Wikipedia:Deletion review

(Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)


Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed); or
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
4.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2022 December 8}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

5.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2022 December 8}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2022 December 8|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
  • Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes
  • Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
  • Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
  • Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".



Active discussions

8 December 2022

BoAt Lifestyle

BoAt Lifestyle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

qz.com was a notable source as per the AFD Discussion and another one is the Harvard Case study, which we missed before. https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/523019-PDF-ENG. Hence it is making it notable. Sorry, While scrolling through Twitter, I got this today and I am not well-versed in research. Lordofhunter (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC) Lordofhunter (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Endorse delete closure The original discussion seems to have found that qz lacks WP:ORGIND because it includes quotes from boAt co-founders Gupta and Mehta, which you disagreed with but at least two others in the discussion agreed with. While the Harvard source may show notability, I think the best thing for you to do at this point would be to write a new draft that cites the source, and see how it's taken by AfC reviewers - but one source does not make notability, the standard is multiple. Additionally, it is a good idea to keep in mind how WP:NCORP demands a more rigorous standard be applied to the inclusion of articles on companies and corporations. casualdejekyll 12:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

6 December 2022

1994–95 Cruz Azul season

1994–95 Cruz Azul season (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There does not appear to be consensus since the relist (with only a valid comments on each side - ignoring the clear sand unfortunate sockpuppetry by an IP). Although the AFD was reopened on November 28 (after spending 6 weeks at DRV), it wasn't relisted at WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football or WP:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves until 4 days later on December 2 (diff) - which is why I missed that it had reopened, after weeks of waiting.

Most importantly (though not in itself criteria for overturning) there's no doubt that the topic is notable. Two other articles for teams in the same league/season were kept, when proper discussions were held (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club América season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club Universidad Nacional season). This is one of the top teams in the by far top league in the continent (this was was pre-MLS). As User:Govvy noted the team advanced to the play-off final for the Mexican Primera División, which qualified them to the 1996 CONCACAF Champions' Cup, which they won (again) - arguably the best team in North America from the 1994-95 season. In addition to the references in the article (which are far more than just database listings), there's other GNG articles, such as ProQuest 368164657 and ProQuest 316318618. Nfitz (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

My primary argument is that it wasn't relisted at either WP:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Football or WP:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves until four days after the AFD was reopened, and the relisted AFD was poorly attended. I further note that User:Joe Roe relied more on 3 other delete AFDs, for teams that didn't make the play-off final, rather than providing any weight the two other recent AFDs from the same season that were open for longer than the deleted AFDs, where a clear keep consensus formed - (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club América season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club Universidad Nacional season). These are procedural errors. Nfitz (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Deletion sorting and WikiProject tracking pages are optional and, as you say, it was listed there three days before the close. The consensus in this discussion stands alone, but it would be absurd for me not also have in mind the three near-identical discussions that I closed minutes before. There were no procedural errors here; your argument above for keep sounds sensible to me, as someone with no expertise in this area, but you had three weeks in which to put forward and didn't do so. – Joe (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I think you meant 3 days, not 3 weeks - but perhaps I'm missing something (ah, yes 3 weeks with original period). Should I have spent more time at Wikipedia, and less time watching the World Cup ... yes ... uh no ... uh yes ... no ... hmm. Nfitz (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus there is clearly not consensus to delete, particularly after the last relist/DRV (with one valid vote on each side). Further, the closer is basing the close on other AFDs, where the merits of this article need to be decided based on this AFD only. I oppose relisting as it was already relisted twice with no signs of consensus forming. Frank Anchor 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Consensus was reasonably clear to me. Listing at deletion sorting/notifying of wikiprojects/etc. is not a required part of the deletion process. Nothing in the nomination convinces me that this is anything other than an impermissible attempt to get a second (or perhaps a third or fourth) bite at the cherry because the AFD didn't go your way. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Overturn to No Consensus - Here we go again. This one needs to be decoupled from the other AFDs that were closed as delete. When viewing this one separately, there is no consensus, and no reason for another relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Relist, not because there was anything wrong with the close, but because this has been a two month saga and it's time to find final consensus so we can move forward. To do that, we need more input. Note, absolutely involved as closer of the first series, but don't think that's necessarily relevant. Star Mississippi 17:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Relist - let it run for another week, no harm. GiantSnowman 20:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I note that another AFD that was part of this set, and was also closed on the same day by a different editor, how now been reopened - see WP:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Santos Laguna season. Also, I should have mentioned the very lengthy ANI thread related to all this - resulting in the block of both the creators of the AFD and the original article - WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#Concerns about articles nominated for deletion. Nfitz (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Relist or overturn to no consensus - This was closed without sufficient input after reopening. Jogurney (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

2 December 2022

El Assico

El Assico (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  1. KENGRIFFEY24FAN created a a redirect to Iowa–Iowa State football rivalry and added the name to the article with a reference.
  2. 71.237.70.164
    • reverted (user) KENGRIFFEY24FAN's edit to the rivalry article,
    • changed the redirect target to KENGRIFFEY24FAN (nonexistent mainspace article) and
    • nominated the redirect for deletion.
  3. Then CycloneYoris converted the XFD to a PROD on the basis that the target was non-existent.
  4. Then Liz deleted it.

