Open main menu

Wikipedia:Deletion review

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)

Administrator instructions

Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

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.

Contents

PurposeEdit

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. when you have not discussed the matter with the user who closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  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); or
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
  9. For uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.

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

InstructionsEdit

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 reviewEdit

 
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=2019 May 19}}</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=2019 May 19}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 May 19|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion reviewEdit

Any editor may express his or her 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 undeletionEdit

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 non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviewsEdit

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).



Active discussionsEdit

19 May 2019Edit

16 May 2019Edit

Draft:Fellowship_of_Friends (closed)Edit

Badnam SongEdit

Badnam Song (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Page was speedily deleted despite not meeting any criteria; likely to be a harmful deletion as it was a redirect from a page move. Geolodus (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment- why didn't you raise this with the deleting admin before bringing it here? Reyk YO! 15:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Is that a better option? Geolodus (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
      • It's required before opening up a DRV, though it's moot at this point. SportingFlyer T·C 07:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Oh. I was not aware of that. Geolodus (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse my deletion of Badnam Song and Badnaam Song. Recently created implausible redirect is valid for both. A search for "badnam song" returns the relevant page and an hatnote on Badnaam would be appropriate. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Speedy deletion was valid per R3. Both redirects were implausible. --MrClog (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and send to RfD. In no way is "Badnam Song" an speedily implausible redirect to "Badnam (song)", and a google search for "Badnaam" song returns results clearly about the target using the double A spelling. These may or may not be useful redirects, but they are not R3 candidates. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Send to RFD. As per Thryduulf, these look like plausible errors, and R3 is for implausible errors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn as noted above these redirects were not implausible. Hut 8.5 20:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Not plausible at all. If so, we should have a redirect "Foo Song" for every disambiguated song on the Wiki. This was created at the incorrect title, and then moved on the very same day to the correct one, so R3 is exactly what it is. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • None of that is even remotely relevant. Creation at an incorrect title and moving to the correct one happens regularly, what matters for R3 is solely whether the incorrect title is plausible or not and "Foo Song" → "Foo (song)" is extremely plausible, especially given that there are songs named this way (Galaxy Song is the first to come to mind). Note that plausibility is not the same as usefulness and whether other redirects like this do or should exist is not mentioned (and should not be mentioned) in R3 which is only about whether the individual redirect is plausible or not. Additionally there is no consensus that redirects of this nature should never exist. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse per WP:R3. The article was created on May 16, moved on May 16, and the redirect deleted on May 16, so the "post page move" criteria which has been invoked really isn't applicable here. SportingFlyer T·C 07:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Post page move isn't relevant in this case, but in all cases an R3 candidate must be unquestionably implausible. Foo disamiguator → Foo (disambiguator) is always going to be plausible - whether it is useful will depend on several factors meaning that it is not suitable for speedy deletion and needs to be discussed at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
      • It's a recently created redirect from an implausible misnomer in which the page move should not apply. Textbook WP:R3. Looking up other famous disambiguated songs such as Respect (song), Hallelujah (song), and Yellow Submarine (song) don't have redirects from the word (song) sans parentheses, which convinces me it's implausible. SportingFlyer T·C 11:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
        • It is a recently created redirect, but it is one from a very plausible title - nowhere near R3 as both aspects of the criterion must be satisfied. Remember if there is any doubt about whether a speedy deletion criterion applies it does not - and there are at least three people here saying this is a plausible redirect so it very clearly isn't obviously implausible. Whether other redirects exist is, as previously mentioned, not relevant to speedy deletion (that's an argument that can be made at RfD). Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
          • It's fine if others disagree with me, but I've already walked through whether WP:R3 applies above, and I think it's crystal clear WP:R3 applies. I also checked the songs after you responded to my endorse. SportingFlyer T·C 11:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
            • And I've explained in detail why R3 does not apply: This title is not implausible because it is an entirely reasonable title for someone not familiar with English Wikipedia article titling conventions to think the article might be at. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
