising) intentions are discernible, neither in the WP-article, nor on the website of the sheet music publisher. See Google cache for the last version. By the way, for those who face problems how to use a search engine: Backlinks all over the world. Please see also the international references in the German article, which will be implemented in the English article here. Thus please restore it in the article namespace (for a regular deletion discussion if necessary) or in my subpages for the further review, thx! BTW: The decision in the German deletion discussion was keep. Uwe Martens (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<Edits: 23:21, 16 April 2021‎ (UTC), 23:52, 16 April 2021‎ (UTC), 02:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC), 08:05, 17 April 2021‎ (UTC) -- Uwe Martens (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)>[reply]

"Wouldn't pass at AfD" is not a justification of a speedy, per se. The purpose of AfD is not just to get the right decision about a deletion, it also has an important role for learning for all involved. If someone wants to discuss, let them have the discussion, whatever the outcome it will probably be a useful exercise in learning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the original nominator 'a musicological highly relevant work, since several encyclopedically relevant contemporary composers all over the world are represented by this editor'? Absolute load of nonsense: if I write a book about Beethoven am I suddenly notable? There are virtually no proper third-party sources that speak about Tobias Broeker as a notable 'musicologist' or 'publisher'. There's a reason why the paragraph on 'publishing' had no external links. Broeker doesn't become notable just by putting his work on his own website and writing his own Wikipedia article: there needs to be some solid third-party coverage. 82.173.133.70 (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
💡 Reading recommendation for getting an idea about the difference between an author, who publishes his own work, and a music publisher, who edits and publishes the work of countless composers! As I wrote you in the German discussion: You shouldn't make judgments in areas you obviously have no clue about! Uwe Martens (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add here that Uwe Martens has taken the same attitude toward me, that I can't have a valid opinion because not agreeing with him means I don't know enough. – Athaenara ✉ 08:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry, that I have too less edits in the EN:WP for initiating/supporting an admin reconfirmation process due to presumptuous and inappropriate behavior! But thanks for the confirmation of my opinion! Uwe Martens (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uwe, I'm very familiar with music and musicology. No need to be rude. Let me use a clearer analogy: if I 're-type' a piece by Beethoven and put it as a download on my personal website, that doesn't automatically entitle me to a Wikipedia article. Tobias Broeker thought it did and wrote his own Wikipedia article. 82.173.133.70 (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, reading your original comment Uwe, 'legendary piano master Stephen Paulello'??? You're clearly showing your bias here. 82.173.133.70 (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So thanks for confirming my suspicion that you're coming out of the music business, located somewhere in Amsterdam, with the intention to just "erase" the article of a competitor that was undisputed in two Wikipedias for almost two years! Beethoven, as far as I know, died some time ago. So he cannot commission a music publisher to edit and publish his manuscripts. Countless contemporary and encyclopedically relevant ("notable") composers have done so, thus entering into an agreement with the publisher. This is what you obviously don't want to get, even after several explanations. About Stephen Paulello, who also distributes piano strings in different historic alloys, I have another reading recommendation for you! Uwe Martens (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uwe, Tobias wrote his own Wikipedia article because he isn't notable enough for anyone else to write it. Look for good third-party sources to show notability and you'll hardly find any. 82.173.133.70 (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The library entries and the composers represented by the publisher are the main references. Of course we can search now on the websites of hundreds of composers for backlinks, but this is not necessary for coming to the simple conclusion, that this music publisher as individual entrepreneur is highly relevant ("notable") within the music business! Several users in the German deletion discussion related with the music sector have confirmed this meanwhile and you know about this but just don't want to accept it. Uwe Martens (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can pay to have something registered at a library. Where are the relevant reviews/analyses/biographies from the music business? Exactly. 82.173.133.70 (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're still on the wrong track. We're talking about a music publisher. Not about an author. A music publisher publishes notes. You can find reviews/analyses/biographies by the hundreds about the compositions distributed by the publisher. BTW, only relevant ("notable") publications are listed in the cited libraries. Sorry, but I have no more time to entertain you any longer. This was now the final curtain! Uwe Martens (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • eh. There appears to be at least one review of a book of his. The article was certainly promotional. I'm inclined to go with endorse speedy but undelete and send to AfD just because A) he might be notable (though I have grave doubts based on the above discussion) and B) I suspect we'll be seeing recreations until we finally get a version that isn't overly promotional and *then* we'll end up at AfD. That said, Uwe Martens, if there aren't sources *about* Tobias Broeker that meet the GNG, or at least WP:AUTHOR this will be deleted. So you might want to find the best few sources and have them ready. Be sure you understand the sourcing requirements of WP:GNG. Reviews of his works in independent and reliable sources would help as would independent and reliable sources about him. Without those, this won't stay on en.wikipedia for long. Hobit (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it seems to me that you also didn't get the difference between an author writing books (or making compositions) and an editor and publisher making a professional layout of the score for the performance and premiere of the composition. This is at least the main business of Tobias Bröker. In addition, he's also active as a musicologist, but I don't want to derive encyclopedic relevance only or solely from this activity. Uwe Martens (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'publisher making a professional layout of the score' - we need third party sources that verify Tobias Broeker is 'notable' or 'important' for doing this. Do you really think every typesetter of a book (whether real or a pdf on a personal website) has a Wikipedia article? 82.173.133.70 (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I told you that I won't entertain you any longer! It's clear that you have nothing more to do than repeating your deletion requests and arguments crosswiki over and over again. The time has finally come to block your one-purpose-IP! EOD! Uwe Martens (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both conditions (GNG/SNG) are clearly fullfilled within the music business. Note, that not only facts are relevant which can be found directly on Google. References can be found by the hundreds on the websites of the represented composers (which can be found on Wikipedia as well). However, keep in mind that I am not a paid promoter defending other people's Wikipedia entries, especially without a recovered article at least on my subpages. As long as the article isn't restored, I won't work on it of course. The same goes for the German article, where I asked the article creator to format the references. I just checked the notability, which is clearly met. Opinions of single-purpose IPs, who are obviously competitors in the music business, are completely irrelevant. EOD from my side. Uwe Martens (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I find this whole discussion really quite odd given what we normally see at DRV, to be honest. Getting directly to the issue at hand, I think this was a proper G11 deletion, the page reads clearly promotionally. Reviewing the cached version I don't see anything which could possibly serve as a GNG-qualifying source, so I'm not sure sending to AfD would be a good use of volunteer time (I think I found the same book review as Hobit did.) Keep deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't make a bolded recommendation because I can't see the article, but if it was anything like the discussion above then it was certainly promotional. Please don't try to pull the wool over our eyes by saying that something has become clear in the German deletion discussion when all we have there are irrelevant unsourced assertions by the same editor who is nominating here - some of us can read German, you know. I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and other people have also been unable to do so, so it is unlikely that this would pass AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Service Uwe Martens (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not able to locate any independent, reliable sources about Broeker. I can certainly find content written by him. But as a prerequisite for a biographical article, we require independently-written information about him.—S Marshall T/C 16:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Re-Creation of Draft - I haven't seen the original and don't know whether the G11 was valid, but the risk involved in re-creating a draft for review is minimal. The likelihood of the draft being accepted may also be small, but in the case the Right Thing is to allow a draft to be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note For those of you who cannot (or who cannot be bothered) to read Goethe's tongue, the German AfD closed as keep; de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/10._April_2021#Tobias_Bröker_(bleibt). Without having access to the deleted version, I'd be inclined to allow re-creation if the supposed G11 issues can be solved. @Gerda Arendt: I'd provide a short summary of that discussion and try to compare with our policies here (I'd assume it's similar), but I don't have the time now. Would you mind lending a hand? Otherwise, the closer over there: @Gripweed: Wenn du Englische verstehst, kannst du einen Kommentar über der deutsche Diskussion abgeben? Danke, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, it was a controversial discussion at de: because there's obviously a conflict of interest. But the overall discussion revealed a "Keep" in the end. We got a Relevanzkriterium (Notability) for authors which says: "adequate distribution in academic libraries" (not sure if this translation is correct). You can see his distributions here. So this are two valid arguments I chose for a keep: distribution and the discussion itself. Sorry for my bad English. --Gripweed (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict, same link) The key argument of a lengthy discussion was that his works are relevant for scientific libraries. His topics are highly specialised, so general coverage can't be expected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Important to remember that everything here is self-promoted, without reviews, that he deposited himself at libraries. A bit like a self-studied PhD thesis. Notable musicologists, even very specialised ones, get coverage in music journals and have some of their works professionally published. There is virtually nothing on Broeker other than 'this e-book is linked here'. If we think the e-book is notable than arguably the article should be for the e-book, not for 'Broeker the man'. 82.173.133.70 (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And at the end of the day, the English Wikipedia does generally require independent secondary coverage, which he wouldn't be exempt from. I stand by my previous comment which says this entire discussion is odd, but having read through the German (which I am not great with) I don't see anything in that discussion which would be helpful in making him notable in English. SportingFlyer T·C 00:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever, this isn't AfD. There's no such thing as a "self-studied (?) PhD thesis", these usually require approval from faculty and then a defense with outside experts (at least, with reputable institutions - if his works are held in recognised libraries, that's likely the case). Also, that might be a sign that they have a significant impact within their discipline (the requirements here might be a wee bit stricter than German WP; not sure - see WP:NACADEMIC). But DRV isn't the place to argue notability. I can't know what the article on here looked like, but judging the German WP one, it doesn't appear to be that bad that it'd warrant G11 here. Also concerns about the IP, which was blocked for socking (?) on German WP (that's what the block log links to). (@blocking admin over there) @LexICon: If you could give your opinion here that would appreciated. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter. Whatever happened on the German Wikipedia is irrelevant to us, unless of course there are sources there which help demonstrate WP:GNG, which there aren't. I've already noted based on the version I've reviewed that I do think a WP:G11 deletion was absolutely proper, and I'm bringing up AfD since would send this to AfD this were it restored. SportingFlyer T·C 00:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly recommend ignoring this single-purpose IP, which was banned for trolling (by the way, the show is going on here). Finally, after his blocking, the deletion discussion could come to an end! In the meantime, the community might want to take a look at an auto-translation of the German article that I reviewed on DE:WP. So this is what the English article might look like. Several thousand music scores edited by Tobias Bröker, referenced and archived all over the world, including several libraries and universities - definitely sufficient notability given, without any doubt. The apparently personal mission of the anonymous IP user is finished now here as well! Uwe Martens (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and draftify This is not G11 or A7 material. "Publications were made in cooperation with national libraries and archives" sounds like a plausible claim to significance; and "Tobias Broeker (8 November 1976 in Gronau) is a German classical music researcher and publisher." doesn't sound like the usual vanity-pages that go under G11. It likely is a COI creation given the username of its creator. Looking at the author's publications as listed, "Verbandszeitschrift des VdH" ([4]) doesn't seem too significant, but "Forum Musikbibliothek" ([5]) seems respectable enough. Likely the subject is not notable per NACADEMIC or GNG, but that is not the purpose of speedy deletion, and I see no objection to draftyfing this and giving some time to look for better sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 April 2021

