Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 January
Fil-Products Group (closed)
[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
A WP:BADNAC: The page creator closed the discussion as "keep" on the same day it was opened with the only !votes for "delete." Requesting an uninvolved administrator to relist the discussion. (Mea culpa: I originally reverted the non-admin closure erroneously, seeing it as disruptive, before I had reviewed the provision at WP:NAC stating |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
I am not convinced that notability was adequately established. The article subject is a WP:CASTE topic, where many print sources are low-quality, partially based on oral tradition, or ethnically biased — so the nom's statement in a reply that the existing information "is all folklore and no authentic sources are available" is credible. See also WP:RAJ for more background.
Not all of the existing references were checked, but we identified several that are clearly unreliable, and two users failed to find substantive online sources. One user claimed to find various print sources, but did not identify any by name. None of the Keep !votes provided new sources that prove notability, or asserted the reliability of existing references; some users made unjustified assertions of the subject being "well-known". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- This was open for three weeks, and I certainly do not see a consensus to delete. I suppose I could have closed it as no consensus, but the end result is the same, so it's unclear to me what we are doing at DRV. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 06:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse Not a single person besides the nom put in a !vote for deletion. There were suggestions, and some indication that a sizeable minority of the references were not RS, but lots of people thought it was OK to keep, even if weakly. While there were a few commentators noting issues, not one, including the appellant, came out and said "This should be deleted". Hard to close it any other way, and I think Beeblebrox is being overly charitable--I don't see no consensus within reach here. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to challenge failures to follow the deletion process. It is not a venue to seek a second bite at the cherry when the deletion discussion did not go your way. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse: Well I see that there was surely no consensus for deletion and this is not the venue for doing these things.Also WP:RAJ is an essay not a policy. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 11:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse and procedurally close per WP:DRVPURPOSE. The appellant made no claim that consensus wasn't read correctly, nor presented any significant new information to overturn the close. No one is obliged to convince the appellant that notability was adequately established. Owen× ☎ 14:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse there's simply no way to close that discussion as delete, even if you completely down-weight all of the keep !votes. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. Ridiculous DRV nomination. Read advice at WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse - The only possible closure. Does the appellant have some reason why they think that the AFD was handled erroneously? On its face, it appears that they simply disagree with the community, but that is not what DRV is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
It seems a bit too early to close this discussion, especially when three relatively new editors, who may not be fully familiar with the notability guidelines, have voted to keep the article with very vague rationales - "plenty reliable sources are present", "added two books that provide significant coverage." (which do not actually provide significant coverage), and "I found sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify keeping the page on Wikipedia." While I suspect UPE activity, that is a matter for another day. Requesting a re-list of this discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
|
| 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. |
|
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mink (manga) shows that the article was deleted in 2009 due to lack of sources establishing notability. I have since found some sources for the article, such as reviews from Anime News Network (1, 2) and Da Vinci (1). I have also found an old interview from 2000 from the creator of the series here. I have done a full rewrite as a draft. The admin who deleted the article has not been active since May 2024 and the person who nominated the article for deletion is no longer active on Wikipedia since 2010. lullabying (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
|
| 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. |
|
Consensus has been reached, but could use review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2025 2601:483:400:1cd0:a1a4:fd62:9508:f4eb (talk • contribs) 02:40, 5 January (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Raegan Revord (closed)
[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
While I'm suspecting that the result of closure will not be changed, I'm asking that an admin review the closure, as its the manner is troubling in two ways.
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The discussion page shows a problem. The reasoning given for deleting this category was that it's nondefining for a scholar--that if they receive this, they're already alumni of the school that awarded it. See https://fulbrightscholars.org/ for Scholar and Distinguished Scholar awards, and https://us.fulbrightonline.org/fulbright-us-student-program for the studentships that the original nominators for this category deletion confused for the Fulbright Scholar Award.
A Fulbright Scholar Award or Distinguished Scholar Award goes to senior academics and practitioners, and is career-defining--the kind of thing that goes in one's obituary. It is not the same thing as a Fulbright studentship which is scholarship money awarded to grad students who would be listed as alumni of a given school. While a scholarship would typically be money granted to a grad student and a fellowship would be for senior academics, it's the opposite here. Typical Fulbright Scholars include James Galbraith, Donald Regan, Robert Rotberg, etc.
There is already a partial of notable Fulbright Scholars but it's serving as a backdoor to this now-missing category. The Fulbright Program page includes it, along with a clear distinction between the two main categories of Scholar grants and Student grants.