              • I don't think you're correct here, though. We don't have redirects based on the word song/(song). I suspect this will probably be relisted at RfD, but I would have speedied this myself. SportingFlyer T·C 12:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
                • Thinking that something would probably be deleted at XfD is not a valid reason to speedy delete anything. The only vlaid reason for speedy deleting any page is that it meets the letter of one or more speedy deletion criteria. Literally everything else is explicitly against policy so if you are speedy deleting things like this you'd better stop right now. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
                  • I've never said this would "probably be deleted at XfD." I'm reviewing whether the speedy deletion was appropriate. It's a valid R3, and I've said all I have to say on that. Please stop putting words in my mouth just because you happen to disagree. SportingFlyer T·C 14:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse The article Badnam (song) has a close enough title for searching and doesn't seem notable (in English). The redirect title in question doesn't have correct case and so we wouldn't want to keep it. Andrew D. (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Those are all considerations about utility and are things that need discussion at RfD, they are not evidence of implausibility (different capitalisation is the perfect example of a plausible redirect). Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
      No, it is a simple matter of WP:COMMONSENSE. The article was created at the wrong title, it was moved to the correct title, and the redirect from the previous incorrect title is cleaned up as if it never existed. That is routine, and sending it on to RFD is a complete waste of everyone's time. As indeed is this thread. In the unlikely event that anyone does type "Badnam Song" into the search bar, we have a perfectly good search functionality that will lead them straight to where they want to go. See [1] for a similar example with the "Ecuador Song".  — Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
      • If this sort of thing is routine then there is a hell of a lot of abuse of R3 going on. R3 is explicitly only for implausible typos and minsnomers - titles like "Badnam osng", "Badnam )song)", "Wikipedia article about Badnam song", "Bandamsong", "Nsmame (song)" or (to this target) "Butterfly (soup)" would be R3 candidates (if recently created). Simply omiting brackets from the disambiguation is not implausible and is not even close to meeting the criteria. Speedy deleting something in any situation not explicitly permitted by the speedy deletion policy is one of the most harmful things an admin can do. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy and list at RFD. If we're having an extended argument here over whether the redirect was plausible with experienced users supporting the claim, it's plausible enough to be ineligible for speedy deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Send to RfD Eh, perhaps a reasonable speedy, but as HW says above, reasonable experienced users disagree, so off it goes to an actual discussion. Hobit (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Send to RfD. Speedy deletion assumes no reasonable objection. Reasonable objection? Speedy send to RfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    The objection is not reasonable. The deletion was entirely within normal practice for R3, as well as the judgement of the admin who did the deletion. Making a song and dance of it like this is Wikilawyering and nothing more. It stands no chance of surviving an RFD.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    R3 notes that it is for "implausible typos or misnomers". "Badnam Song" is certainly a reasonable misnomer for "Badnam (Song)". In fact I can't think of a more reasonable misnomer for it. Can you? Hobit (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    Whether it is deleted at RfD is irrelevant. Incorrect speedy deletions are one of the most harmful things an administrator can do, correcting them is never inappropriate or wikilawyering. And As Hobit notes, "Badnam Song" is not a typo and it's not an implausible misnomer so it's nowhere near being covered by R3. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I'm usually a stickler for by-the-letter WP:CSD enforcement, but it's hard to get upset about this one. Redirects exist as navigation tools, to help a reader find an article even if they don't know the correct title. In this case, typing "Badnam Song" into the wiki search box returns Badnam (song) as the first result, so we serve the needs of our readers. And, as mentioned elsewhere, generating a Foo Song redirect for every Foo (song) article would be absurd. It wouldn't be the end of the world if this sat in WP:RfD for a week, but it would be pointless. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • As a very minor nit, it comes up as the second result for me. That said, with what appears to be improved search results, it's not clear that new redirects (such as this one) are hardly ever needed. But I'd call that more of a policy issue than a DRV issue. It's probably time to update the rules for speedy redirect deletion... Hobit (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Roy Smith: The internal search box is not the only way to search/browse Wikipedia and search suggestions are only available for some of those methods. When you search for a title that doesn't exist what you see depends on many factors (whether a page was previously deleted, what search method/utility you are using, what device you are using, whether your account has privileges to create articles, possibly whether you have javascript available and enabled, etc). What you see might be search results, an invitation to search, an invitation to start a page, an edit window to being a new article and/or (an excerpt of) the deletion log. For all these reasons it is important to remember that redirects serve far more uses than just populating the search box and can have value even if similar ones exist - e.g. just because Foo (disambiguator) exists doesn't mean that Fooo (disambiguator) or Foo (similar disambiguator) are redundant (they may or may not be, but as several factors need to be considered it's not something that is suitable for speedy deletion at all. Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Kelly MeighenEdit