[edit]

9 April 2021

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

Vardhan Puri is a Bollywood Actor and had his debut film released in Nov 2019. He is also the actor in the upcoming film titled "The Last Show" with Anupam Kher. ~

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

8 April 2021

[edit]
  • Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) – No consensus, AfD relisted. People disagree about whether this AfD closure was correct. In a no consensus situation at DRV, the closure is normally maintained, but the DRV closer may choose to relist the AfD instead. I'd not normally relist an AfD with extensive discussion, but there are some arguments in favor of this mode of proceeding: many of the opinions in the AfD were very cursory; the closer has not defended their closure here; and relisting has been suggested by several contributors here. Sandstein 20:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe there was improper closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) (2nd nomination). For reference, this was the page before closure: For several reasons, I believe the closure was too hasty and with an incorrect outcome, hence I would like to revert it. I left this message on the closing user's talk page but, they have since deleted it without addressing it and has gone silent. I have now waited a week, and hence I am now posting here. Here are my reasons:

  • The closure did not address the fact that Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) is notable under the policy WP:NBUILD, since it is listed as a historic structure in the NRHP and plenty of information on it is available (see below).[1][2] Per WP:NBUILD 'Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable'. Since Badin Hall is registered, it is covered under the policy.
  • The structure additionally passes WP:GNG given the amount of WP:SIGCOV (although, per NBUILD, SIGCOV is not required to meet notability in this case, but nonetheless it possesses it) as it has been pointed out by many users in the discussion. The closure did not address this, nor did it address why the closing user disagrees with the majority of users that it does pass. Regarding SIGCOV, has been pointed out by other users how indeed it had receieved significant and enduring coverage, particularly on the South Bend Tribune (including several full pafe piece profiles on the hall[3][4])[5]. Further, its construction[6][1][4], early history[6][7][4][8][9][10][11][12], its history as the oldest Catholic trade school in America[13][9], role in hosting the United States Naval Reserve Midshipmen's School[14][15], its role in hosting the first women at Notre Dame[16][17][18], and its recent history and traditions[19][20][5][21][22] have been amply described in independent sources.
  • The user's closing statement did not address the consensus (which was not obvious) nor did it address the fact that the majority of users commenting voted to keep the page. While WP is not a democracy, a proper closing statement that going against the opinion of the majority of users should address at the very least this fact and give reasons why those votes should not be listened to, and the closure did neither.
  • The user did not address the consensus (which was not obvious to participants) and which I argue was to keep, in line with the points above and with the majority of the user' opinions.
  • The user closed the RfC before the default time period without giving a specific reason, especially given the fact that the discussion was still ongoing and the last contributions (which was a keep opinion) came less than 24 hours from the closure.
  • The user has similarly hastily closed two other discussions: [6] and [7]. I believe all three closures should be reverted.
  • I left this message on the closing user's page a week ago, but they have since deleted it without addressing it and gone silent.