I would have gotten round to objecting to the XFD if the PROD had not happened. 71.237.70.164 actions were irregular and compromised the decisions of those editors who didn't notice. jnestorius(talk) 05:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  • @Jnestorius: It seems you're not aware that this redirect has been recreated several times due to vandalism, so the IP's actions were correct in my opinion. It was initially deleted per consensus at RfD back in April at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_29#El_Assico, since there were no reliable sources to support its existence (only one outdated link from an obscure article). I also want to add that this redirect has now been salted, and only extended confirmed users can recreate it, thanks to this request posted yesterday at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2022/12#El_Assico. CycloneYoris talk! 07:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
    I did find that one previous XFD alluded to by 71.237.70.164 which was also by 71.237.70.164 and did not conform to process. The text there does not support CycloneYoris's claim that the reason for deletion was there were no reliable sources to support its existence. While 71.237.70.164 offered three other reasons back then, the only one that was accepted by other commenters was that the name was not mentioned at the target, which was not the case this time round until 71.237.70.164 made it so. Maybe there were vandalism recreation/PROD cycles since then that I can't access, but KENGRIFFEY24FAN's did not seem like vandalism. Maybe Cyclone and Liz know hidden details, but for transparency they should have been stated explicitly on the XFD instead of just short circuiting the process via a fake PROD. jnestorius(talk) 10:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The deletion rationale made by the IP explicitly states that No one in popular media uses the term 'El Assico', except the SB Nation author and a handful of obscure social media commenters with grudges against Iowa or Iowa State. So, that obviously does support my claim that reliable sources were not found for keeping this redirect. I also want to clarify that I do not know any hidden details about this redirect (nor about anything on Wikipedia for that matter) as Jnestorius is implying, and have nothing to gain with its deletion. And the PROD wasn't fake, there was simply no target to be found on the recreated redirect. CycloneYoris talk! 11:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse the end result (deletion), though I disagree with the methods that got to it. This is a textbook G4 speedy deletion as nothing has changed in regard to WP:RS since the RFD in April, and should have been deleted that way rather than prodding. I also endorse page protection that was applied on 1 December. If more reliable sources using this term are found, a discussion at Talk:Iowa–Iowa State football rivalry is the logical next step to see if inclusion of this nickname or possibly removing page protection is warranted.Frank Anchor 13:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
    • My call for a deletion review was not intended to reverse the deletion but to criticise the shoddy process used to get here.
      1. I disagree that nothing has changed since April, in that the reason given then by 3 of 4 commenters was "Not mentioned at target", which did not apply in December until 71.237.70.164's changes.
      2. If a single user removes the mention in the old target, then changes the target to a nonexistent page, and then nominates the redirect for deletion, it seems to me that those participating in the RFD cannot simply rely on the ensuing lack of mention or nonexistent target as grounds for deletion.
      I have no issue with the current salt situation and I agree that the article Talk: page is the place to build a consensus for change, or indeed a consensus for the status quo. (I will add a brief comment there now to facilitate navigating the multiple places with history of the discussion to date.) jnestorius(talk) 18:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  • (comment from involved editor) Yes, G8 was incorrect (although it was an easy mistake). Yes, G4 would have been correct. So... Why on Earth are we here? DRV is not a venue to criticise the shoddy process used to get to a deletion. You can leave the deleting admin a polite note about how G8 didn't apply but G4 did, but if no one's actually objecting to the deletion, this is out-of-scope for DRV. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
    DRV is a forum for critiquing process. Process may not be #1, but it is still important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I would opine the G8 was inapplicable. I've augmented the CSD G8 explanation to add "or retargeting" to the list of broken links excluded from its coverage, which is simply an implementation of "A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible." and a retargeting of a redirect is clearly retained within page history.
    I am unclear if CSD G4 applied, and would like to hear more detailed commentary on why it did--the "nothing has changed since the last AfD" is likely true but subject to debate, and I am unclear how a redirect would ever be anything other than a sufficiently identical copy of a prior deleted redirect. I'm leaning that a new discussion should have been held if a more clear CSD criterion (e.g., G10) did not apply. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  • G4 applied before it was retargeted. G8 applied after (as would others, G3 for instance). Neither were sufficient by themselves to delete the whole history. —Cryptic 20:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  • jnestorius, it would have been nice to be notified if you are asking for a review of a deletion decision I made. Or you could have come to my talk page to discuss it. That's how it usually works here. DRV is typically the court of last resort, not the first. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


Recent discussions

30 November 2022

Italian Winter Throwing Championships

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Winter Throwing Championships (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In my opinion you should restore the page that was deleted by a "mere mistake" without any consensus from the community (one upkeep vote and one redirect vote). Incidentally, the redirected page does not contain as much information as the original page did. Kasper2006 (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse (voted redirect). The close was not a "mere mistake." This AFD was up for over a month and there was only a single "keep" vote that was more of an WP:ILIKEIT vote than one based in policy. There was no independent WP:SIGCOV in the article whatsoever. Also, the whole point of a redirect is not to contain as much information as the original page, but to briefly mention/summarize. Frank Anchor 13:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment with limited participation in the AFD, the close could be considered the redirect equivalent of a soft delete. The appellant is free to move the most recent version to draftspace or userspace and restore it in mainspace submit an AFC request when (and only when) the article is improved and includes significant coverage from multiple independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 14:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
    Disagree that it is wise to give this advice. Firstly, the AfD decision should be afforded respect. Secondly, User:Kasper2006 does not appear competent to judge unilaterally when the reason for redirection have been overcome. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse I agree with the closing statement here, the Keep argument did not address the concerns in the nomination. The fact that almost all the sources cited come from the organisation responsible for the event is a serious problem, the verifiability policy (which is very important) expects the articles should be based on independent sources. The only independent sources cited were [1] (a very brief announcement that the event had been cancelled) and [2] (a dead link). If there are better sources out there then I suggest trying to improve the page as a draft. Hut 8.5 17:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse. There are two delete/redirect votes and one keep vote. Unfortunately, additional input was not obtained after three relists. Therefore, I agree with Frank Anchor that this should be considered to be the redirect equivalent of soft delete, instead of a full deletion, so IMO allow review of draft at AfC could be a viable option. However, IMO the keep side is apparently weaker in contrast to the delete/redirect side, with the keep voter using a weak example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and then proceeding to vaguely complaining the deletion process in general: but I would never allow myself to ask the delation of a Wikipedia article... human beings are not all the same, everyone has their own modus operandi... their own morality, their own ethics. For example, I have respect for people's work and the desire to belittle it is not one of my priorities. Therefore, IMO the delete/redirect side is significantly stronger, and redirect is also a suitable WP:ATD. Hence, I think the close is a reasonable conclusion. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse - The appellant doesn't seem to understand that notability is based on significant coverage in secondary sources, because their Keep argument is that their sources are primary. The only "mistake" that I see is the appellant's misunderstanding of policies. There was no mistake by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse the AfD close as consensus to redirect. Any future attempt to establish a consensus to reverse that decision should be made at the redirect target talk page, Talk:Athletics in Italy. Not here at DRV as there was no deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is also a semi-related thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User not going to deletion review after AfD decision he didn't agree with relating to this DRV. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse as nominator. The one keep !vote was very weak and did not address notability concerns and used WP:ALLORNOTHING reasoning.LibStar (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Since it is a national athletics championship, if anything, a redirection Italian Athletics Championships would be more correct. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree this probably would be a better target, I was unaware that page existed when I suggested Athletics in Italy. Frank Anchor 13:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Draft So. Two non-Fidal national sources have been included in the draft (the second is from one of the most authoritative Italian national newspapers, La Stampa of Turin). In the quotas it is better explained why the national championship of throws has a reason to exist (in winter for long shots the indoor arenas cannot be used for obvious reasons) and in the second one that in any case the Italian championship has a national and not a regional value. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
    To clarify that, as the DRV filer, are you supporting creation of a draft to submit through AfC? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
    Beyond the acronyms, I'm just trying to understand why the presence in the encyclopedia of a page of a national championship of an important sport like athetics is considered useless. That's why I want to respect the procedures and regulations and I'm therefore responding to those who objected that the only source was from the national federation that organizes them, even if I don't understand what harm there would have been by adding two sources from national newspapers. And above all because we want to consider an event that is irrelevant at national level. Kasper2006 (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for your comment. I don't believe anyone here has suggested that the page is useless. It's just that IMO there is consensus in the discussion that this fails notability guidelines WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. Additionally, would it be acceptable if your work be submitted from AfC for review by another neutral experienced editor? I get that you are passionate about this topic but looking at this thread right now the original closure would probably be endorsed, so submitting a draft for review is probably the best route you can take. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks to you. I will listen to your advice, as soon as I find a minute, maybe tomorrow, I will send it to the AfC. Kasper2006 (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