Kelly Meighen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No WP:CONSENSUS should result in a Keep or even a relist. I posted comments on the closer's talk page, I have not heard from the closer. There is no policy reason to delete based on the participation on the afd. There is a policy reason to Keep. The article could be renominated after a time. Lubbad85 () 01:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Endorse The closing admin's assessment of consensus is consistent with policy. AFD is not about counting votes, even if sometimes some closers give the impression that that is what they are doing. It's about the strength of the arguments, not getting a supermajority of !votes. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Also, while it's not a matter for deletion review, I do have to wonder why Lubbad would previously complain about the AFD being relisted rather than "no consensus; default to keep"[2] and then complain here that the AFD wasn't relisted now that it's turned out that the solution would have been to delete all along. @Lubbad85: Do you understand the concept of WP:RELISTBIAS and how it tends to happen when the consensus is in favour of deletion and/or redirecting, as opposed to keeping? Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Consensus was that the article and its subject do not meet the significant coverage requirements of the general notability guideline, which also constitutes the basic criteria for the inclusion of a biographical article. If "likely notable" and "not notable" are both correct, then this is one of the unfortunate exceptions, not somehow Notable despite not meeting guidelines. The AfD does not argue that offline or otherwise difficult to find sources may exist. I will also note that 7 DRVs resulted in an overturn last month, so perhaps whether a closure is beyond reproach actually depends on the merits of the case. There was no other way the AfD could have been closed. Alpha3031 (tc) 05:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Alpha3031: Just to play devil's advocate, There was no other way the AfD could have been closed. is probably not true from Lubbad's point of view; simply counting the bolded !votes, it was split 5-5 and so a "no consensus" result would not have been beyond the pale, and certainly a lot of admins who are either sympathetic to the cause of, or afraid of backlash from, the ARS-types would have likely interpreted it that way.
    That said, this is now the second time that Lubbad has tried to creatively interpret "consensus" (or the supposed lack thereof) in relation to this particular AFD.[3] Combined with the recent copyvio concerns over his attempts to "rescue" another article that was at AFD[4] (and the fact that that was not an isolated incident[5][6][7]), I suspect this might be a user conduct issue with the OP more than a difference of interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS...
    Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse There really isn't a policy reason to keep based on the discussion. There are fewer delete votes on a count of numbers, but they all explain why the article fails our policies, mostly in depth. There aren't any keep !votes which discuss sources. SportingFlyer T·C 06:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn A supervote in which the closer picked their own argument, rather than assessing the consensus of the participants or lack of same. This was contrary to WP:DGFA, "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. ... When in doubt, don't delete." Also, there was a large elephant in the room which nobody addressed: she's the wife of Michael Meighen and the president of the philanthropic foundation created by Theodore Meighen. There are therefore obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger to one of these articles, which we should prefer per our policy WP:PRESERVE. As there was no consensus and the elephant had not yet been spotted, the discussion should be relisted rather than closed in this way. Andrew D. (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    IMO, redirecting a woman's article to the article of her husband or her father in law sends a bad message to our readers, similar to titling her article Mrs. Michael Meighen. Merging the content with articles about the organizations she is involved in was something I discussing in my delete !vote, so it was touched upon. (The Foundation does not yet have an article, and I'm not sure if it's notable enough for one yet.) Levivich 15:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, Andrew is so far the only "overturn" !vote not to have already !voted "keep" in the original AFD, and in the past year he has, by my count, commented in 15 AFDs besides this one, of which 11 were to overturn delete closes (most of them including the same reflexive accusation of supervoting), two were to endorse keep closes, one was to endorse a "no consensus" close, and one was to overturn a "redirect and protect" close. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn for reasons cited by Andrew D..

    As to the personal attacks above, these are (1) without factual foundation (the alleged copyvio was minimal and in good faith and was quickly corrected and that particular article was both a Keep over the objections of the above editor (who wanted to delete it) and will be a DYK over the objections of the above editor); and (2) it is an Argumentum ad hominem that is fallacious and irrelevant to this discussion. Indeed, similar attacks are part of the AFD discussion. 7&6=thirteen () 11:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