Hence, I'd like to revert the closure and let the discussion continue or change the outcome. Eccekevin (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Charleton, James H. (1986). Recreation in the United States: National Historic Landmark Theme Study. National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
  2. ^ James T. Burtchaell (November 1976). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: University of Notre Dame Campus-Main and South Quadrangles" (PDF). Indiana State Historic Architectural and Archaeological Research Database and National Park Service. Retrieved October 18, 2017. With seven photos from 1972-76. Map of district included with text version available at National Park Service.
  3. ^ Carrico, Patrick (12 May 1954). "Famed Bog distinguished Badin Hall at Notre Dame". South Bend Tribune. p. 24.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ a b c Neil, Rau (11 October 1930). "ND Halls tell how place grew - Badin Hall built in 1917". South Bend Tribune.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  5. ^ a b "Notre Dame cafe established in Badin Hall". South Bend Tribune. 3 October 1917. p. 7.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. ^ a b "Badin Hall". The Catholic Tribune. October 13, 1917. p. 2.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  7. ^ "Badin Hall, the newest hall at Notre Dame". The Catholic Advance. 29 December 1917. p. 3.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  8. ^ Alerding, Herman Joseph (1888). A History of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Vincennes. author.
  9. ^ a b "New Badin Hall named after first priest in America". The Irish Standard. 22 December 1917. p. 1.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  10. ^ Stoll, John B. (1923). An Account of St. Joseph County from Its Organization ... Dayton Historical Publising Company. p. 124.
  11. ^ "Chemistry and Badin Halls will be erected before fall opening". South Bend News-Times. 26 May 1917. p. 1.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  12. ^ Howard, Timothy Edward (1907). A History of St. Joseph County, Indiana. Lewis publishing Company.
  13. ^ "The Diocese of Fort Wayne, 1857-September 1907". webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference :02 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Moses, First Down (2013-10-31). "Notre Dame and Navy: Why We Play, Part 1". One Foot Down. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
  16. ^ Sulok, Nancy (March 7, 1973). "Notre Dame May Face Housing Shortage Because of Coeds". South Bend Tribune. p. 20.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  17. ^ "Notre Dame Enrollment Estimated To Be 8,750". The Herald, Jasper Indiana. July 24, 1973. p. 11.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  18. ^ "Coed enrollment with double at Notre Dame". Daily Journal (Franklin, Indiana). August 16, 1973. p. 9.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  19. ^ Blasko, Erin (February 14, 2010). "A cold plunge". South Bend Tribune. p. B1.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  20. ^ Wallace, Francis (1969). Notre Dame: Its People and Its Legends. D. McKay Company.
  21. ^ Kltisch, Kristi (February 21, 1999). "New store preserves tradition, Hammes name". South Bend Tribune. p. SS6.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  22. ^ Mezzacappa, Gabriella (2016-02-02). "Students respond in outrage over residential hall moves". The Tab. Retrieved 2021-03-15.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • There is a lot to read here. Could you please provide the best 3 or 4 sources for meeting WP:GNG? You've provided a lot of sources, but a quick look didn't show anything that was very in-depth other than from the South Bend Tribune (which isn't ideal as it's a very local paper). Hobit (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So let's take those points in the order in which the nominator raises them.
  1. Notable under the policy WP:NBUILD. NBUILD isn't policy and doesn't bind the closer. NBUILD is clearly labelled as a guideline. The relevant limb of NBUILD is the second, which tells us that buildings may be notable if they have significant independent coverage. I think we've got the rules right there:- our rules should allow us to have articles on buildings such as Buckingham Palace or the Taj Mahal, and they should not allow us to have an article about my local fire station. In this case, the discussion focused closely on NBUILD but consisted mainly of long, scattershot lists of sources and opinion statements: "I think this building passes" because of all the sources. I don't see an in-depth analysis of the sources and references. This leaves the closer in the invidious position of having to form their own judgment without much help from the community. I would be intrigued to read Spartaz' description of his thought processes on this. I see there's a notice on his talk page indicating that he's ragequit the project, but Spartaz does that from time to time and, so far, he has always returned. I reserve judgment until he weighs in, but my initial impression here is that on this point, the close isn't obviously wrong.
  2. Passes the GNG. Much like the previous point. Lists of sources and opinion statements, little analysis, no evidence of anyone in the discussion changing their view based on the evidence presented. Close needs some elaboration, but isn't obviously wrong.
  3. Inadequate closing statement. I agree that this close would have benefitted from a more in-depth explanation and I can understand why the nominator finds it hard to parse. I expect that a more in-depth explanation will emerge here, and, subject to what Spartaz says when he reads this, I hope that one of the outcomes of this DRV will be for the closing statement to be expanded.
  4. User didn't address the consensus. I have been unable to distinguish this point from the previous one. How was Spartaz expected to address the consensus except by means of his closing statement?
  5. Closed early. This discussion was not closed early. I think the nominator may be confusing request for comment, which run for at least 30 days, with articles for deletion, which run for 7 days. This was the latter, and there is clearly no closer error on this point.
  6. Closed other discussions early. No, this is wrong, as previously stated.
  7. Didn't reply on his talk page. Yes: Spartaz is required to explain his closes on his talk page when he makes them, and yes, that is policy. This is a closer error that can only be remedied by Spartaz' engagement in this discussion. I expect he will, but if he doesn't, and the user remains unsatisfied, then we have little choice but to relist the debate for someone else to close.
  • Spartaz's talk page implies they are either on a wikibreak or have left the project completely. While they should have responded, not responding to an AfD close isn't grounds for vacating the close, as far as I'm aware. (As an aside, I participated in the AfD, saw this was closed as a redirect, thought that was the absolute correct result, and knew, based on the discussion, that it would go to DRV.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally skipped over your first point, you've addressed Spartaz's wikibreak, my apologies. SportingFlyer T·C 17:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Overturn to Relist:
      • This is an unpleasant Deletion Review. Both the close and the appeal are troublesome.
      • This appeal, at 873 words, is too long for either an AFD statement or a DRV statement. This statement is re-arguing, and is too long for an argument, a re-argument, or a statement of an error.
      • By agreeing very briefly with one Redirect statement, the closer essentially disregarded all of the Keep statements without addressing them adequately, which amounted to a supervote.
      • At this point, the best action is to Relist.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy relist WP:NBUILD is normative, and really the idea that a building on the National Registry of Historic Places would be NN for Wikipedia purposes fails to pass the common-sense test: No NRHP place exists that doesn't have SIGCOV somewhere even if we can't find it, and WP:NEXIST. Spartaz' taking a wikibreak relatively soon after a controversial close that has been challenged on his talk page, albeit in some respects erroneously, by the DRV requestor, without replying or even acknowledging it is an WP:ADMINACCT violation, and it's reasonable to expect that a challenged, undefended admin action will be speedily overturned. Had the DRV requestor stuck to a shorter, better targeted request, the two key problems here would have shone through the inadvertent textwall. On Wikipedia, people have a short attention span, so the more you write, the less likely you are to make your case. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a simple description of its dimensions etc and isn’t enough for NBUILD. Not every NRHP structure is notable, there is only a presumption of notability, which can be refuted by an demonstrated lack of SIGCOV e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian County Road 4G Bridge --Pontificalibus 15:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is specifically listed as a ‘’’historic structure’’’ by the NHRP. Also, there are several articles about it listed above, that describe its history and structure. It’s history is very well documented by independent sources. Eccekevin (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pontificalibus, I impeached SportingFlyer's assertion. If you have a further assertion, you might want to make sure it's not lost in a thread that started somewhere else... Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I was simultaneously refuting your "speedy relist" rationale that no NRHP place exists that doesn't have SIGCOV somewhere, and also supporting SportingFlyers' contention that ref 1, p. 119 is "not much more than a sentence". A relist based on a lack of consensus seem fine, but I can't stomach one that relies on waving at WP:NEXIST. ----Pontificalibus 07:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and deny request as not in scope for DRV. There was no deletion or pseudodeletion. A consensus to reverse the redirect decision should be developed and established at the talk page of the redirect target. Continue at Talk:University of Notre Dame residence halls#merge from Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To the extent that an admin said "Community consensus says this must be redirected" it is absolutely in scope for DRV. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DRV can review the close, true. I endorse the closers “redirect”. However, that decision does not have permanence. WP:CCC, and not the least that new information may be found. What is not in scope is DRV continuing to manage the question, the proper page for that is the target talk page. The question being presented here at DRV is so messy, unfocused, that DRV is obviously not the right forum. A talk page thread is the right forum. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree that everything is a mess, nor that the talk page is the proper and clearly better place to assess whether a redirect/merge or separate article is warranted. My only concern is that an AfD with a redirect close becomes a status quo to overcome, and I believe, based on the problems we've illustrated with the close, that such a status quo is a poor place from which to start an equitable and unbiased discussion. Overturning to no consensus would allow anyone to revert the redirection and prompt that discussion. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe if I !voted "Endorse as correct at the time, but now defer the question of "keep redirected" or "revert the redirect", to a talk page decision, at Talk:University of Notre Dame residence halls. The AfD was correctly closed as not-delete, and "redirect" was not unreasonable, but now that deletion is off the table, it should not be sent back to AfD. Is there someone who says "Community consensus says this must be redirected"? If there is, I will argue with them, starting with WP:CCC, but on the other hand, someone needs to concisely state what has changed. I am not convinced that anything has changed. Also, another reason for this to be sent to the parent article talk page is that the issue is not particular to this hall, but generalises to them all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On further reading, I am disturbed by the inconsistency with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keenan Hall. I am unimpressed with appeals to WP:NBUILD. Maybe "overturn to no consensus and refer the stand alone child articles of University of Notre Dame residence halls to an RfC". It is a structurism question, not a deletion question, and so it is not suitable for a forced resolution via the deletion process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we are substantially, even if not semantically, in agreement. Par for the course in a place that doesn't have hard and fast rules. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I might go with an "endorse and refer the stand alone child articles to an RfC." We should definitely have the information somewhere, but there's a clear question as to how to structure the information, and the halls are individually only marginally notable, and since this is a redirect, it's easily overturned pending the result of the RfC. However, I did think it should be redirected. SportingFlyer T·C 12:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (to no consensus) and recommend an RfC on whether the halls generally should have separate articles. The result should be consistent, or a consistent criteria, across the set of halls. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Part of a historic district is not notability , for it is increasingly applied to the entire older and downtown areas of all cities. Every house on my block and the surrounding blocks is in the historic district, thought most, including mine are not even mentioned specifically in the report, and only one or two buildings in it are actually separately on the schedule. Old is not the same as notable, if there is no other distinction. And here, as usual, almost all the references are to local and campus sources, which write about every building on a campus indiscriminately. There's an excellent place to include the information, which is the college's web site. There's nothing really wrong with redirection--there's nothing intrinsically wrong with redirecting every building on a campus, but even this is getting close to indiscriminate. And also to NOT DIRECTORY DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This case is different than your house, since the district is quite small and Badin Hall is explicitly listed and described as historic structure, (and is separate, as you point out only two houses in your district are) and in addition there are many sources on it on various newspapers and other media, as outlined in the article itself. Hence, as NP:BUILD points out, this qualifies it as notable. This building is not simply 'old;' aas you state, but it hosted the oldest Catholic trade school in America, it hosted the V-7 United States Naval Reserve Midshipmen's School, and it was the first hall to host women at Notre Dame, so it definitely has different claims to notability, not just its age. Eccekevin (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one claimed its age is the only thing making it notable. Eccekevin (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep (relist or o/t to n/c OK too, but I think it's a "keep") - I don't think at DRV we should decide whether an article meets SIGCOV or violates NOTDIR... that's what the AFD was for; we're here to look at the AFD discussion and the close. Looking at that discussion, I see: a numerical keep majority based on multiple GNG-satisfying sources. So when a majority of the participants agree that the article meets GNG based on SIGCOV... neither the closer, nor DRV voters, should overrule that. The closing rationale in particular, which cites one !vote as especially compelling, seems like a supervote: meaning, the closer is substituting their judgment of what is a compelling argument for the judgment of the discussion participants. But most (8/11?) of the discussion participants agreed it met GNG based on the sources presented. That means keep. Levivich harass/hound 06:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to NC I think the key thing here is that the keep !voters have actual sources they can point at. I have grave doubts if the sources really meet the GNG, but the claim that they do isn't unreasonable. I personally would !vote for a redirect here for lots of reasons (source quality, nature of the topic, etc.) but that's not what we are here to do and I don't see any reasonable claim that that discussion reached a deletion or redirect consensus. I think one *can* make an argument it didn't reach a keep consensus either, so I'm not quite with Levivich. I could live with a relist, but I don't think it needed or helpful. 19:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that it has now been three weeks and Spartaz has not edited his talk page to amend his departure, not participated in this discussion. As someone has to close this contentious mess sooner or later, I think that fact argues strongly for not sustaining a close against numerical count. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 April 2021