29 November 2022

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

Loran de Munck won a silver medal at the 2022 European Men's Artistic Gymnastics Championships (press coverage e.g. 1 and 2). I am here after this answer. My preferred result would be allow recreation (the deleted article I could see in an internet archive was very short). Kallichore (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Support recreation - as the individual now passes WP:NGYMNAST. Hopefully the article will also pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 15:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation as factors have changed rendering the discussion out of date. Star Mississippi 16:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • If you want to recreate the article then you don't need to come here for permission, or to ask the deleting admin: you can just do it. A recreated version won't be deleted if it addresses the issues in the AfD or is a significant improvement on the previous version. The deleting admin referred you here because you asked to see the content of the original deleted page, which was written by a banned user (it would have qualified for deletion under WP:CSD#G5) and as you've realised was very short. But if you're going to start again then you don't need the deleted version. If it helps the sources cited were: [3] [4] [5] and [6] which is now a dead link. Hut 8.5 17:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 November 2022

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Savings Account (2022 film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There are sources and feel that the AfD was closed too fast, it should have been extended at least once. I had added this review and a Bengali source on the article but did not vote because I thought the whole AfD process was long and required input from many users. More sources here, here and here. The AfD closer should reopen the AfD discussion for another week at least to get more input. There are sources just nobody else did a WP:BEFORE. Also, given that Bengali language sources are hard to find, it would be helpful for any Bengali users (i. e. @Titodutta:) to voice their opinion. Unlike what the AfD says there is actually a reliable review from The Times of India. The reason why this page is not getting recreated is because of the user created it? Can somebody at least list the sources present on the article before it was deleted (they were reliable press releases). Because before the article was deleted, then the article seemed to have a lot of at least press releases. DareshMohan (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Allow Recreation of Draft, Weak Endorse the outcome. Per WP:RSP, The Times of India is between marginally reliable and generally unreliable, though it is listed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force as a WP:RS for film reviews. So whether it is a RS is debatable. Of the other references you found I find them unconvincing but opinions will of course differ. Nevertheless, IMO this is a routine announcement on the actor and non-SIGCOV coverage of the plot, this is a purely routine announcement on a minor poster release, and falls under minor news stories or annnouncement columns IMO under WP:GNG. Then there is the interview, probably non-SIGCOV, likely primary, and likely non-independent. Therefore, IMO the sources provided are weak, but have no opinion on endorsing the close or overturning it to relist right now. Additionally, Also, given that Bengali language sources are hard to find, it would be helpful for any Bengali users (i. e. @Titodutta:) to voice their opinion IMO just feels very unconvincing, however, Robert McClenon's suggestion of overturning this to soft delete so that a new article could be created or submitted to review via AfC is also a good suggestion in addition to relisting, which is also a decent option. Nevertheless, IMO the closure is also reasonable so I'm still at neutral for now. Moreover, WP:HEY by another user is probably not mandatory for participants to agree whether a page should be kept per WP:NEXIST, but it is desirable and would be more convincing. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I've clarified my bolded vote as allowing recreation of draft to submit via AfC but endorsing the original outcome for clarity. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Relist as an Ignore some rules alternative to allow the appellant another seven days to expand the article. But it isn't enough to say that there are sources. The article has to summarize what the reviews say in order to qualify for a Heymann close. The alternative would be to change the close to a Soft Delete and allow the appellant to create an article, subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The sources cited in the last revision of the article were [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. —Cryptic 21:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    From what I see the review from The Times of India was already included at reference 6, whereas the rest are routine announcements, minor news stories, and routine releases. So to clarify, Robert McClenon (who was a participant in the original AfD) and DareshMohan, is it true that this is only the single review you were able to find in both of your WP:BEFORE searches? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse as the correct reading of unanimous consensus to delete. I think the appellant’s best course of action is to request the article be restored in draft space or userspace at WP:REFUND to allow all the time needed to develop an article based on the sources presented here, obviously subject to its own AFD. Frank Anchor 01:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse the closure, as correctly interpreting the recommendations. The article creator can try again in draft or userspace to address the concerns raised in the discussion. Joyous! | Talk 03:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment DareshMohan, next time you open a Deletion review, it's customary to alert the AFD/MFD/RFD discusion closer or admin who deleted the CSD-tagged page and to also post a notice of this review discussion on the AFD (which was done for you). I think the information regarding this is all there in the instructions. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse This AFD ran for seven days, and had multiple participants all of whom !voted for deletion on notability grounds. How could this possibly have been closed in any other way than "delete" !?. Closers can only weigh an opposing argument if someone actually shows up at the AFD to make it, and they are specifically not supposed to form their own opinions based on the state of the article and its references. All the same I think the new sources do have some value and it makes sense to work on it in userspace then recreate. Thparkth (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Hurricane Danielle (2022) – No consensus to take any action, because the appellant has not responded to questions about which relief they are seeking here. Sandstein 08:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Hurricane Danielle (2022) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hurricane Chandler. I've decided to request a review for a "regular keep" due to some users participating on the AFD (which is sock). HurricaneEdgar 03:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Overturn to merge Even the good faith keep users didnt address the policy concern, and the article remains a blatant WP:CFORK. Do not relist as it was already relisted.--47.23.6.178 (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comments:
      • It isn't clear what the appellant is asking.
      • It isn't clear what policy concern the unregistered editor is saying wasn't addressed. The good faith editors discussed general notability, and the ambiguous project guideline.
      • It isn't clear why the unregistered editor thinks that there is a content fork. If there is any inconsistency between the parent article and the child article, the parent article should be revised. The need to avoid inconsistencies always applies to tropical storm season articles and storm articles.
      • I was the AFC acceptor, and said to Keep in the AFD.
      • I repeat my concern that there appear to be two different interpretations to the project guideline.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Comments According to the Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls_and_errors Using an alternative persona ("sock puppet", or "sock") to influence consensus is absolutely forbidden. . CheckUser has confirmed that SOCK accounts are participating in the AFD. HurricaneEdgar 06:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: What exactly is the nominator requesting here? Stifle (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse because the appellant hasn't answered the question, asked both by me and by Stifle, as to what they are asking. It is true that there were sockpuppet !votes, and that sockpuppetry is forbidden. It appears that the closer would have closed the AFD in the same way if the sockpuppet !votes had been stricken. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Question - What is the appellant requesting? Does the appellant understand that they are being asked to clarify what they are asking for? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Despite being pinged and a specific talk page message left asking for the nominator to come back and explain what precisely it is they want done, they have chosen not to do so, but have still been editing other articles. As such, I suggest this discussion be speedy closed for failing to particularise the request. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse - there was no doubt sock-puppetry, but even removing those 3 votes, there certainly wasn't a delete consensus, and not even a merge consensus. After the final relist, there were only 3 more comments - all keeps. Looking at the content, there might be some debate as whether the storm was a tropical storm when it hit Europe - but the storm itself appears noteworthy, and article name debates are outside the scope of DRV. Nfitz (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 November 2022