    Note: this editor !voted keep in the AfD. Levivich 14:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Thirteen, please drop these accusations. Aside from the very real copyright problem (believe me -- pretending these are fake accusations drummed up to win arguments is not a good idea), the fact that the OP has been "creatively interpreting" consensus in relation to this AFD (in a flip-floppy, self-contradictory way) is very much relevant, and claiming I am making an "argumentum ad hominem" is a bit weird, since the only comments I made "about" the OP were (a) a devil's advocate remark in his defense or (b) a question directly addressed at said OP regarding something argument. You, on the other hand, excepting the "I agree with Andrew" prologue, wrote a comment that is literally nothing but off-topic remarks about how you don't like one of the "endorse" commenters, including bizarrely accusing me of making similar personnal attacks [as] part of the AFD discussion when I didn't even comment on the original AFD. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    [8] I'm going to give you another chance to retract your baseless remark without factual foundation (the alleged copyvio was minimal and in good faith and was quickly corrected and that particular article was both a Keep and will be a DYK over the objections of the above editor) [...] Indeed, similar attacks are part of the AFD discussion.. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    I see you struck the single least offensive part of the above remark. Now what about the rest? Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Hijiri88: User:7&6=thirteen you promised to stay away from each other, and yet here you are sniping again. I think unless something miraculous happens, this is going to have to end up at ANI and perhaps with a formal IBAN and blocks forthcoming if it's broken. Just cut it out, both of you.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Closer's comment: I reaffirm my "delete" closure. The review request here was made 80 minutes after Lubbad85 left me a talk page message, so they should not be surprised about not hearing from me in the interim. The review request makes no intelligible argument about what exactly is supposed to be wrong with the reason for the closure. Sandstein 12:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn The article was improved during the afd - this is the case when an article resucue is attempted. The afd was extended to allow more participation after the majority of editors voted keep, and the arguments were still tilted in favor of a keep. In these situations the Wikipedia policy/guidance advises keep, and yet the closer chose delete. The question before the closer was: Is there consensus to delete or keep? An unbiased reading of the arguments on the Afd reveal no consensus. The closer appears to have entered a Supervote which cancels the will of all other editors participating on the afd. If the closer wanted to vote on the afd then another administrator should close the afd. I understand that the work of an administrator is tedious, and difficult. I know this closer works tirelessly because I see the signature everywhere on the boards and afds. The administrators have significant power on wikipedia, and this is why wikipedia has policies. Wikipedia has a no consensus keep policy for a reason and it should be followed. Lubbad85 () 12:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Note: this editor !voted keep in the AfD, and is the nominator of this DRV. Levivich 14:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) @Lubbad85: Your opening comment is considered to be an "overturn" !vote unless you specify otherwise (such as if you were opening this discussion as a formality because you saw other editors complaining, but you were yourself neutral), so you don't need to cast a separate !vote. As for the substance of your comment, I think you should probably not lecture other editors on "policy on wikipedia" and how "it should be followed". You're still a relatively new editor, so it's okay for you to make mistakes like The afd was extended to allow more participation after the majority of editors voted keep. I'll explain it again, with clearer reference to this particular AFD -- the first relisting was to avoid a "soft delete" when there was one clear delete !vote and one comment that was kinda wishy-washy but seemed to be in disagreement; by the time you came along it was still 3-0 in favour of deletion; after you there was a slight shift in favour of keeping, such that by the time of the second relisting it was either 5-3 or 4-3 in favour of keeping (I still don't know when EMG retracted his !vote); then by the time of the close it was an even 5-5; but none of these !vote counts matter, since Wikipedia is not a democracy -- the only important thing is the weight of the arguments based on policy, and most of the "keep" !votes in this case were drive-by "meets GNG"-type remarks that failed to stand up under the scrutiny they were given by the "delete" !votes. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Lubbad, if someone has already responded to specific text in your comment, please do not simply alter it without noting that you have done so, either by striking it through or by appending an extra time-stamp to your signature to indicate that the comment has been altered. Anyway, "no consensus keep" is not a policy, and the AFD still looks very much, to everyone except you and some members of the ARS crowd, like a consensus to delete, so even if that was a policy it wouldn't apply here. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC) (edited 14:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC))