Fulbright Study/Research Fellows or Students (those younger grad students the original deleters of this category were speaking of) typically would not have Wikipedia pages or be notable yet. Some extremely notable Fulbright Scholars and Distinguished Scholars don't appear on that page, such as Richard Rosecrance, John Lewis Gaddis, Shaun Gabbidon, Alejandro de la Fuente, and so forth. This list should also include the incomplete list found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fulbright_Distinguished_Chairs.
It would be a service to this wiki to include Fulbright Scholars and Fulbright Distinguished Scholars via category rather using the original name of "Category:Fulbright Scholars" than in the scattershot way of hoping someone had listed them under the notables on the original page.
RubyEmpress (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. The close correctly reflected unanimous agreement at the CfD. The appellant says that some Distinguished Scholar Award recipients are notable. This is true, but does not contradict the claim that most award recipients are not notable, and that the award itself is non-defining. In fact, of the three examples of "Typical Fulbright Scholars" examples she gives, none mention the award. The appellant has not presented significant new information per WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. This is just another kick at the can. Owen× ☎ 08:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow deletion process. It is not a venue for re-arguing the deletion discussion because it did not go your way. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Question - Are deletions of categories different from deletions of articles as to when they can be reviewed? Are deletions of categories effective for five years or ten years or forever rather than six months? Is that why need a Deletion Review? Or is there some way that Consensus Can Change? Are we really locked in to a three-year-old decision? Is taking another look at a three-year-old decision really
another kick at the can
?Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- The lapse of time itself is irrelevant, if no significant new information is presented. This appeal only claims that the CfD participants erred in their assessment, which isn't a valid DRV claim, not to mention that she hasn't even established the veracity of that claim. Based on the argument she presents here, there is no more of a case for keeping that category today than there was when it was deleted three years ago. Owen× ☎ 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Question - Is this an appeal to overturn a three-year-old deletion decision, or is this a request to create a new category three years after the category was deleted? This appears to be a request to create a new category three years after the deletion. Do we need Deletion Review for the purpose? Can the appellant just do it? Is DRV unnecessary? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse It's difficult to endorse an old discussion with only three participants, so I'm treating this DRV more like a new CfD because I'm not sure what else to do - but I do agree it's non-defining especially per Owenx and that it would be deleted again if it were re-created for the same reason it was deleted before. SportingFlyer T·C 17:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment This isn't policy but for practical purposes, I've found that CFD decisions are considered valid forever. Unlike article deletions which have a Draft space where editors can work on improving the content of a recreated article, that possibility doesn't exist for categories. I've seen categories CSD G4'd from decisions that occurred years and years ago. I'm not a frequent participant there any longer but my perception is that CFD decisions are rarely reviewed and reassessed. I would like this to change because CFD decisions are usually determined by a very small number of editors and shouldn't last forever but I'm not sure that if this discussion would be setting any precendent for the future. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. In my experience, G4 is enforced far more strictly and for far longer for CFD than for any other deletion venue. (I'm reminded in particular of my exchange with Pppery at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 28#Category:Recipients of the Order of Tahiti Nuis.) —Cryptic 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think it should change. G4 should apply indefinitely, and recreation should be allowed via DRV provided some new fact, and changes of the PAG landscape, of recent practices, examples of other categories kept at CfD in the meantime can also be significant new facts. —Alalch E. 17:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Liz that there needs to be an appropriate venue to review CfD discussions, but Alalch E.'s comment highlights the problems with using DRV to do so: Everyone's opining "nothing has changed" which may be true, but does not consider "was this even the right decision in the first place?" Three people opined, and the closer and some other number of people looked at it and didn't participate. That doesn't seem to be enough discussion to make a category G4-able forever since, unlike articles, categories cannot be changed to be not substantially similar to what was previously deleted. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. Everything the DRV nom states was the same at the time of the 2021 CfD, so there are no new facts based on which to allow recreation consistent with WP:DRVPURPOSE#3.—Alalch E. 17:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse as a correct reading of consensus. I feel the same way I did in the DRV Cryptic linked: "I'm sympathetic to the argument that editors should be able to 'test' an old consensus every once in a while (along the lines of WP:CCC), but in this case it's very clear to me that a new CfD will lead to the same result, so I think !voting to [allow recreation] would be an exercise in futility." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- No Opinion at this time. The idea that category deletions last forever makes things problematic. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)