  • Tropical Storm Danny (2021) – The "keep" closure is confirmed. This is also what the appellant seeks to obtain on the merits, even though they somewhat misleadingly ask for an "overturn". Sandstein 08:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tropical Storm Danny (2021) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

WP:SNOW closure that has had confirmed SOCK accounts participate in. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hurricane Chandler. Requesting review for an overturn to regular keep. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Relist - This should not have been a SNOW close, and SNOW was not required, since it had been open for seven days. In view of the sockpuppetry, a relist seems better than a weak keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - What is it about tropical storm articles that results in conduct violations, such as canvassing, off-wiki discussion, and sockpuppetry? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
    Like longevity, beauty pageants, and trainspotting, it gives OCD personalities a place to exercise their instinct for blind accretion of mountains of uncontextualized information. EEng 16:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    This looks like a topic that should be on EEng's list, but that list is getting rather long and I have already bothered him enough with proposed additions. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    Done. EEng 16:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - Snow does not fall in tropical storms. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
    Not true. Hurricane Larry.160.72.81.118 (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
    The storm had become extra-tropical when it dumped snow on Greenland. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse Several good faith editors supported keeping. It would’ve been keep without sock puppetry involved.160.72.81.118 (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse there was unanimous support to keep (outside of the nom itself). Even if the sock votes are removed, there would still be unanimous support to keep. The smaller number of votes probably would mean a non-admin close a few hours short of seven days is not technically correct but there is no need to overturn a close because of who closed it when the end result is obviously correct. Frank Anchor 13:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I see nothing wrong with the close, even if you remove two of the seven keep votes. Nfitz (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2022 (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.
Belgians in France (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

My request is more towards the sake of an established consensus for the original AfD as the nominator was a blocked sock. The deletion was done with one comment and one could argue it should have been closed as "no consensus" (overturn to no consensus), I am requesting this with AGF as I don't know what the article looked like during the AfD. – The Grid (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I should have noticed that the nominator also cast a Delete vote so that was an oversight on my part. In these circumstances, I typically close with a Soft Delete as there was one Delete opinion expressed as well as an editor who didn't vote but did make a statement. If I was aware that the editor was a sockpuppet, I would have struck their statements (which I seem to do a lot regularly these days). The Grid, I have no issues in these circumstances to revert my closure and relist the discussion if there is support for that action. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick reply, I appreciate it. I would be ok with a relist. – The Grid (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Relist with only one !vote and the nomination by a sockpuppet, noting that the closing admin has said she is agreeable to that action. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Relist there is only one legitimate vote and there was an admitted vote counting error by a very good closer (along with her willingness to relist). Frank Anchor 13:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 November 2022

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Astros's combined World Series no-hitter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In this discussion, numerous editors gave their opinions on whether or not the combined World Series No Hitter by the Houston Astros is notable. Out of the participants (by my count), 11 supported keeping the article, the nominator and 3 others supported deleting the article, two individuals supported converting the article into a redirect, and one individual suggested that the content of the article be merged into the article on the World Series. A summary of the arguments provided is below, and while I do not like writing walls of text at these sorts of venues, it is necessarily long so as to try to be comprehensive:

  • Supporters of keeping the article provided a variety of arguments in support of keeping. Some (including Korijenkins, me, White 720 and others) noted that the no-hitter had substantial and widespread impact on the sport of baseball and was very widely covered in diverse sources in an in-depth manner. A number of sources were provided by me, including sources from the United States, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and France, in support of this claim. Several other editors, who joined the discussion after a large number of sources had been provided, were convinced that the sourcing was substantial enough to pass WP:NEVENT, including MrsSnoozyTurtle, GhostOfDanGurney, and Sewageboy. One editor in support of keeping the article (Frank Anchor) argued that the achievement had substantial enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and was therefore notable enough for an article. Other editors argued more plainly that the event was "notable" in the sense of being significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded in a more ad-hoc manner, including MushroomMan674 and Blaylockjam10, who argued that the achievement of a no-hitter in the world series inherently meets the threshold set out in the opening paragraph of WP:NEVENT.
  • Supporters of deleting the article, on the other hand, largely argued that the separate article was not warranted as content was redundant to content in the article on the 2022 World Series. The nominator (Muboshgu) and others said that the article was an unwarranted WP:RECENTIST WP:CONTENTFORK that did not develop beyond the content in the world series article, claiming that this lack of different was enough for the item to fail WP:NEVENT. Other editors (such as Hatman31 and OliveYouBean) argued that this failed WP:NSPORT and should be deleted on that basis.
  • Some editors also wanted to redirect/merge the article. An editor arguing to blank-and-redirect the article (Natg 19) said that it was unlikely that the combined no-hitter would "stick" in people's minds in the same way that 1-pitcher no-hitters do but should redirect to the game, while an IPv6 editor argued that the alleged redundancy to an existing article should turn it into a redirect. An IPv4 editor, in favor of merging, argued that there was some non-redundant content worth preserving and that this content should be moved into the article on the 2022 world series.