[edit]

6 April 2021

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

I am asking for this discussion to be relisted along with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trofeo Spagnolo. Articles in the Italian language version of this article as well as a simple web search demonstrate that the competition passes WP:GNG, such as [8] [9] [10] (not significant coverage, but shows the tournament was treated seriously after the fact). The sources are generally pre-internet Italian, so another week or two to look would be appreciated, especially given it appears the closer substituted their own judgement when closing these discussions (see their response to me. SportingFlyer T·C 11:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as closing admin As closing admin, I am noting that DRV is not the place to ask for discussions to be reopened post the event. SportingFlyer is talking disingenuously here. During the Memorial Mario Cecchi Gori AfD he noted the Italian version of the article has sources that could indicate GNG. There was no appetite from any editor to discuss them and he was the only keep vote. Furthermore the keep vote argument is in itself very weak as it merely states there are foreign language sources without indicating which ones showed GNG and how. The special pleading that as this is an article about things that occurred a few decades ago is somehow a reason to extend an AfD as a matter of course is not supported by any guideline. This editor is now trying to present new sources (without attributing them to either of the AfDs in question) which may or may not show GNG outside of the AFD. DRV is not the place for this. I don't believe there was anything wrong with the closure of the AfD based on the weakness of the sole keep vote.
Regarding the Trofeo Spagnolo SportingFlyer tried to claim that the Italian wiki article had sources which satisfied GNG, this was clearly false as all the sources within that article are primary sources from the website of one of the competing clubs. I don't believe there was anything wrong with the closure of this AfD based on that being the sole keep vote. Fenix down (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was an AfD with three users, of which the entire discussion for deleting the article was a grand total of six words, and yet you found consensus. That's a clear error per DRV purpose #1. Not sure why you think it's disingenuous. SportingFlyer T·C 12:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's what happens when someone says an article is not notable, if people can't find sources, they say, "yes, that's not notable". What are you expecting? What's disingenuous, with the trofeo Spagnolo AfD for example, is you claim the Italian article has sources that support GNG without saying how or why, when these are all primary sources from a competing club's website. I assume this was an error on your part as none f these can count towards GNG. therefore as an error your argument had no weight, therefore the article was unanimously for deletion, therefore deletion occurred. If you think there are new sources, can you please provide more detail as to how they contribute to GNG for either of the articles in question. That is at least a discussion that can be had here if new information has come to light but at the moment, none was presented in the AfDs that clearly showed GNG, that massively reduces the strength of your arguments. Even here, you have dropped in a few references but haven't said to which of the AfDs they refer and what is in them that shows GNG sufficient to warrant a relist. Seriously, I can't do your work for you. You can't say there are sources elsewhere, be completely non-specific about them, provide no supporting detail and expect your rationale to carry any real weight. It would be useful here if you could start by taking the three sources above, listing them out and then provide quotes / narrative which explains how they help support GNG. If there is something there then one or both of them can be reopened for further discussion, but I'm not going to reopen an AfD just because you drop a couple of links in. Fenix down (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It goes both ways. Nobody in either of these discussions mentioned why the article failed WP:GNG. The English language ones did because of sourcing, but the nominator did "drive-by" AfDs on a number of friendly tournaments with two-word nominations without any evidence they did any sort of WP:BEFORE search. There are sources to support these articles, but there can't be a discussion about them in the proper location because you closed the AfDs too soon. SportingFlyer T·C 14:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But it just doesn't. the problem is how do you prove a negative. someone nominates an article for deletion and says fails GNG. Someone else then has quick search and finds nothing and votes delete per nom and so on and so forth. What else are they meant to say. If someone votes delete or says an article is not notable we assume they have had a look and are satisfied that the article fails GNG. For you then to come in at the last minute and say, there are sources in the Italian article therefore this article must be notable (especially when in one of the articles here that was demonstrably untrue with them all clearly being primary sources) without saying why is not an argument to extend an AfD because there is nothing of note in your comment to discuss. As I noted before, it would be a useful start here for you to list the three sources you added up there, note to which AfD they apply and comment on what they say and why this makes the subject notable. That could well indicate new sources which would warrant the AfD being reopened. It would be much better if you concentrated on the sources rather than the process. Fenix down (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can't prove a negative but you can go a long way to show you tried e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benito, California - such properly argued delete votes carry far more weight than "Fails GNG" which really should be almost entirely disregarded if there are any sources later bought to the discussion.----Pontificalibus 12:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Both, noting:
      • The closing administrator was a little harsh in saying that the appellant was being 'disingenuous', but the appellant is an experienced editor who does appear to have been watching the clock.
      • The appellant was doing a handwave as time ran out in saying that there are Italian sources without either adding the sources or requesting a relist in order to add the sources.
      • The appellant could have added the Italian sources and said "Hey", Hey, but didn't.
      • Is there a past history between User:SportingFlyer and User:Fenix down? If not, let's not create one.
      • The appellant should be allowed to Re-Create Both in Draft space.
      • The appellant is reminded that watching the clock and waving the hands as the AFD is about to be closed does look disingenuous.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't appreciate the accusation that I was "clock-watching," I didn't even look to see how much longer the AfD had to run, and I discovered it was open when I made my !vote. SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist the Memorial Mario Cecchi Gori discussion had three participants, one of whom supported keeping the article and it was closed hours after the Keep comment was posted. Relisting was arguably the best course of action anyway as the participation was minimal, it wasn't unanimous, and the OP raised a new argument just before closure. The other discussion was similar. Hut 8.5 20:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse. The closer was given a very poor discussion on which to base their close and, although I think a soft delete, no consensus or relist would have been preferable, I think delete was just about within discretion. The closer should not be basing their close on their own evaluation of the adequacy of sources – I will make the assumption that the evaluation here was only done after the close had been decided upon. However, I think all that should be of little concern to Sporting. If following this DRV the deletion holds, simply create a new article with the new references and relevant material. I suggest avoiding the minefield of draft space and recreate in main space (possibly after drafting in userspace). WP:G4 would not apply. The article would be liable to AFD, which all articles are anyway. I've no idea how football fans react to such recreations. FWIW the Italian article is at Memorial Mario Cecchi Gori. Thincat (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objections to restoring to your draftspace, especially if you think the sources you have found meet gng and you are willing to go through AfC for independent assessment before moving to mainspace, my only objection here is that the vague pointing to other sources without any attempt to be clear on how they help meet gng is an acceptable reason to relist when you are the only keep voter. Fenix down (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A) AfC should never be a required process. It's just too much of a hot mess and isn't designed to be a required process. B) The !votes to delete were even worse. No comments on sources, no hint if they did a search, nothing. Hobit (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Closing an AfD on 2:1 is reasonable when the two have the stronger argument, but in this case, the lone editor opposing had the stronger argument. Contra Robert McClenon, WP:NEXIST is normative, and there is no particular value add to copying in sources from the Italian article: mentioning that they exist there is sufficient to include them by reference. I'm sure we all can prefix with "it:" with minimal effort. Closing as no consensus would have been reasonable but likely premature; closing as keep is about the same level as closing as delete--premature based on the state of the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist that discussion didn't have anything close to consensus. The !vote and the nom to delete were basically worthless. The !vote to keep was, frankly, something of a vaguewave. But there isn't consensus to be found here. If it had already been relisted twice, I'd probably endorse a deletion outcome, though WP:SOFTDELETE would probably be a better outcome. As it stands, it should have been relisted. Hobit (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist If specific sources are pointed at in this way (not a vague "there should be sources somewhere"), a relist with an invitation to assess them is surely warranted in order to find consensus - especially if none of the delete votes indicated that they'd looked for sources beyond those already in the article.----Pontificalibus 11:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist both - both AfDs could do with input from more editors and a discussion around sources available or of attempts made to find such sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (relist). The late “keep” !vote needed to be challenged or rebuffed, but summary rejection by the closer is a WP:Supervote. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly Overturn (relist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trofeo Spagnolo, as the closer introduces new facts (ascribing all article sources as primary), which no participant did, and this makes it a WP:Supervote. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 April 2021