    Hijiri 88 I have attempted to avoid responding to your WP:Tendentious behavior on this and other articles for deletion. Your many condescending comments have been noted and registered; perhaps you can now move on. I am not married to this article. In my experience administrators need no help from you to have their decisions endorsed. Your multiple responses and attacks are not needed after each and every comment. My point in this deletion review is that a reading of this afd reveals no consensus to delete or keep. The administrator could state that and also state that there is not an objection to placing another afd after some time has passed. But Hijiri 88 and I worked it out. If a Supervote which cancels votes exists, as has been noted by Andrew D. perhaps that is codified somewhere in wikipedia policy? I do not think it is, and that is why we have a no consensus keep policy: instead this article received the death penalty. You will see the Endorse comments registered now, and they do not need your help. Admins get the benefit of the doubt, which is exactly my point in asking for a review. Admins should follow policy - eventually the correct result would be achieved even if the no consensus keep happened. Andrew D. correctly cites WP:DGFA Lubbad85 () 14:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Good close, good reading of consensus as weighted by strength of arguments. Exactly as stated by the closer. The nomination was comprehensive and excellent. The delete !votes spoke to the details, the keep !votes were vaguewaves. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse- The keep votes were effectively refuted. I'll always back those who analyse sources over those who just dump them into an AfD. Reyk YO! 14:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse The delete !voters made discussion of the thinking provided by keep !voters and even when asked specifically to do so the keep !voters did not do the reverse. This suggests that proper weight was given by the closer to all thinking offered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I !voted delete in the AfD so I'm not !voting here, but I want to say this: Over half a dozen uninvolved editors have now taken the time to read that AfD and !vote here, and I bet each of them spent more time on that than the nominator spent on this nomination. DRV nomination arguments like "...no policy reason to delete...policy reason to Keep..." are entirely formulaic–it takes like five seconds to draft a DRV nomination like that–and it spawns a whole bunch of work for a bunch of other editors. Just like most of the keep !votes in the AfD, such a statement asserts notability without even bothering to back it up with, e.g., a link to a policy or a link to a source. This is compounded by the nominator waiting less than an hour and a half between posting on the closer's talk page and filing this DRV–which basically is the same as skipping that step altogether–and yet having the gall to criticize the closer's supposed lack of response in their nomination statement. I hope in the future, nominator's DRV nominations will be much more thought out, and that they engage in good-faith discussion with the closer before even thinking about posting it to DRV. Levivich 15:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    User:Levivich Thank you very much for the advice. I very much appreciate that you took the time to give helpful advice. You have demonstrated WP:AGF with your response to this DR and the nomination Lubbad85 () 15:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Per SmokeyJoe & Reyk. --MrClog (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Endorse - There was no right answer here. The Keep arguments are largely of the form Sources Exist, also references to minor awards (whose purpose is sometimes to create the appearance of notability). The right answer on Week 1 or Week 2 would have been a Relist, and that had already been done. Many AFDs drag on for weeks because there are sources, but the sources aren't much, and this was such a case. Either No Consensus or Delete would have been a valid closure. No right answer, but this was not a wrong answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Robert McClenonThanks for coming here. I am asking for a review based on the procedure. If the procedure is to "no consensus keep". Since clearly there is not a consensus.... on that we have perfect agreement. Essentially the closer is able to vote with a Supervote by deleting the article in spite of the participating editors. It is a subjective decision. As Andrew D has stated, This was contrary to WP:DGFA, "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. ... When in doubt, don't delete." There is time...WP:RUSHDELETE Lubbad85 () 18:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Delete arguments are stronger than the Keep arguments. Whether this was a consensus was a valid judgment call by the closer. There was no right answer, and this was not a wrong answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Solid call. WBGconverse 11:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • endorse I'd also have endorsed NC, but delete is the proper outcome of that discussion IMO. The arguments for deletion appear on-point and stronger. On the plus side, it was a well attended AfD that appears to have addressed the relevant points well. Hobit (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse Folks !voting Keep were asked to point out the WP:THREE best sources but declined to do so. Delete !votes were analyzing the sources as all being bare mentions, affiliated, etc. I'm not sure how we can argue that Deletes shouldn't carry more weight in such a case. When I'm trying to rescue an article and someone asks me which three sources I feel prove notability, I feel like my best move is to call those three sources out, linking to them within the AfD and maybe even saying, "longish piece, 90% about article subject" or whatever. I want to make it easy for people to agree with me! --valereee (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse but with no prejudice against recreation with the right sources. The primary reason for the deletion nomination is that the article was basically a breach of WP:NOTADVERTISING. On notability it was borderline - some argued there were sources, while others argued there were not. So it was kind of no consensus on that front. But given that the article was basically a promotional puff piece, it was entirely legitimate to delete it. On whether she meets GNG, I would argue she probably just about does. She gets some quite significant coverage in this book, an executive profile on Bloomberg and the family interview for me would constitute three references which could be used. Such a recreation would have to be judged on its own merits though, not the merits of the previous deleted article.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I would caution anyone recreating the article that the book appears to be from a vanity press and thus not an WP:RS, and the Globe & Mail piece only mentions Kelly once and might not be SIGCOV of her (as opposed to her husband, the family, or the foundation). Levivich 19:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
      Alright, you make a good point. I hadn't noticed that the book was self-published. I've struck the part about allowing recreation. Endorse on both promotional and lack of notability grounds.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

15 May 2019Edit

14 May 2019Edit


Recent discussionsEdit

ArchiveEdit