Consensus is not determined by a bean count, but is ascertained by examining by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. And, through that lens, this is a case where no consensus on what to do applies. Unfortunately, in their closing summary, the closer erred in explicitly ignoring all plausible reasons for keeping the article other than it being notable under a particular section of WP:NSPORT. Rather than entertaining arguments around WP:NEVENT, which were noted extensively in the deletion discussion, the closer writes that the relevant guideline here is WP:NSPORTSEVENT (emphasis mine). There is no basis for this claim in policies or guidelines—WP:N notes that articles are presumed notable if their subject meets either the general notability guideline... or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline, provided that they are not excluded under WP:NOT. One such subject-specific notability guideline is WP:NEVENT—the guideline that the supporters of keeping the article explicitly appealed to in support of keeping the article. There is no need to meet every subject-specific notability guideline to be notable; all that is required is that one is met. When the closer arbitrarily discarded arguments about WP:NEVENT without any basis in Wikipedia policy, the closer made a fatal error that led them to incorrectly ascertain that the consensus achieved in this deletion discussion was "delete".

In short, I ask that this be overturned to no consensus, an outcome that would correctly reflect the relative strength of arguments in this deletion discussion, and I believe that the closer was errant in failing to allow any arguments about WP:NEVENT to be given weight in their closing summary. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Eh. Most of the keep !votes are WP:AADD (it's important, it's rare, "it's notable" [sans sourcing to show why], etc.). RTH brought up some sources, Muboshgu showed why they don't get over the WP:NSPORTSEVENT hurdle. The closer weighed arguments against NSPORTSEVENT. It might be notable, but the case wasn't made very well in the AfD (except insofar as it could be argued that every individual World Series game is notable). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
    Is a music professor who fails WP:NMUSICBIO but passes WP:NPROF presumed notable? My reading of WP:N is that the answer is yes, since one subject notability guideline (WP:NPROF). That's akin to what we have here: the deletion camp is arguing that WP:NSPORTSEVENT (i.e. WP:NSPORT) is not met, but the individuals in support of keeping are arguing that WP:EVENTCRIT#2 and/or WP:COVERAGE (i.e. WP:NEVENT) is met. Unlike the way some other guidelines interact, NEVENT does not itself defer to NSPORT as being controlling here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think MUSICBIO and PROF are a good analogy, because they're not related to each other and function differently. N, EVENT, and NSPORTSEVENT are just more and more specific guidance. It's pretty uncommon (not unheard of), when there's a guideline which very directly applies to the subject but it's kept per a higher-level guideline. In most of those cases, we're talking about something which otherwise wouldn't be covered on Wikipedia, not something which is already covered as part of a parent article. NSPORTSEVENT is thus helping to clarify both notability and WP:NOPAGE in a particular domain. EVENTCRIT also isn't like PROF in that there's not as clear of a threshold -- it still comes down to show sources which make the event exceptional (it being rare just makes it likely that those sources will exist), and it still wants coverage over time. One of the useful things about more specific guidelines is it can show when there's consensus to cover certain subjects as part of a higher level article by default, unless a higher standard than just SIGCOV is met. I see no reason not to weigh arguments in the context of the most applicable guideline here. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • FWIW there is some prior discussion at on my talk page, but given the US holiday weekend I am hoping to not be online until Sunday; I can give a more substantive reply then if necessary. Legoktm (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Accurate reading of consensus and application of policy. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I voted keep, however there was consensus to not keep and the delete/ATD votes were more based in policy than the keep votes. Frank Anchor 12:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • That said, I would support restoring the history as a redirect from a different title that is more grammatically accurate. Frank Anchor 12:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Consensus is largely about the quality of the arguments; it's impossible to see the keep !voters as having the better side of that in this case, despite their slightly larger numbers. Closer correctly read the consensus and applicable policies. --JBL (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 November 2022

Patrick Wilson (New Zealand actor)