[edit]

4 April 2021

[edit]

3 April 2021

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

This page has been nominated for deletion twice over the course of a month (which by itself cuts close to WP:LASTTIME) and both times, the stated reason was that there was no secondary sources in the article. When I became aware of this problem I edited the article and added a substantial number of secondary sources. My understanding per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS is that If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, that argument is no longer relevant. Perhaps my error was I did not notify everyone in the deletion discussion that this update had occurred. However, the person who had initially nominated the article for deletion did clearly notice the additions because that user removed one of my sources (which again I thought was not proper during the deletion process but I cant find the policy at the moment). At the very least, I had assumed the closing admin would review the article and see that the issue had been rectified, per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure but on a subsequent discussion on that user's talk page, it seems a review of the actual article did not occur prior to the decision to delete (User_talk:Seraphimblade#George_Leef_deletion_explanation).

Thank you for your consideration. Nweil (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse but allow re-creation in draft with the secondary sources:
      • It appears that the appellant is saying that they improved the article to where it should have been a Heymann Keep, but that the closer only assessed the statements and did not re-review the article. This may raise a question about how an author should request special attention for a Heymann improvement. As it is, there was no error by the closer, and the author should be allowed to submit a new draft with the sources.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The AfD discussion looks reasonable to me (on its own terms) and the close likewise. However, if you submit a new draft with your new sources, the draft is still vulnerable to WP:G4 speedy deletion. Could we have a temporary undeletion so DRV has the chance to say whether in its enhanced state the article should not be liable for G4 deletion? To require yet further explicit improvement may be unreasonable. Thincat (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - First, the idea that the article was nominated for deletion twice over the course of a month is simply false - there is and has been only one AFD discussion for this article. The article was deleted through PROD and then WP:REFUNDed, but that does not constitute a nomination for deletion - the OP certainly had a right to request undeletion, but undoing an uncontroversial deletion is explicitly not a judgment on the article's merits. As to the merits: the secondary sources provided still failed WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF, as the !voters made clear. The sources available simply don't allow the creation of an encyclopedic biography of this person. For example, the sum total of one proffered secondary source is As commentator George Leef remarked in a recent analysis in Forbes - the textbook definition of a passing mention. Another proffered source is similar: George Leef wrote for the National Review, and another - many vocal and influential public figures, such as ... George Leef. These are all passing mentions, and what is required is significant coverage, defined as sources which address the subject directly in detail. There aren't any. They don't exist. We simply don't have any sources which address the subject directly in detail, so we can't write a biography of this person. It's not some sort of value judgment about them - it's a simple lack of reliable sources to base a biography upon. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is an example of independent, reliable and significant scholarly coverage of Leef's concepts which I brought up in the AFD discussion and no one has rebutted to date. Furthermore, Leef's concepts have been cited in testimonies before state and federal legislative bodies (1 2) and he himself has testified before them as an expert (3). Apologies for not using the correct term for the two different deletion processes but I am still learning the lingo around here. The subject here does suffer from being the middle of two or three different notability types (academic, author, journalist) but there is no doubt he is widely cited by his peers. Nweil (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus NorthBySouthBaranof's editing the article to remove sources during the deletion discussion, such as here, and here, after nominating the article for deletion, was inappropriate and should not be rewarded. If an editor wants to trim an article, fine. If editor wants to nominate an article for deletion, also fine. But the act of trimming sources, even arguably primary ones and trivial mentions, after that editor had nominated the article for deletion and while the deletion discussion is underway, is a party foul of the first order. AfD can sort through puffery and such, and does so all the time. I believe the discussion to have been irrevocably tainted such that a new AfD is in order. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article written by the president of the organization that Leef works for is patently not an independent reliable source. It's a primary source for anything about Leef. Similarly, PR biographical blurbs written by organizations Leef worked for are also not reliable secondary sources. There is nothing arguable about it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While primary, and thus not counting for WP:N, those sources can be used. "Yanking" a source for no (given) reason other than not being independent isn't really a good idea.
  • (not sure whom the above comment was by, but it wasn't me) I agree with the above unsigned comment. The issue isn't the editing, but the timing, that of doing so during a running AfD such that editors taking a cursory look at the article don't see the sources the nom removed. At AfD, the defenders of the article should be allowed--and encouraged!--unfettered access with which to improve the article by adding sources. If the sources suck, it gets deleted. If they find good sources, it gets kept, unless they also find and add too many bad sources such that the good sources get buried among the chaff. It's a matter of common courtesy, encourages article defenders to spend more time adding sources than arguing pointlessly, and improves--at least marginally--the article for the duration of the AfD, even if it is ultimately deleted as non-notable. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Doesn't seem to meet any particular part of WP:PROF. Doesn't seem to meet the GNG. I'm not happy with anyone in the edits to the article during the DRV (some sources added that don't help with the GNG while claiming they do at AfD, removing a source and a workplace for what I'd say were ticky-tacky reasons), but at the end of the day, that doesn't really change that no one really made a believable claim that any inclusion guideline is met. Given the !vote this is a reasonable delete outcome. Hobit (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but encourage draftification. It’s a close case this one, and just another good source or two could get it over the line. Encourage following the advice at WP:THREE, lots of weak sources are not effective at reversing the deletion decision, and they make the review process harder. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus I think we need a new AfD for the reasons presented by Jclemens. Tillander 09:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Hobit and NorthBySouthBaranof. The process worked fine. 'Twas a good close. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a contributor to the AfD. The source listed above by Nweil was discussed in more than one comment at the AfD, so the claim that the discussion and close ignored this newly-found source does not hold water. Also Nweil's claim to have been the one to bring up that source is false; Nweil mentioned it only in passing in a comment at the end of the AfD, but the same source was brought up earlier by hroest ("Only [1] this review, actually.") and discussed in my comment. I can't speak for the other contributors, but my contribution there was based primarily on external searching, not on the contents of the article in its version at the time of the discussion, so changes there (other than the addition of GNG-compliant sources beyond what my searches found, which didn't happen) would have had little or no effect on my decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but if anyone wants to recreate the article I don't think WP:G4 speedy deletion can be applied. During the discussion there was so much churn to the article that no particular version can be said to be the version deleted and so "substantially identical to the deleted version" has no unambiguous meaning. Thincat (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think that's a pretty clear delete AfD, and while it probably could have been defensibly closed as no consensus, delete is a significantly better option. In terms of WP:G4, we should look at the version of the article which was sent to AfD when applying it. SportingFlyer T·C 12:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 April 2021