Patrick Wilson (New Zealand actor) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The relisting of this afd when there was a clear consensus to keep was a supervote. Consensus was clear that the subject satisfied WP:NACTOR. That is sufficient and has been a long common outcome. WP:N states "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right" where NACTOR is in the box. Closers/relistors are meant to evaluate the discussion, not introduce thier own interpritation of policy.
The relisting comment itself was a fishing expedition for a delete vote. Relistor states that consensus existed that he passed the SNG but states incorrectly that that was not good enough. Effectively they say that GNG overrides it's parents guideline without a policy based justifiiction.
When the relister got the comment they were fishing for they quickly closed it within a day, not going with the standard seven days and not giving other the chance to discuss, especially wrong considering their relisting stated "relisting this discussion for another week".
That close too was also a supervote. SIGCOV does not override WP:N. Closer also states that no significant coverage "is evident, in the article or in this discussion" totally dismissing the Otago Daily Times article that multiple commentators said was good.
Frankly all round a poorly closed afd that should be overturned.
Disclosure of own invovelment: I was the first Keep comment. During the afd I improved the article on a series Wilson had a significant role in to a point it demonstrated a passing of notability guidelines (Not that QuietHere was convinced, apperently sources don't count in they can't personally see them). I checked back after the bad relist and saw another Keep comment so didn't feel the need to comment further. Next thing I new the whole thing had been quickly wrapped up as delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Overturn to no consensus - I think Liz got this one wrong (a rare event), but only insofar as reasonable parties disagreed with respect to WP:NACTOR #1, and made the arguments based on policy. The user above (duffbeerforme) also provided sources which depict significant coverage. I don't see consensus in favor of delete. I don't see consensus in favor of keep, either, but I definitely don't see delete. — Shibbolethink ( ) 13:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I have restored this article for viewing during this deletion review, removed the AFD tag and protected the page so that it remains in the state it was during the AFD discussion. If the decision is to change the outcome of the AFD, please unprotect the page and tag the talk page appropriately. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Comment After a complaint, either here or on my Talk page, about only leaving a closure that stated "Delete", I've started to leave more explanatory statements when I've closed an AFD. Recently, some of these statements have been seen as "supervotes" when I meant to sum up the opinions of the participating editors that I found persuasive. I really have no opinion on whether or not there is an article on this subject in main space so I will either go back to a simple one word closure or work harder on the language I use in a closure statement so it doesn't appear that I'm substituting my own opinion for that of the participating editors in an AFD discussion. If I find myself with an opinion on the fate of an article being discussed, I pass on closing an AFD and add my opinion as a discussion participant instead. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Overturn to no consensus (first preference) or Neutral (second preference) but I strongly oppose a keep close. Numerically the vote is 3 (delete) to 5 (keep). However, I do believe that some of the keep votes should be given somewhat less weight. Duffbeerforme and Dflaw4 had insightful commentaries, but I don't see which other editors directly stated that the interview-like Otawa Daily Times piece is Otago Daily Times article that multiple commentators said was good? The rest state vaguely per above but I don't see them directly endorsing the Otawa Daily Times as SIGCOV, they are more asserting that per above WP:NACTOR is passed, not that the piece is SIGCOV. That close too was also a supervote. SIGCOV does not override WP:N. Closer also states that no significant coverage "is evident, in the article or in this discussion" totally dismissing the Otago Daily Times article that multiple commentators said was good- when has one interview-like piece being able to single-handedly pass WP:GNG which requires multiple sources, at minimum two or three? Therefore, IMO none of the keep participants successfully stated that how GNG is passed. WP:NACTOR is more debatable IMO. It states that Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. There is generously two significant roles aforementioned, making the barest passing of NACTOR. Besides, the restored article states He had a supporting role in the 2008 film Second Hand Wedding, in contrast, Second Hand Wedding lists Patrick as a starring role. With the second role debatably significant, IMHO the keep votes should be given somewhat less weight, given three of the votes are vague "per above" ones, so IMO a keep would be an undesirable close. Nevertheless, IMO this probably leans somewhat closer to no consensus compared to delete. P.S: Noting that Dflaw4's comment is at User_talk:Liz/Archive 4#AfD Close of Patrick Wilson New Zealand Actor. Discounting the poorly explained vote by the fifth keep voter, a sockpuppet account, gives 4-3 (keep to delete). That is insufficient for a keep close, so I stand by an overturn to no consensus only but note one to keep. VickKiang (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
VickKiang. When I said multiple it was two, I was saying that it wasn't just me. On that second role, I don't see any question about wether it was a significant role, just about wether it was a notable production, which is why I updated that show's page. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Overturn to No Consensus. This is, unfortunately, a clear case of supervote. After relisting this AFD, and then not getting the result that she wanted, Liz should either have cast a vote to Delete, or left it for another closer. The numerical result is a Keep. There is no way that a Delete can be justified. Some credence must be given to what the community says. Liz should have become a participant (and she is almost always right). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Having taken part in this AfD, I was also surprised by the result. I did raise this with Liz on her Talk page (on 26 October 2022), as follows: "With respect to your close of WP: Articles for deletion/Patrick Wilson (New Zealand actor), I believe you may have cast a supervote. There were five votes to Keep the article and two to Delete it. Yet you closed the AfD with a Delete. You had previously relisted the AfD when there was already a clear consensus to Keep the article, and noted your concerns with regard to WP:SIGCOV. And when you closed the article as a “Delete”, you argued that there was no WP:SIGCOV, which suggests that your own personal view that the notability standards weren’t met took precedence over the consensus, which was that such standards were met. I kindly ask you to consider re-opening the AfD and allowing another editor to determine the consensus." I was also concerned with the fact that Liz only left the re-list open for 4 or 5 days, and closed it soon after two Delete votes came in. I thought the re-list should have been left open for the full 7 days, and then, at that juncture, I would have expected the AfD to be closed as either Keep or No Consensus, or for there to have been a further re-list to allow for consideration of the Delete arguments. My understanding of the closer's role is that they determine the consensus of the voters, without allowing their own views to prejudice the close result. Their role is not to weigh up the arguments that have been made and then side with either the Keep-ers or the Delete-rs, which would mean that they then cast the ultimate vote. If that occurs, then the closing editor has become an invested juror in the proceedings, rather than simply an impartial arms-length bystander whose job it is to determine the consensus of the others. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus this is probably somewhere between no consensus and keep, but I prefer not to jump from one end to the other and those two results are the same in terms of keeping the article. The relist should not have happened as there was clear support to keep based on article passing the appropriate WP:SNG, almost bordering on a non-admin WP:SNOW close being appropriate. While two delete votes were added after the unnecessary relist, there still clearly was not consensus to delete. Frank Anchor 13:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC This feels wrong in a lot of directions. But yeah, there is no consensus for deletion. NACTOR is a reason to keep something, like it or not. Hobit (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Overturn to Keep 1) SNG or GNG are alternatives--an article must meet one or the other. 2) Opinions were numerically that the SNG, NACTOR, was met. 3) The relisting instructions did not reflect #1, and so a failure to produce SIGCOV doesn't affect the notability of the article, given that consensus as that NACTOR was met. I understand that not everyone agrees with me on #1, but the remainder of my argument follows from that fundamental understanding of how SNGs work. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would like to re-emphasise my concerns with regard to the way Liz is re-listing during AfDs. At this AfD she relisted not for the usual 7 days, but for just 15 minutes. During those 15 minutes a Delete vote came in, and she then quickly closed the AfD as a Delete just minutes later. This strikes me as problematic, and, in my view, it demonstrates bias. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    @Dflaw4: Per WP:RELIST, A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days. But you can take that to deletion review as well if you feel that close is unsatisfactory to your preferences how a close should be, as in a 3-0 vote (delete to keep) should be closed otherwise? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    Also pinging Liz as well on the close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malti Chahar (2nd nomination). I think it's a reasonable close but you can resolve it on her UTP or another deletion review page. VickKiang (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
    The scope of this discussion needs to be limited to the deletion of Mr. Wilson’s page. If you have concerns about other pages, then raise the discussion on Liz’ talk page or open another DRV, but this shouldn’t be brought up here. Frank Anchor 17:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I generally relist if I don't see a consensus. I don't expect relisted articles to always be open for another full week. And sometimes, one editor can come in an make their opinion known that, to me, along with a deletion nomination, can then show a consensus to Delete. If an AFD discussion has no participation, is relisted, and then another editor comes and makes a strong Delete argument, well, that demonstrates to me that there are two editors who believe an article should be Deleted and no editor arguing for it to be Kept. Editors who participate at AFD can legitimately argue that I relist too frequently but I do so so as not to draw conclusions based on, say, only a nominator's statement (as some AFD closers do). It works differently for Kept/Redirect/Merge consensus decisions because every nomination at AFD already starts with one Delete opinion, that is the nomination statement. So if there was a nomination statement and one editor making a strong argument to Keep an article, then I would relist (and yes, I know that AFD is NOT A VOTE). I will also admit that, for example, an AFD tonight had only 2 editors who participated, both had less than 50 edits to their contribution history and I want to see the judgment of the proposal from more experienced editors so I relisted the discussion.
If there are specific instances that you are upset with, please come to my talk page. I don't enjoy getting called to Deletion Review so I try not to close an AFD discussion unless the consensus is clear to me and I'm sorry that sometimes the nominator or the page creator is unhappy with my closure. But that's what talk pages are for and Deletion Review serves as a secondary forum if the situation can't be resolved on the closer's talk page.
I'll also add that I've come to be very active at AFD over the past six months. So, I expect that I'll get more questions about my closures after closing 20 discussions than an admin who closes 2. I'm not ever going to be 100% correct, no closer is. Liz Read! Talk! 09:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC. This does look quite bad from a WP:SUPERVOTE point of view. It's blatantly obvious that there was no consensus for deletion in this discussion. Thparkth (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. The fifth keep voter was later blocked for being a sockpuppet account, if that makes a difference to anyone's assessment here. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  • It does not appear that the master or any other suspected socks were involved in this discussion, so no effect on my opinion at all. Frank Anchor 18:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus. Blatant supervote and poor judgment. plicit 12:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus, supervote. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I was guided in my closure by Otr500's Delete opinion and I guess I should have specified that in my discussion closing statement (although we both mention the insufficiencies of IMDb). I've been urged by editors unhappy with a few of my AFD closures that I should include a statement explaining the decision but I believe my comments in this one have been misunderstood so I think I'll return in most cases to only a simple "Keep" or "Delete", etc. when I close a discussion or carefully word my statement so neutrally, without any opinion included, so that these misunderstandings will not happen again. In this case though, I thought the Keep opinions were weak and Otr500's Delete argument wasn't and it was echoed by others who agreed with it. And, as we know, AFD is not a vote counting exercise.
I will also join the ranks of other AFD closers who only take on AFD discussions with unanimous or near unaminous opinions expressed. Right now, there seem to be only 2 or 3 administrators who can close evenly divided or controversial AFD discussions without being brought to Deletion review and I guess I can't count myself among their ranks. I don't think it is the decisions I make but the way I word the decision statements that cause me to be called to Deletion review. I do my best but I have to recognize my limits and, like some admins working in the AFD area, I'll only close AFD discussions where all, or at least the vast majority of, participants agree on an outcome. I use to have a critical view towards those closers who only close those 100% Delete or 100% Keep discussions but now I see where they are coming from. They, and now me, wish to avoid getting a notice to come to Deletion review where even if your deletion is endorsed (and in this case it wasn't), a foe will show up to take potshots at you. Now back to work. Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
The other lesson learned is seeing how few admins or editors doing NAC closes show up to participate in these Deletion reviews of decisions they have made. In the past, I thought it would help the discussion to explain my decisions but I've noticed admins more experienced than myself do not come to defend or explain themselves at DR. So I guess the closer or deleting admin's participation here is not that crucial to assessing the decision that was made. I don't mean these comments to sound fatalistic, they just reflect my experience here this year with being scrutinized at noticeboard discussions. I do understand the great importance of having a review process for deletion decisions and my visits here have been instructive but probably not in the way they were intended to be. Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Liz, on the whole you do a great job closing things. I've been involved in DRV for well more than a decade and the issues you have had a perfectly reasonable. I feel it's just that you put a bit too much of *you* in the close rather than closing based on the discussion.
@Liz:, as I see it, the key questions here are A) Does this pass the SNG and B) are the sources so poor that we have a BLP or WP:V issue that can only be solved with deletion? To my reading, it's pretty clear that the discussion concluded that it does pass NACTOR. The second question is a lot harder. But I don't think it could be said that the discussion concluded there was such a problem. And I think the (fairly poor) sources are enough that it doesn't require the closer step in here and override the consensus of the discussion. If this included "contentious material" I'd have a different opinion (per WP:BLPRS). Basically, I think that your views on WP:GNG vs WP:SNG is somewhat out-of-step with the general consensus on that issue and it shows here. Just be aware of that going forward. We all have views that differ from the community's (e.g. I'm more inclusive than most...) The trick is being aware of that. And if you find a discussion where the consensus and your own views are at odds, !vote (or not) and leave it for someone else to close. Your closes are almost all great, just treat the ones where you find that the community disagrees with you as a learning opportunity. Hobit (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Strictly non-palindromic number