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

This page was speedily deleted (by username QueerEcofeminist) a few hours after I posted it yesterday. In accordance with policy WP:COI, I disclosed my affiliation to the subject (a company) and placed the page in draft, hoping that another editor would review it for objectivity.

The page seems to have been speedily deleted because I made the COI disclosure. That is not one of the grounds for speedy deletion. In fact, if it were, it would make no sense for policy WP:COI to exist at all.

The only potentially valid ground for speedy deletion is G11, "pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles." This page passes the test, for a number of reasons.

1. The language used is not promotional.

2. Every effort has been made to write the article from as objective a point of view as possible. For example, it includes prominent reference to an article that describes the company's business model as "indentured servitude." Having said that, I understand that I have a COI, which is precisely why I disclosed the COI in advance and submitted the page in draft for review.

3. As to notability: The company has trained more than 7,000 computer programmers, has pioneered an unusual business model, counts major companies among its clients, and has been written up in at least two national newspapers (the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal).

4. As to the use of independent sources: The page cites articles from the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Medium's OneZero, all of which give Revature prominent coverage (some positive, some negative).

In view of the above, I request that, instead of summary deletion, the page be reinstated in draft and thoroughly reviewed. AJWilson82 (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article temporarily undeleted for the DRV. Daniel (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The Medium (website) reference is quite unflattering, and torpedoes a presumption of promotion needed to sustain G11. May not be notable, may be overall too promotional, but it earns a discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G11 and allow review of draft, which needs declining. If I saw the page in article space, I would probably draftify it rather than tagging it for speedy deletion. Appellant should understand that there is no guarantee that the draft will ever be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The draft certainly could be written a bit more objectively, but it isn't nearly so hopelessly promotional as to merit a G11, particularly under the more lax standards applicable in draft-space. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Overturn Since it's in draft space and there is a tinge of neutrality to it. I'm not sure the company qualifies for a Wikipedia article on NCORP grounds and maybe PROMO grounds and there are far too many primary sources in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 12:30, 7 April 2021 (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.
Zeyan_Shafiq (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Hi, I've discussed it in detail with admin Barkeep49 on his Talk Page here, and he guided me to post it here to obtain the permissions to be able to recreate it.
After researching and reading the AfD discussion thoroughly, It is clear that Shafiq's article has had promotional and advertising tone, And the Author/Editor (Hum4r) has been clearly violating the wikipedia policies. He's an confirmed sockmaster and has abused the multiple account policy so the reason stated by the nominator of AfD was correct. I Don't know about the earlier version of this article hence i have no idea about the promotional tone used on that article. After reading all the policies i do believe that i can work on the issues addressed at the Shafiq’s AfD. As per my research, i think if Shafiq’s article is written in an NPOV it will meet WP:GNG WP:BASIC and will be suitable for wikipedia. It does have multiple reliable sources as per WP:RS it’s just it requires to be written in a proper tone. I'd like to present these sources:-