Strictly non-palindromic number (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In this discussion, there were two issues to resolve: (1) Is the topic is notable for a stand-alone article? (2) Is content suitable for merging to palindromic number? Most participants solely debated issue (1), with a majority concluding the topic is not notable. Another editor and I argued in support of merging. In my view, the closure did not properly weigh consensus on the WP:ATD issue (2).

  • Merging is an outcome compatible with the rationales supporting deletion. Concerns about notability are satisfied by merging.
  • The merge proposal was unrebutted and deserves weight accordingly. In order for deletion to be the result, the answer to both (1) and (2) must be No. There were deletion rationales against (1), but no deletion rationales against (2). When a reasonable ATD is on the table, and no reason is given to oppose it, merging is supported by policy (see e.g. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try_to_fix_problems on merging).
  • Even more so than for other types of ATD debates, explicit discussion is critical for a decision between delete and merge, because deletion of article history precludes normal content-editing. In contrast, after a delete/redirect decision, the redirect can always be recreated later. After a keep/merge decision, editors can always discuss merging outside of the AfD venue.

Notwithstanding the vote count, I suggest that the closure should be overturned to relist for further discussion of delete/merge, or directly overturned to merge. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: courtesy link to discussion with closer. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Overturn to merge per nom. I voted delete early in the discussion. I generally prefer a merge/redirect as an WP:ATD when a suitable target is identified, which it was after my vote was cast (and I was not aware of this until now). I oppose relisting as this is really a delete vs. merge discussion with very little interest in an outright keep. Frank Anchor 14:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I would have preferred merge as a closure in order to preserve the content, though delete was within a range of reasonable closures. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I think per our guidelines we should merge, or perhaps redirect, rather than delete when there is a valid merge target. There clearly is. I'm unsure how much of this should be merged--I think even a paragraph might be UNDUE. But yeah: overturn to merge. Hobit (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
    Which guidelines are you referring to? If you mean WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion (policy, shortcut WP:ATD), I presented evidence that Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion at the recent arbitration case. Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
    ...and your evidence resulted in which findings of fact, precisely? Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
    I provided it as rebuttal evidence to your proposed principle Alternatives to Deletion, which was not included in the final decision either. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
    You'll notice that I'm not here touting my contributions there as somehow increasing their normativity. You are, and I can't figure out why. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
    I am unsure how you inferred that. I linked it because it is an organized and efficient presentation. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
    Again, endorsed by whom? If you're not trying to ride the coattails of an arbitration proceeding which ended up doing nothing whatsoever with the argument you made, then by all means put it together as an essay. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
    I presented evidence that Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion at the recent arbitration case. is a statement of fact. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
    And I ate breakfast this morning: entirely true, and entirely irrelevant to this conversation. I don't mean to sound harsh here, but really: either you were trying to use the venue as some sort of [Inappropriate, IMHO,obviously] appeal to authority, or your inclusion of that tidbit was irrelevant, or there's some third option that I'm still missing. Jclemens (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Overturn to Merge - When the participants are split between Delete, Keep, and Merge, Merge is the compromise. There wasn't consensus to Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
    What is the policy/guideline basis for a compromise? WP:Supervote mentions "compromise" a few times, but it is an essay. Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Relist for targeted discussion of what to merge – perhaps nothing – and whether a redirect is desired. I do not see a consensus to merge, but one may be developed. On a separate note, Liz's comment appears to be participating instead of closing, which I would like to encourage. Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Overturn to merge Last two !votes were merge, objectively reasonable, and the core AfD question was N (should this have a separate article?) not V (is this thing even demonstrably real?). The alternative would have been to relist, but that's not necessary, because a merge keeps the content that everyone agreed in the discussion was real, but not as a standalone article. In other words, a merge outcome is the natural result of the discussion that was held, regardless of the delete vs. keep count, and leaving it open for more opinions is not at all likely to change that, except possibly to keep if something stunningly good was found--and in such case it could be un-merged later without much fuss. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