Many issues addressed in the AfD could've been resolved by working on the page but unfortunately it was completely stormed and messed up by (Hums4r) and his Sockpuppet/SPA group.
I am completely aware of the COI i have with this subject. I will declare it once i have the permission for working on the article. So i'm here looking to obtain the permission to work on the article from scratch. Also I’d make sure the article goes through the AfC process before going live in the main space so that it’s peerly reviewed by an AfC reviewer.
Warm Regards--Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 17:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky - Coagulans (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coagulans, oh great. Thanks for this. I’d rather prefer re writing it from scratch to put it as a NPOV. I’m putting this here to obtain permission as guided by Barkeep on his talk page. -Warm Regards--Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 19:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, and Disallow request to re-create in draft. The appellant's client first tried to cheat, and got caught, and so now wants to play by the rules, without a penalty. Granting this request to re-create a draft will establish a precedent that dishonest advertisers, rather than playing by the rules, will first cheat, and, then, if caught, will hire a clean paid editor. That would not be a good precedent. Recommend ECP SALT in both draft space and article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert McClenon, while I respect your POV and the endorse comment, I couldn’t understand this part The appellant's client first tried to cheat, and got caught, and so now wants to play by the rules, without a penalty. It was the author of the article (hums4r) who was caught for sock puppetry, he tried to create articles on himself and was blocked for cross wiki spam and abusing multiple accounts. At first, I don’t understand how is Shafiq involved with hums4r’s actions, second I’ve posted it here to request for permissions i-e following the rules duly. If I don’t get the permissions, I won’t re-create it. Thanks Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 07:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appellant's Comment: As written in Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Creation_protection To make a convincing case for re-creation, it is helpful to show a draft version of the intended article when filing a request. I've created this Draft:Zeyan Shafiq Draft Version as per the format of above shared web archive version by Coagulans. I've trimmed promotional things like being called as Mark Zuckerberg and added about the controversies, also written how he was labelled as threat to the security and removed the part where it was mentioned that he promoted india in esports, also mentioned that Kashbook was a copy of facebook. I've tried my best to remove all the promotional content but it might still exist. Do let me know and i'll be happy to assist on that. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 21:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the AfD, it's clear delete was a correct and proper outcome. I don't have any issue if this is recreated through AfC, but that AfD discussion was so promotional and spammy that I have some trepidation about suggesting I don't have any issue. SportingFlyer T·C 12:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, salt the article. Also see Draft talk:Zeyan Shafiq. I don't know why we're tolerating Abhayesports, who is obviously only promoting Shafiq. I would block him myself, but I'm too involved. Fences&Windows 20:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You’re threatening me with a block on what grounds? For that i pinged you in the discussion only for stating the reply you made in Shafiq’s AfD? , I’m obviously promoting shafiq? I didn’t even do that once, if you can share where I’ve promoted him you are free to block me. Infact, I’ve trimmed and removed the promotional content from the draft, I’ve made it neutral. I have always duly followed wikipedia’s protocol for anything related to cases that i have a COI with, check my history. I’ve never violated wikipedia’s single policy. And as far as the sock puppetry accusation is considered I’m shocked that an old experienced editor like you should have an idea that this is not the correct venue, you are free to file 100 cases but until then, it’s a request kindly talk respectfully. I do completely respect your choice of not having the article on Wikipedia, i have no issues with your choice and no grudges against you, and I’d request the same from you to hold no grudges against me and to not blame me for anything someone else has done.Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 00:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Abhayesports' assertion above about the book published by OUP seems, at best, to be an exaggeration. I can't read the whole chapter, but from what I've been able to access it appears to be about internet outages in Kashmir. Zeyan_Shafiq was interviewed by the author and is mentioned a few times in the chapter, but to say that the chapter is about him is not true. This assertion is repeated in the current version of the draft article. I am concerned that a paid editor such as Abhayesports would make an assertion of this nature about the founder of the company that employs them, particularly since they have since admitted they know the chapter isn't about him. GirthSummit (blether) 11:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit as discussed on the talk page, i did write it incorrectly but my intention was never to exaggerate facts, after you told me, I’ve corrected it at both the places. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 12:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reinstated your original statement, stricken through, so that other people reviewing this thread can see what we are talking about here. Your revised statement is now more accurate. GirthSummit (blether) 13:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note:- I’m the appealant and I’d request for the closure of this DRV because at the time of filing this DRV i knew that the earlier article was deleted due to promotional tone and maybe lack of Reliable Sources but later after having conversation with GirthSummit i came to know that the sources I presented were already discussed at the AfD. So I’d work on it in the future maybe if Shafiq recieves has any new Reliable Source and accordingly request the review at that time because at this moment it makes no sense in wasting the reviewers time. Thank you.Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 18:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC) ← Body of the discussion stays unchanged[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.
Category:Mononymous people (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Unsubstantiated list vs category comments. This category is not by far just "a copy of List of one-word stage names", there are a lot of mononymous real names (see my reverted edits). And surely it won't be "an empty category". Lists (articles) and categories can coexist, both are different things. And "sourced"? Really? - Coagulans (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your list of reverted edits include a large number of people who do have one-word stage names. Endorse deletion per Wikipedia:Overcategorization: "Avoid categorizing by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself." and "Avoid categorizing topics by characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability." DrKay (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete as a copy of an existing article" is not an appropriate or reasonable closing statement for a CfD. Per WP:CLN, where we can have a list (in this case List of legally mononymous people), it's always appropriate to have a category. If in this case the local consensus is overruling WP:CLN, then the CfD close should say so and explain why. Even if "delete" is the eventual outcome of this matter (and I'm agnostic about whether it should be), this close requires to be rewritten.—S Marshall T/C 09:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CLN says "At the same time, there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia. For instance, the guideline on overcategorization sets out a number of situations in which consensus has consistently determined that categories should not be used. A regularly occurring outcome at WP:CFD for some deleted categories is to listify, because there are cases where lists are appropriate while categories may not be", I can't read that as compatiable with your statement that it's always appropriate or that there is a need for some specific justification. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Your list of reverted edits include a large number of people who do have one-word stage names" (DrKay). More precisely: 47/113. An instructive and catchy category, in my opinion. - Coagulans (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My intuition-based DRV drew attention to some improperly argued delete votes - a list is not a substitute for a category.
A more experienced editor acquaintedly pointed out the issue: patently inappropriate closing statement, per WP:NOTDUP.
As for the outcome, I recommend Overturn and mass restore the reverted edits or Relist.
With some exceptions, being known and remembered mononymously is out of the ordinary, a rarely occurring situation, uncommonly encountered in the history of mankind, not at all "unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability".
Ultimately, if undeleted, it should be renamed to match the name of the parent article.
The suitable redirect being omitted, I wasn't notified while unknowingly recreating this category, hence all this mess ("disruptive editing"). - Coagulans (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The mononymous club keeps growing, but still remains exclusive" - Coagulans (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"incompetence"?

WP:NOTDUP
"Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative"
- Coagulans (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, incompetence. The category namespace is not supposed to contain manually composed content. Category pages are autogenerated. See WP:Categories. There may well be room for a list article about mononymous people, but such lists already exist in the correct namespace. Sandstein 18:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not skilled enough and not a native English speaker, I can't make it more clear than that. It seems to me that we are getting lost in a labyrinth of rules. I have in mind the French category. - Coagulans (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see inconsistencies in that French Wikipedia category, and I don't think is it a good category. I don't think the rules are a labyrinth, although they are unintuitive to people new to the purpose of categories. Admittedly, the purpose of categories is disputed. What do you think is the purpose of categorising all mononymously named people? Is it to include stage names, nicknames, pseudonyms? What about ancient people who probably had more names, but they are lost? Can categories handle the subtlety? I think the case is lost given that every new pop star wants to claim a mononym. I have a lingering very old proposal: Only qualified category Wikipedians should be allowed to unilaterally create new categories. Categories serve a very limited purpose, CfD is constantly engaged with dealing with ill-considered mess. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why all these intricacies instead of a straight forward criteria?
The purpose of the cited French category is to include the one word titled biography articles. - Coagulans (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But why does you want to connect all one word titled biography articles? In the CfD that was criticised as WP:TRIVIALCAT. I suggest asking these questions at WT:CFD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An editor hinted to that section in the initial discussion and, above, I expressed my opinion as to why I don't consider it as a trivial thing. But I must admit there is a trivialization tendency. - Coagulans (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't see that CFD as passing judgment on whether there should or shouldn't be a Category:Mononymous_people; the consensus was merely that the one that was created was not a valid category (in that it didn't actually categorize any articles) and instead just had the list article's content dumped into the category description page. I'm assuming that the category was empty? I agree with S Marshall that the closing statement was inartfully worded because it suggests the category merely covered the same topic as the list (usually what we mean when we're talking about category "duplication" of a list per WP:NOTDUP). Anyway, I don't think a recreation as an actual category is barred. postdlf (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Even If the wording of the closing sentence was unartful, the decision was right. Per Wikipedia:Snowball clause: if a category is deleted for the wrong reason, but it has no chance of surviving the normal deletion process, it would be pointless to resurrect the category and force everyone to go through the motions of deleting it again. --Pafsanias (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 April 2021

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

The academic has multiple publication that are cited by 100+ people at Google Scholar which is enough to qualify WP:Academic Criteria 1. [11]. Scopus is here [12] and h index of 37 on google scholar and 24 at scopus. Perhaps all this information was not available to participants and hence they inclined to a weak delete. Bltv89 (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - The close correctly summarizes consensus at AFD. Re-creation of a draft should be allowed, so that the appellant can include new sources and measures of academic notability. But closer was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Looks to me like a close call on meeting WP:PROF, but there was no other way to close that discussion and it's not plainly mistaken. Hobit (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that the nominator hasn't advised the closer so I'll ping him. @Daniel:, when you closed that, were you aware that User:ImNotAnEntrepreneur who !voted to delete had been blocked for socking? Did you evaluate User:Espresso Addict's contribution as a "keep", and if so, what weight did you give it?—S Marshall T/C 09:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Closer) Hi Stuart, to answer your questions in order: no I didn't realise, but to be honest I didn't give their contribution a huge amount of weight based on its content (I did give it some small amount, however); and I did, albeit weakly, based on the word "might". I found JoelleJay's and Kichu's contributions the most persuasive in the debate, although as I noted in my close, it wasn't the strongest consensus of all time. If you need any further information, please let me know. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, Daniel. I would differ from you slightly in that I would understand Espresso Addict's contribution, though phrased in very restrained language, as a clear "keep" backed by detailed analysis. Weighted that way and discounting the sock, I get to "no consensus" rather than "delete".—S Marshall T/C 11:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • FYI, when looking into this for DRV I didn't see any of those being claims as meeting WP:PROF. A looked at the first ones and they appear to be available to anyone qualified in the field who is willing to pay. I'm willing to be shown to be wrong, but I took the comment by EA to be a comment rather than a !vote because the aren't clearly over the bar @Espresso Addict:, could you clarify your intent? Hobit (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC) I wrote that in a rush and have edited it to be readable (I hope), sorry about that. Hobit (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 11:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I do agree that Espresso Addict's comment looks like a sort of weak keep, although it's worth noting that they qualified their comment with "might satisfy..." rather than a definite statement. Given that they haven't been back to qualify it, I think the analysis of the other two non-socks is worth sticking with. So overall the closer's assessment of this debate is correct. It's a weak delete. No prejudice against writing a new draft and seeing if that pushes it over the top though.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks harsh. On my personal rough guidline, an h-index < 20 means won't meet WP:PROF, and an h-index > 40 means will meet WP:PROF. (I know that User:DGG does not approve). The google scholar link says his h-index is 39, very high in the wide boundary zone. I recommend REFUNDing to draftspace (as offered in the close), and waiting, and working on specific criteria where he might have been overlooked for having met WP:PROF, or the GNG. Meeting WP:PROF means meeting the GNG is not required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
of course I don't approve of using h-index that way, because it gives absurd result For a biologist, If the h=20 means papers with 300, 275, 250, 245, 240, 235, 234, 233, 230, 225 220, 210, 200, 190, 180, 170, 160, 150, 50, 20 the person would be extremely notable. If the h=40 meant papers with 49, 49, 48, 48, 48, 48, 47, 47 ,47, 46 47, 46, 46, 46, 46 , 45, 45 ,45, 44, 44, 44, 43, 43 ,43, 43 , 42, 42, 42, 42, 42 , 42, 41, , 41, 41, 41, 41, 41, 40,40 ,40 then the person might just possible be notable as a productive minor scientist. Scientists are judged by how good their best work is not tby he amount of the minor work. . An entrepreneur who founded even one$10 billion copany would be notable; one swho founded 20 companies, noneof which ever were valued at more than 5 million, would not be. A politician who ran in one election, and was elected senator, is notable ; a politician who ran in 20, and never rose higher than dogcatcher, is not. *
I’ll stick with it though. NB, I consider it an initial indicator, not a deciding factor. I don’t believe that your productive minor scientist exists, that’s too improbable statistically. My enthusiasm for this indicator comes from checking professors with articles, it is a strong correlation, given the huge boundary region. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus' or keep. There was not consensus to delete, nor should there have been. I would certainly have wvoted keep, as a combination of researcher/administrator . The citations to his work is 193, 172, 169, 143 , 140, 125, 118, 107, 105. The general agreement here is that notability as a researcher is sufficiently shown by 2 or more papers with 100 or more citations each, and he meets it. The standard at WP:PROF is international, for science is international. If it is objected that some of these journals have lower standards, at least two of them are major international journals. Our normal practice for researchers is countries with less developed academic systems is to be relatively tolerant, not stricter than usual. That being shown, I find it extraordinary that the article was ever nominated for deletion. The nomination "None of the published work by the subject does not seems to have significant impact on the field" is blatantly in error. The 2nd !vote "While he's a bit above average in a few criteria in his field*, there's nothing demonstrating an exceptional career or scholarly impact." is also in error., The analysis below is not how academic notability is ever evaluatedd. It is the responsibility of a closer to take account only of statements that follow WP practice and guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know the field. Which of these are major international journals? Hobit (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The general agreement here is that notability as a researcher is sufficiently shown by 2 or more papers with 100 or more citations each - whooooaaa, that is an extremely low bar, particularly in most biology fields. No way are two of my lab's PhD students and one of our techs notable! Of the 1895 coauthors of STEM academic AfD subjects (with, in general, >10 papers total) for whom I have Scopus data on top 5 citations, 1003 of them have at least two papers above 100 citations. Of the 35 assistant professors in biology at my university, 20 of them have 2 papers over 100 citations; average total citations = 1152 (median = 873); avg h-index = 14 (14); 5 top citations: 1st: 285 (182), 2nd: 155 (130), 3rd: 109 (92), 4th: 88 (75), 5th: 75 (62); year of PhD: 2011 (2011). Sorry, but if the majority of assistant professors barely out of their postdocs meet the notability criterion, then we'll need to add another couple hundred thousand BLPs just in academia... JoelleJay (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The general agreement here is that notability as a researcher is sufficiently shown by 2 or more papers with 100 or more citations each? I guess that DGG meant "first author papers"? Or last author. And still, 2 is few as a sole criterion, it might just be a productive student on a g great project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be convenient if it were that simple. The customs of various fields differ, and the customs of individual researchers in various fields differ. If necessary, this can be separated out by time. For work done when the person was a student, unless they're the named first author they are not substantially responsible--if they are first author, it's their thesis project. For work after the time the person became an individual researcher, no matter where the name occurs in the paper, they were the research director and assumed major responsibility. (In some cases it may just mean they =supplied the grant money--in some case the head of a lab does not list their name unless they personally did some of the work--this was true for my own advisor.; James Watson almost never added his name while at Harvard--according to his autobio, it was a sort of game with him to let people guess. In all experimental fields, almost no scientific paper nowadays has a single author. The various academic societies and funders now have rules specifying the sequence of names --for US medicine, there is now usually a long section at the bottom specifying just who did what. Without that, it can be quite a research project, even for someone who knows the customs at the time. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, considering what JoelleJay said a few paragraphs back, it would be so much simpler to do as I suggested 14 years ago, and every year or so since: Asa starting point, assume that a full professor in a major research university is notable. These universities are a better judge than we are: their appointment and promotion committees know the standards for the subject field, and the way to judge professional and academic standing, and their standards are much higher and more consistent. We can then discuss how much lower to go, and how to deal with exceptional cases. (I agree that citation inflation is indeed a problem, increasingly so with the US medicine rules I have mentioned requiring that everyone involved be cited, the practice in multi-center clinical studies of listing every individual physician who has contributed even one data point, and most dramatically with the multi-hundred-author papers in experimental physics. I have suggestions for handling these also, but they are not to the point here. ) We shouldn't be using rules that require us to be subject experts to evaluate. We should rather make use of eternal subject experts' knowledge, and use their evaluations. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I agree, it would be a lot more straightforward and consistent to say tenured professorship at a major research university presumed notability (or that not meeting those criteria means a researcher is presumed non-notable by NPROF and must meet GNG). The job of editors would then be to evaluate what was a "major research university", which would be more difficult outside North America/Western Europe/Oceania but could be standardized the same way we've developed heuristics for citations. I think this should really already be the make-or-break criterion for the clinical medicine/experimental physics subfields where citation count/h-index is almost useless. JoelleJay (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
for almost all cases in all subjects every such full professor challenged at AFD is found notable . The only exceptions have been a few fields against which there has been prejudice--such as fields that have historically been dominated by women, or for a few people against whom there is prejudice here for one reason or another. "presumed" is a tricky word at AfD, so the simplest thing to do would be to add it as one of the automatic criteria at WP PROF. (major wouldn't have to be defined there, any more than it is for prizes), I would certainly not say that those not meeting this level are non-notable--I think most Associates would be also, but it would need to be discussed for each of them. It depends a great deal on the university. I tentatively tend to think that Assistant Professors are not likely to be notable, but there are exceptions. (if I think they're not yet notable , I don't work on the articles or drafts, but I usually don't actively try to delete them) I suspect there will be more notable asst. professors in future years as tenure becomes more and more difficult to achieve. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Overturn to no consensus and thus keep (per DGG). This should have been left open for a longer discussion and was closed too early. Objectively, I would have voted keep since he has 9 papers with 100+ citations and passes WP:NPROF#1. --hroest 00:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse without prejudice against recreation as a draft. The DRV nom lists various citation metrics and speculates that the participants at the AfD might not have been aware of them, but the first and most detailed !vote was an investigation of the citation figures; I don't think we can say that the participants were ignorant. There's 1 "delete", 1 "weak delete", a "comment" that inclines against keeping, and a "comment" that gives some data points that might count towards a couple WP:PROF criteria. Then there's a now-blocked sock and an anonymous IP that throws in some numbers without engaging with the more detailed investigation in the first !vote. It's not the most firm consensus I've ever seen, but I can't say it was a bad close. XOR'easter (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2021 (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/2021_April&oldid=1015168063"