4 November 2022

BJ Dichter

BJ Dichter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Requesting consensus/permission to recreate article. Consensus was that BLP1E applied in March. Since then there has been coverage about his role in the ongoing public enquiry, therefore another event. There was many previous events he was notable for, such as running for office, but consensus seems that those more minor events did not get enough coverage. I think the new burst of coverage does illustrate notability. Examples:

  1. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1929974/commission-rouleau-cedu-enquete-publique-etat-urgence-audiences-jour-16-convoi-camionneurs
  2. https://ottawa.citynews.ca/national-news/freedom-politics-control-and-money-the-many-motivations-of-the-freedom-convoy-6048169
  3. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-benjamin-dichter-helped-promote-a-cryptocurrency-fundraiser-for-convoy/
  4. Also from June https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-freedom-convoy-renegade-jew-benjamin-dichter

Note that news sources tended to call him BJ Dichter earlier this year and all seem to use his full name Benjamin dichter now.CT55555 (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Allow Review of Draft - No need to endorse because already endorsed in earlier DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Not in scope for DRV. No deletion occurred. It is redirected to Canada convoy protest, with a clear opinion that coverage should be within that article. Now, you want to spin it back out. For that, start a talk page discussion for consensus to do this, at Talk:Canada convoy protest. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Do not start a new draft. Do not fork to draftspace, at least not without consensus to do so, at Talk:Canada convoy protest. Draftspace is useful to waylay junk new creations made by inept newcomers, but it is not a substitute for article talk page discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know what "fork to draftspace" means, but I think I understand that you think I'm in the wrong venue to ask this question and I should ask on the talk page. I'm trying to do the right thing here, currently assuming I'm in error and you are correct. But I also don't want to be accused of forum shopping, so I'll wait for this to close before taking that action. CT55555 (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse but discuss, the close(s) were correct. But concur with SmokeyJoe that a Talk page discussion makes more sense. Consensus there, should it emerge, is more than sufficient for an established editor such as CT to create if Dichter is now suitably notable. That said, I don't fault CT for bringing it here given it had been here once. Star Mississippi 02:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Dictator of Belarus (closed)

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

Change keep to delete per the precedent established at so-called "Azerbaijan dictator" page Madame Necker (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  • The time to make that argument was during the RFD. Since the Belarus discussion was more recent, and since Wikipedia generally doesn't operate on a basis of precedent but instead on the idea that consensus can change, there's a stronger argument to be made that Azerbaijan dictator should be restored instead. (Not, you understand, that it's going to be me making that argument.) —Cryptic 14:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • @Madame Necker: thanks for the ping. Can you describe the precedent you are seeing that is established? Jay 💬 15:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    First, there is consensus that any BLP issues/concerns have been addressed per WP:RNEUTRAL, as Ilham Aliyev is described in multiple reliable sources as a dictator.
    However, there is another issue: there are multiple people who could be considered as an "Azerbaijan dictator", as Ovinus argued, which is a strong reason for deletion. Disambiguation was suggested as an alternative, however multiple people explicitly opposed disambiguation at the current title, noting that "Azerbaijan leader" would be a better disambiguation page (there was no opposition to that proposal if someone wishes to create that, though no one explicitly supported it). Legoktm (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC) Madame Necker (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry, but you have just copied and pasted Legoktm's close. I am asking for the precedent that you think there is established now. Jay 💬 16:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    That's the precedent. Madame Necker (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    Ok, this conversation isn't happening. With no input, I won't be able to comment on this deletion review. Jay 💬 17:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse per User:Cryptic and a clear conseneus to keep in the RFD. This appears to be an attempt by User:Madame Necker to relitigate the RFD because she did not agree with consensus. Frank Anchor 17:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse While the subject might be controversial, the closure of this RFD discussion seems very straight-forward. Is there a reason you didn't participate in it, Madame Necker? As Cryptic states, that was the appropriate place to put forward your argument that this redirect was inappropriate, not here. Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    @Liz My sister had a car accident last week and I had to take care of her, and it was also a busy week at my workplace. Madame Necker (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse (involved, recommended keep) - the close was a correct reading of the discussion. Even if the Azerbaijan discussion created a precedent (which it didn't) that Wikipedia is bound to follow (it isn't) it still would not be relevant because "Azerbaijan dictator" is potentially ambiguous but "Belarus dictator" is not, neither Azerbaijani leader (to my knowledge) described themselves as a dictator but the Belorussian leader has done. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf It was in this video where he was calling himself a 'dictator' in an ironic remark. I don't understand why some users here want to treat someone's self-identified humor as an indication of supposed neutrality or reliability. Madame Necker (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    Firstly that is irrelevant here as this is not a forum for relitigating the discussion, but even if we were it doesn't matter, because it is a plausible search term for three other reasons - (1) he used the term to describe himself, so that makes it a plausible search term regardless of how he used it; (2) multiple other people have used it to describe him; (3) the term is discussed in the article. The WP:RNEUTRAL policy explains that non-neutral redirects are permitted in some situations, and the discussion concluded (correctly imo) that this is one such. TLDR: redirects do not have to be reliable or neutral (that is the job of articles), they just have to be plausible search terms that have an appropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf The precedent established says it is irrelevant whether it is neutral or not because there could be multiple people -wrongly or accurately- identified as "dictator of Belarus". Madame Necker (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    @Madame Necker I will not be engaging in any further attempts to relitigate the deletion discussion here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a proper identification of consensus from the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Madame Necker's been blocked indef, for those what don't have one of the gadgets that make that more visible. —Cryptic 04:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec