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.

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 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=2019 December 8}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 December 8|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).

Speedy closesEdit

It's rare, but not unknown, for a deletion review to be speedily closed.

  • 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).
  • 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.
  • 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 discussionsEdit

8 December 2019Edit

Sydney New Year's Eve 2008–09Edit

Sydney New Year's Eve 2008–09 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The only reasons given for deletion were along the lines of there being "nothing worthwhile", which is not a Wikipedia policy or a reason for deletion - it seems like they are just alternatives to saying "I don't like it" or something along those lines. The article was sourced and showed there was widespread media coverage of the event. It met GNG. Even if there was some kind of consensus to incorporate the article into the main Sydney New Years' Eve page, deletion was not the answer - the sourced content should be merged into the main article at the relevant point. Bookscale (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Endorse – closer properly read consensus that the subject did not meet NEVENT, as explained on the closer's talk page. Appears to be a WP:1AM situation. Levivich 06:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse could not have been closed in any other way than delete, and the policy for deletion is sound. SportingFlyer T·C 07:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse As I told the nominator despite their insistence, I did not vote! on WP:IDLI concerns, only that there's few sources to individual years of this event where the same things happen every year outside of host and theme changes, and it was all succinctly summarized already in Sydney New Year's Eve#2007–09 as WP:ROUTINE. Nate (chatter) 08:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Allen MatkinsEdit

Draft:Allen Matkins (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

From the closing admin's talk page:

Discussion with closing admin

Hi Ad Orientem. I am writing to you regarding your AfD close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis. No AfD participants commented specifically about the sources I found. I would like to follow the suggestion of the only AfD participant who commented after I provided the sources, who supported deletion "due [to] its state as WP:CORPSPAM" and who said "That's not to say someone can't re-create the article, properly sourced, and which establishes its notability, possibly using offline sources." I would like to stubify and recreate the article with the sources I found. Is that permitted by your AfD close? Would you move Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis to Draft:Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis? Cunard (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done @ Cunard I've draftified the page and the talk page. However it is not to be moved back into the mainspace w/o approval from WP:AfC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for draftifying the page. Wikipedia:Articles for creation says, "The Articles for Creation process is intended to assist new editors in creating articles. Articles are created as drafts which are then submitted for review."

I am not a new editor. I do not have a conflict with the subject. Would you explain why recreation must require approval from WP:AFC? Why am I not permitted to move the draft back to mainspace when I believe it is ready?

Cunard (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Cunard... Because the article was just deleted at AfD and yours was the only comment favoring keeping it. I want another set of eyes on that page before it is moved back into the mainspace. Absent that, this could be reasonably seen as an end run around AfD. Sorry but that is a condition of my draftifying the page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have rewritten the draft. At the AfD, I presented some offline sources that I noted I did not have access to. I requested the sources from Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and have used them in the draft rewrite.

Allen Matkins represented Blackstone Real Estate in Blackstone's $43 billion purchase of Equity Office Properties Trust (now called EQ Office). It has the largest group of real estate attorneys in California.

The closing admin wrote that approval from WP:AFC "is a condition of my draftifying the page". I am not listing the article at AfC since it is generally used by new editors and editors with a conflict of interest. I am instead listing at DRV to ask the community for permission to restore the article.

Restore to Allen Matkins or Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis.

Cunard (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Allow restoration sources in the article show it meets NCORP, which isn't surprising as it's a major US commercial real estate law firm. Levivich 06:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • You should have listed the article at AfC. I have no idea why you have such a dim view of it. The article still feels heavily promotional to me, and I can't access the sources to confirm WP:NCORP is met, so I'm not sure I would have accepted it. SportingFlyer T·C 08:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

7 December 2019Edit

Mitto Password ManagerEdit

Mitto Password Manager (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Asking for a relist (I am also okay with delete if that is what the majority decides), considering it was relisted only once, and I don't think the AfD was in a state that consensus was never going to develop. Especially with a very weak keep argument and two delete votes (including the nom) citing WP:GNG. So I don't think the close was justified as the nominator's argument was never refuted properly and even got some support. The AfD closer declined my request at User_talk:Ritchie333#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mitto_Password_Manager, hence I am here since I have noticed this AfD and wanted to give my own comment on that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • It is not clear to me whether your issue is that you believe thsi AfD should have been Deleted (and not kept via No Consensus), or, whether your issue is that regardless of the outcome, it should have had a 2nd Relist? Britishfinance (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Britishfinance Honestly, both (though not in any outcome, but relisting in this specific outcome). I believe that the AfD shouldn't have been closed as no consensus here, that is the main thing. At minimum it should have been relisted (which is where I am settling at, since I wanted to comment there). But I also can see a (weaker) delete consensus here. I am leaving up to community to decide either between status quo, or those two options mentioned in the final relist/deleting the article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • (ec) Thanks for that. It seems like a very borderline case in any event, with low participation and nothing after the 1st relist? Even a delete would really be a weak one, and therefore the article could be easily refunded in any case. Thus, keeping the article and seeing if anybody can fix/improve it is a sensible outcome? There is no rush here, and no apparent UPE/PROMO aspect (which can be a reason to tighten-up on even borderline cases)? I wouldn't sweat this one, imho. Britishfinance (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • One of the consequences of the decline in numbers of active Wikipedia editors is that some AfDs don't attract much comment. We tend to respond to that by relisting them, and some closers' approach is basically "The relisting will continue until participation improves." I don't see that -- there's an arguable case for relisting low-participation BLPs of marginal notability, but relisting articles about products several times? That's not a good use of volunteer time which is an increasingly rare resource. And that's why WP:RELIST says Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended. I'd be minded to endorse.—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Delete*Endorse: (as !Weak keeper : also edit conflict with S. Marshall + MOTD) at AfD. Context: My memories of this time is the nom. and others presenting a significant number of AfDs (some such as this one not pre-tagged for any issues) ... as many can reasonably deduce I keep a somewhat informal and disorganised watch on the Computing / Software prod/AfD queues to determine perhaps if anything is going through that perhaps shouldn't and sort of Triage. If its a goner per the community or the author been stupid with their sources ..... then likely let it go. maybe keep vote any relatively okay or leave it to others. And then we have the inbetweeners. And then we have the inbetweeners. Like this one, but different ones are different. The first points to check for sources are those in the article, and at a glance they look at least possibly above pathetic. Try them out and one gets walls and deadness. So per WP:BEFORE C.1 there should be an attempt so fix this, and probably best to mention in the nom. that one has tried rather than the good old: Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. and leaving any other mug who tries attempting to do the same things. Actually source recovery on this one was to quote 'a dog' which meant I'd spent more than enough time on it and as I couldn't be bothered to try further. Hence weak keep. The relist discussion was let run for 7 days and nobody participated. I note on the closers talk page the DRV nom. had a comment to make but has as yet withheld it whereas placement on the article talk page or disclosure on the closer's talk page may have been more appropriate rather than waiting for discussion to evolve hear first. No-one attempted to clear or address the the source Walled from the EU ... On that basis 'no consensus' was probably a viable outcome; perhaps the better of perhaps several possible outcomes where if someone was particular interested the article could have been tagged for a notability concern and brought forward again to DRV in a couple of months time as practice for AfD no consenus closures allows.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete or relist – when there's (IMO) an obvious PROMO concern and an obvious dearth of what might be SIGCOV sources... the objection raised by the nom and delete voter was that it doesn't meet NPRODUCT or GNG, and that didn't seem to be addressed at all, like with sources put forward. Seems like a delete or soft delete, and there's little harm in relisting it a second time. Levivich 06:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Its me and and my fucking mental health that can be harmed by being fucking dragged back to fucking AfD all the fucking time. I've become WP:UNCIVIL and taking a 24 enforced break and someone can fucking block me for that. Fucking block me for 24 hours if you like. Where's the ducking harm in that. Thats why fucking have the fucking 2 month fucking break. I've changed to overturn and delete on that basisDjm-leighpark (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse There's nothing wrong with the close at all. I don't completely understand why the closing admin didn't reopen this lightly attended, validly no consensus AfD after someone came in less than a day after the close saying they wished to comment, but it's not so egregious to overturn, and there's a very good argument against reopening no consensus AfDs because more discussion is needed. That being said I have no trouble with a relist now, considering it will likely lead to further discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 07:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

6 December 2019Edit

P. B. BucksheyEdit

P. B. Buckshey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Good faith close at XfD was delete (no additional comments). Under scrutiny on talk page closer had seemingly ignored the notable claim for the article per WP:NACADMEIC of a national level honour National professor of psychiatry and neurosciences; the national level here being key; with no delete !voters disputing that claim, these !voters ignoring the claim but focusing on other matters. While I personally move this claim was sufficient to keep I would anticipate and expect that with no prior relists the appropriate practice would have been at a minimum to relist and pointing out the unanswered point. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@DGG, Tachs, Rocky 734, Fowler&fowler, David Eppstein, RegentsPark, and Whjayg: Notification: DRV raised for AfD for P. B. Buckshey you were involved in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 December 6. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • To my reading, that discussion implies that Wikipedians didn't quite reach a consensus on whether Mr Buckshey passes a notability guideline, but agreed to delete the article on the basis that the text was intolerably promotional. I presume that there was no non-promotional version in the history to restore. The way I understand what I've just read, I think the consensus is that you could, maybe, potentially have an article on Mr Buckshey, but we won't restore that article on Mr Buckshey. Personally I think it would be preferable if you could make an article at Purushottam Buckshey rather than using his initials and I would recommend submitting a draft rather than putting it directly into the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 20:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment as AfD closer. I made it clear in my close that there was no prejudice against refunding to draft. I would consider that a reasonable resolution to the objection raised here as well. BD2412 T 20:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@BD2412: (edit conflict) Your offer of no prejudice against refunding to draft is appreciated but is a distraction from scrutiny reveals a good faith but ultimately inappropriate close of the AfD which is what this here to discuss. It is important for the community to discuss that particular point. This was raised by DGG as a test case. DGG had this as a test case I specifically requested: " experienced closers/relisters only please and comments to be left in either case" .... NOT DONE! If we went for the !vote counting then its 4+nom for delete and 3 keep. So you are at risk of a supervote accusation and giving precedence to snipe voting. And are you having that the article was intolerably promotional? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Your case needed to be made to the participants in the AfD, who were not persuaded to this effect. BD2412 T 21:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment (as the nom. in the AfD) If somebody wishes to try a draft, there is no reason why they should not. Whether they succeed can be judged when the draft has been written. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The Wikipedia page, National Professor, is about an honor in Bangladesh granted to a handful of the nation's academic luminaries. In India, there used to be a scholarship "National Professor" granted to academics after retirement, a much-claimed honor, I might add, as hard evidence of the awards by India's University Grants Commission seems to be lacking, until recently. It was apparently made more democratic in 2013 and began to be called "Emeritus Fellowship". See Category Emeritus Professors in India It is granted for two years, after retirement, paying $400 per month in salary, and approximately $800 per year in a travel/research grant. India's University Grants Commission invites applications every year. At any given time, there are no more than 100 fellowship holders in the sciences and a similar number in the humanities. (See here That means, on average, 100 new awards are made every year to retired teachers in Indian universities. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Thankyou. A discussion that should have occurred on the AfD and why a relist would have been the appropriate course and the question of whether WP:NACADEMIC is satisifed by this award.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Some of the people listed in that category such as S. N. Bose and Jayant Narlikar are very notable. But if I had a dime for every person in India who has claimed their advisor or father (usually) was a national professor I couldn't help amassing a small fortune. It is the sourcing that is the problem. Is there an announcement by the University Grants Commission awarding Buckshey that fellowship? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Having taken part in only a handful of AfDs, and no reviews of AfDs, I can't add much to the legalities of the closure. I support the closure on the basis of what I have seen by way of the sources. The National Professor claim, even if it is verified in the manner I have asked above, will not change my assessment. The main problem is that we have not the foggiest notion of what Mr Buckshey contributed to psychiatry, only a list of his awards, real or alleged. That is not encyclopedicity. I will also not take part in further rehashes of Mr Buckshey's notability, as my time is limited, and it will be better utilized in creating pages for those of clear notability. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler; Thankyou for your input on this matter and it perhaps demonstrates why this test case AfD was perhaps closed early. On the two sources identified identifying the national professor the major one likely in my opinion got his date of birth incorrect and while I would have expected it to accurate I perhaps might not care to bet my clothing on it if anyone challenged it. The other which confirmed it, a citation from paper presented at a peer reviewed IEEE mentioned the national professor so might have expected some accuracy: I will note this was removed from the article by a !voter which may imply they had a need to hide this evidence, though that might be regarded as a point of straw. We continue to not be on the same page as to Buckshey's notability, you possibly looking more for a contribution to the science of psychiatry; I perhaps might be looking more for the introduction of technniques and medications from his UK training to the Delhi area ... but there were only glimpses of that in sources so far. Additional offline Bibliographic sources may have indicated a little more but I would need to do up to say London to access. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support close and allow draftification. It is not true that the close was without comments. I think the AfD closure was within the closer's remit, although if I were doing it myself (for an AfD that, unlike this one, I had not commented in) I would have probably judged it as no consensus and likely relisted instead of closing. The closer suggested using the draft process to clarify potential notability that was not fully clear at the time of deletion. This suggestion of using the draft process seems to me a much better choice than overthrowing the close without first clarifying these issues, and also better than trying to hash them out here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support closure Special pleading is not convincing (I did not take part in the AfD). Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC).
@Xxanthippe: While you did not take part in this AfD you made this comment in another of test cases [1] to this closer of this AfD and the other one and accused me of WP:Wikilawyering in the content of failure to attribute which is somewhat of an issue. As regard the pleading, a somewhat emotive word. If you specifically can justify it was inappropriate for me to bring this DRV then please feel free to say specifically that. The AfD was of an unusually long length and brought as a test case by a nom of very good standing and I am very concerned the closure was at the least not best practice and did not seemingly stand scrutiny well.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by a test case? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC).
To quote the Afd nom: "There are many other individuals in medicine in the same situation-- see. I am nominating two other individuals, considering this and the adjacent AfDs as test cases.". All three cases appear also to have the Padma Shri in common also, which also means India is common in all three also.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC).
  • Overturn and relist – I'm not seeing how a closer finds consensus to delete in that discussion. The opinion was almost exactly evenly divided. Participants did not agree about whether the Padma Shri, or any other award, met NACADEMIC. Seemed like the arguments on both sides were policy-based. The national professor point was raised somewhat late and not addressed. The AfD had never been relisted before. Divided, policy-based opinions with no prior reslists = relist. I note the other two similar AfDs were both relisted. Levivich 22:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support closure - The article was deleted according to proper processes. Do not see why we should discuss it again. If you want to rewrite about it, do it in "draft". - Jay (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: (as DRV nom) n terms of the additional discussion required of the national professor/WP:NACADEMIC there has been fruitful input by Fowler&fowler above and following that discussion which was absent from the AfD and I am pragmatically minded unless something new parachutes in a relist would now not be beneficial on this point. While the closure did not discuss the Padma Shri as directly as sufficient or not as a national award I have not raised the DRV on that matter and I am minded to recommend anyone specifically interest in that to discuss at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Kumar Bhalla or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Prakash Singh which are currently open. Understandably delete voters are mostly siding with closure, a more neutral has at least raised eyebrows with the closure. The discussion had here is usefully in any mainspace re-presentation of a draft, and as I may be prepared to work a draft at some point or certainly prepared to steward same I suggest an overturn and draftify vote is appropriate. The right to work on any reasonable draft is pretty much universal anyway.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - It appears that either Delete or No Consensus would have been a valid call by the closer, so Delete is a valid call. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse Delete was a valid reading of the consensus here, and the offer to draftify the article is a sufficient remedy for anyone who wanted this kept. SportingFlyer T·C 07:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

5 December 2019Edit

Kahler v. KansasEdit

Kahler v. Kansas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I believe that this page was incorrectly deleted as a copyright violation. It was tagged in error by a user who claimed that it was an unambiguous copy of the entire content of "The Atlantic" online newspaper. However, if you review the contents you can see that the only section that was copied from The Atlantic was a paragraph blockquote from a Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, which was properly attributed to the original source United States Reports which contained the dissent. All other content was original prose by me and was not copied or closely paraphrased to the original source. I would like to request a review of the deletion. If I inadvertently copied anything without proper attribution or if the admins or other editors would like to see any other changes I am completely supportive of making any changes but I do not think that it is necessary to delete the entire article. I attempted to reach out to the closing administrator several times but my comments were removed without response or acknowledgment and I received hostile messages on my talk page from others. Omanlured (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I've been dropping contents from this revision into Ctrl+F of the alleged source article and I can't tell what the copyvio is. The only things similar are the blockquotes and these aren't even by The Atlantic to begin with. Overturn. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not convinced by the close paraphrasing argument laid out below. After checking some paragraphs against the article, I can't find any close paraphrase at all. The behaviour of other editors is not on topic in a deletion review, we only review the propriety of deletions and other deletion discussion outcomes here.It is indeed correct to first ask the deleting admin for commentary, but I don't see this as a dealbreaker. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Amending my comment: Omanlured did in fact ask on Anthony's talk page first with a very reasonably worded and civil comment that Michepman then removed with the summary "DO not harass the closing admin ". Omanlured then readded a similar comment here that was removed by Michepman again with an accusation of harassment. Then Omanlured opened the DRV and notified Anthony. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
As noted, the talk page behavior by Omanlured is not at issue here and cannot be discussed. The importance is to properly follow WP:COPYVIO which was not done here. The closing administrator observed the copy violation material and deleted (ref the edit summary provided by Anthony which has a link to the direct source of the copied material). Unfortunately I don’t have access to the deleted article so I cant personally do the side by side comparison with exact quotes from memory but it was clear to both of us that the authors of the article copied too extensively from the sources and failed to include the proper attribution. Michepman (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I'm not seeing any copyvio either. User:Michepman tagged it, and User:Anthony Bradbury deleted it. Could either of you please point out what you think the copyvio was? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your responses. For what it's worth, judicial opinions cannot be copyrighted in the US (an issue which incidentally is related to litigation currently pending before the US Supreme Court). I could understand if the excerpt contained copyrighted annotations or analysis, but the text I used was cross-referenced directly to 568 US (which can be read at the bottom of page 2 and the start of page 3 here and I included that citation at the end of the paragraph using the syntax found in Template:Cite court. Omanlured (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn can't see any copyvio. The "At the Supreme Court" section does seem to be paraphrasing part of the Atlantic piece but I don't think it's close enough to be a problem. I ran it through a copyvio detector and all it found was the Breyer quote. As noted above this is in the public domain and even if it wasn't that still wouldn't qualify the page for G12 speedy deletion, since it could easily be removed. Hut 8.5 19:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn, clearly not unambiguous. Who tagged it? Michepman (talk · contribs), on a quick inspections, seems to need a severe warning for removing a reasonable post on the deleting admins usertalk page, and for their posts at User talk:Omanlured. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Please review Wikipedia policies on harassment, tendentious editing, as well as the required talk page notifications per WP:Warning. Michepman (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per nom. Clear copyvio issues which persist even to the earliest diffs. As a reminder, please review WP:COPYVIO — close paraphrases and copying large tracts of text can create problems for Wikipedia’s licensing of content and has to be deleted quickly to remain in compliance with both copyright law and Wikipedia’s official guidelines. Ctrl+F searches are not sufficient grounds to overturn a decision by an experienced administrator, and IMHO it is problematic that there was a rush to open this discussion without giving the closing administrator a chance to weigh in. Michepman (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Michepman: I'll repeat my request above; please provide specific examples. What sentence, phrase, paragraph, whatever in the deleted page is a copy (or close paraphrase) of the "The Atlantic" article, and where does it appear in the original? I'm pretty hard-nosed when it comes to copyvios, but I'm just not seeing any when I look on my own. Your specific guidance would be useful. If you can demonstrate to me that a copyvio exists and can't be easily fixed, I'll be happy to change my !vote to endorse. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@RoySmith: - Unfortunately, I tagged this article for speedy deletion yesterday and did not copy it down anywhere before it was deleted by an administrator. As a non-admin I do not have access to deleted articles and cannot directly reference/compare the exact contents of the deleted articles. I recommend waiting for the closing admin to stop by and provide additional context before jumping to any hasty conclusions. Michepman (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Michepman: Now that I've temp undeleted, I'll reiterate the above: Which "large chunks of the article were taken directly from The Atlantic without proper attribution", specifically, and I'll raise you what on earth led you to label this as "harassment", twice? —Cryptic 12:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't know how non-admins can take part in this deletion review when we are being asked whether there was copyright violation when the document in question has been deleted due to the alleged copyright violation. It appears that multiple administrators, who have seen the deleted document, agree that it was not copyright violation. What I can see, based on the the history of reversions of User talk:Anthony Bradbury, is a blatant conduct issue in the form of talk page guideline violations, but this is not a conduct forum. So can someone tell us what the purpose of this deletion review is? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am confused by the statement above by User:Michepman. They say: "IMHO it is problematic that there was a rush to open this discussion without giving the closing administrator a chance to weigh in." Unless I have misread this, it is Michepman (or a troll editing from the compromised account of Michepman) who prevented a discussion with the closing administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    Robert McClenon - I appreciate your concern but it is important to (as you stated) avoid derailing the discussion by entering into a discussion of user conduct. This discussion should remain focused on the topic of WP:COPYVIO and WP:SPEEDY and should not digress into areas relating to userspace interactions. And for what it is worth, if you lack subject matter expertise or are not familiar enough with the original article to weigh in, there's no need to comment at all. Michepman (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn I don't see direct copying or close paraphrase here. The quote from the previous US Supreme Court dissent is direct, but it is marked and attributed as a quote from the opinion, which The Atlantic also quoted. It has bveen established since Wheaton v. Peters 8 Pet 591 (1834) that there is no copyright in Supreme Court opinions. This is now merely an instance of the rule that works of the US Federal Government have no copyright protection. As to the other parts of the article, i have compared the last versin of the deleted article with the article from The Atlantic. Several sections, particularly the section "Legislative activity" and "Kahler murder case" cover much the same set of facts, presented in a natural (chronological) order, as parts of the Atlantic article, but without detaild simialrity of sentence structure.
    The closest paraphras is in the section of the deleted article "At the Supreme Court". This includes the paragraph:

    Kahler's argument is that the M'naghten rule represents the codification of a legal concept that goes back all the way to Medieval common law and should be considered part of the due process of law.[2] His argument asserts that, for centuries, defendants were held culpable only when they were able to distinguish between right and wrong and that people who were legally insane did not have the capacity to do so.[11] The state's argument emphasized the importance of federalism, allowing states the autonomy to make their own laws within the framework of the state and federal constitutions. The state also noted that the definition of insanity has varied in different ways throughout history and that one version (the M'naghten rule) should not be viewed as an inherent aspect of due process.[2][11]([2] is a citation to the Atlantic article, and [11]] to an article in SCOTUSblog an official publication of the Court, and so public domain)

    The corresponding section of the Atlantic article reads:

    Kahler’s brief suggests that M’Naghten was not a newfangled Victorian notion, but rather a codification of common-law principles that go back to medieval English law. If that is so, it is easy to conclude that it must be a part of “due process of law.”

    That may be a bit close, and perhaps should be reworded, but is not in my view enough of an issue to simply speedy delete the article. I rather suspect that the automated copyright tool highlighted the SC quote, and this raised its "percentage chance" significantly. I have observed in many pages tagged for g12 that the automated tool does not recognize and exclude text properly marked as a quotation. Userds need to allow for this.DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    The tool won't run on a delted article, so i cna't check what it might have said without doing an undelete. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I would favor a temp undelte, but perhaps there is a practice agaisnt doing so for an alleged G12. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if it's codified anywhere, but I'm personally reluctant to do it unless I'm completely convinced it's not a copyright problem. I mean, I did it yesterday, but only after confirming it was an error where the other source copied Wikipedia. WilyD 05:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Multiple admins, including myself, can't find even a prima facie case for copyright infringement here, but directing users to google caches is somehow preferable? No. I've temp undeleted. —Cryptic 12:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be unusual for there to be no record on the web of any version of a deleted article and Google presently obliges.[2] So if that is not infringing copyright then WP:G12 did not apply. Looking at the comparison presented above considering pagiarism, I disagree with the comment "may be a bit close, and perhaps should be reworded". It is not close and need not be reworded. Thincat (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Close paraphrasing is an issue I didn't really grok until Rlevse so dramatically illuminated it for us all. I'm delighted that there are Wikipedians patrolling for it because it's potentially a big issue on Wikipedia, which is rightly very source-oriented and so there's a temptation to follow the sources a little too closely. Well done to them! They're doing important work that I very much value.

    I have read the deleted article linked by Thincat above and compared it with the alleged source article and I don't see close paraphrasing. But, crucially, I can only see the one revision and I don't know how big the history is. It's important that all the revisions are checked.—S Marshall T/C 10:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes, any copyright-infringing versions should be deleted. But G12 only leads to article deletion if all versions are infringing. I understand that G12 article deletion might be used WP:IAR as an emergency measure, prior to a careful look but then such an investigation should then be started (and certainly not impeded) by the person placing the G12 or the deleting admin. Thincat (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
      • With reference to the preceding comment, I as deleting admin clearly have in no way impeded the process, although an editor who edited my talk page might perhaps be accused of doing so. In view of the significant expressed opinion here in favour of overturning my deletion, I raise no objection and make no argument against doing so. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Although I note what Thincat says, I think the sequence is important here. It would be significantly unfortunate if a copyright-violating revision were restored as a result of a DRV and therefore before the article could be restored, the restoring sysop would need to check that there are no copyvios in the history. I wouldn't want the G12 overturned until we had that assurance.—S Marshall T/C 11:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
        • @Anthony Bradbury: No, No, no, my apologies. Rather, I was regarding the edits made (not by you) to your talk page (diff and diff) as impeding discussion. Thincat (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • (Already made an overturn argument above; I am putting another post here so that it is next to S Marshall's) One way to go about this - if close paraphrasing is still a problem - would be to recreate the page with {{subst:copyvio|2=url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/question-heart-kahler-v-kansas/599497/}}, undeleting the previous history and open a WP:CP investigation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Now that Cryptic's restored the article history, I can see that the whole thing is clean. We aren't looking at a close paraphrasing issue here. Speedy close the DRV as overturn and restore. Michepman's behaviour in this demonstrates that he's in need of support and direction from a sysop, which should be pursued in another venue.—S Marshall T/C 13:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and restore The only copied text - which does appear to be copied from the Atlantic because of the "but..." (which ignored the "in Idaho") - is clearly not a copyright violation as others have noted. Should be restored. We will all miss sometimes at tagging copyvios, hopefully infrequently, but I'm concerned about the fact the user who tagged this as a copyvio doubled down at the DRV for not recongising their mistake. SportingFlyer T·C 15:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedily overturn and restore – G12 is for unambiguous copyright violation. Even if it was close paraphrasing (and I don't believe so), it's certainly not unambiguous. Also, count me among those who would appreciate it if an admin had a word with Michepman about tagging an article, repeatedly removing the author's posts from the deleting admin's talk page (with false accusations of harassment!) and an instruction to go to DRV, then arguing in the DRV that the author should have discussed it with the deleting admin first. What's unambiguous to me is that this is bad faith behavior that violates a number of our policies. I hope we don't see that again. Oh, and hats off to Omanlured for maintaining collegiality and patiently following the process through what must have been a very frustrating experience. Thanks for writing the article, Omanlured! Levivich 19:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Levivich:! I am just glad that the article is salvageable. When I was restricted from communicating to the admin directly, I started reading the deletion rules but was unsure of the nuances between "request for undeletion" and "deletion review"; I figured I had a 50/50 chance of choosing the right option haha Omanlured (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – "The judgement of the Administrator of Appeals is reversed and the article is restored for further editing consistent with this opinion." BenbowInn (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy overturn. Looking at Michepman's talk page, I think you can make a good case that this was a bad-faith nomination, though for what reason I can't fathom. There's clearly no copyright violation here. Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

3 December 2019Edit

Draft:NASLiteEdit

Draft:NASLite (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedy deletion: Lack of diligence alleging WP:G12 which I allege is incorrect and WP:G11 very dubious also ... especially given previous discussion and outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASLite which this overrules. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: Speedy actioner. Began began talking to me as I was prepping the during the DRV raise and kind of suggested its taken here anyway. As most of us are aware this speedy action gets through shedloads of speedies very well and effectively but is to some extent reliant upon the diligence of one who raised the speedy. It is also to be noted this is in draft space.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The log file identifies https://handwiki.org/wiki/NASLite as the G12 issue, and to quote that page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASLite was the original source" - so G12 seems to be obviously invalid. WilyD 13:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn- clearly the copying went the other way. Reyk YO! 13:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I've temporarily undeleted it so people can review whether G11 applies (or G12, I guess, though that appears already solved). WilyD 13:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The talk page should also have been checked and that should have had a link to the AfD discussion which should also have been checked ... (only a saint would likely bother to check it but thats whats its there for). I'd be surprised if this didn't survive "unambiuous" G11 (though one person's feature is another advert) ... one might have a concern G11 might be being used too readily in the draftspace used by the newbies? Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay - what? Are you suggesting the talk page needs to be temporarily undeleted to facilitate this discussion? WilyD 14:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
It would have a tiny purpose of checking the Template:Old XfD multi was on the talk page but it would likely impact the result of this DRV. Quite frankly the likely problem is the admin forgetting to restore the talk page in the likely event of an overturn! Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
There's only been the one AfD, which is mentioned in the listing here already. WilyD 05:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Slightly missing my very miniscule point I was trying to make ... had the previous AfD not been mentioned on the talk page there would have been less reason to WP:TROUT peoples for missing it ... it should have been mentioned on the talk page page and contribution forensics may have indicated it (haven't checked) ... and am I that perfect not to have missed such a thing ... probably not. Per say [3] XFcloser places :Template:Old Afd multi on the talk page and (actually have now checked contriubtions) and XFCloser was used but contributions actions on the deleted talk page are not visible but the placing of the Old AfD/XfD multi template on it can reasonably be assumed. Thankyou. Only a we point only and I think I've now satisified myself at least talk page was likely not given due diligence but that's a minor point but perhaps a lesson learned as they say. And now talk page retrieval not required as point otherwise made albeit somewhat disproportionately in the end.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Djm-leighpark. I confirm that the notice of a previous AfD and a link to that discussion was present on the talk page when that was deleted. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 07:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • OVERTURN speedy deletion. The "source" page says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASLite was the original source which makes it clear that this was a backwards copy, and disposes of the G12. The deleting admin should have caught that. As to G11, the tone is a bit promotional, but a simple rewrite would have dealt with that, and a recent AfD which could have been closed as keep, and was closed as move to draft suggest that multiple editors did not see this as too promotional, and thus not an uncontroversial deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn I closed the AfD with a move to draft result only a few hours before these were speedy deleted. The G12 claim is a non-issue for the reasons already cited here. My G11 assessment is identical to that of DES - not ideal but also not so flagrant that any AfD participant saw fit to comment on it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn, and Keep in Draft, as per User:Barkeep49 - The G12 was a good-faith error, but an error nonetheless because of the reverse copyvio. The G11 was clearly out of line, since there had already been an AFD. If this had been just a G11, I would say that the deleting admin had been grossly negligent. As it was, I will only say that the deleting admin was mistaken on the G12. Do not List or Relist or anything. The AFD was properly closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks: To be clear as DRV nom I'm not challenging the AfD outcome just suggesting return to draft. Thanks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not a good-faith error. A good-faith error is when, after due diligence, you end up making a reasonable, if incorrect, call. There's no way anybody who did due diligence on this would conclude G12 applied. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am sorry that I tagged a 13-year old page for speedy deletion based on assumptions. I thought that this page was a copyright violation from another website, but it turned out that the other website actually copied the information from the Wikipedia page. Thus, it is the other website that I described when putting the page up for speedy deletion that committed copyright infringement, not the page itself. Also, if a page may be written like an advertisement (but I am not sure) - I will tag the article as such rather than requesting deletion. For now, I will take a temporary Wikibreak from requesting deletion. Thanks! Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 19:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing your actions. To be clear the HandWiki was not a copyvio as it had good faith attributed content as coming from Wikipedia. I must admit I was slightly concerned in G11 is being used a tad too much in draft (not just you), and might be putting off a proportion of newbies where improved pathway tagging and educating might be better. But beyond the scope of this DRV.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment: When I will go back to requesting deletion (which will be when I am ready), I will not just look through draft articles. Instead, I will look through the creation log more generally and I will be more careful to make sure that articles are blatantly promotional before requesting G11. As I said before, any article that may be promotional (subtle promotion) will be tagged instead of deleted. Thanks! Train of Knowledge (Talk|Contribs) 07:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment to User:Train of Knowledge - In my opinion, you made two minor good-faith errors. The first was small, and was in the G12 tagging, which really was a complicated situation, because it was a reverse copyvio. The second was medium-sized, and that was the G11. You shouldn't have tagged it for G11 if it had been recently through AFD. The larger error, which was still a good-faith error, in both cases was by the deleting administrator. So don't worry, but look at the history before tagging things, and know that you are the first line of protection of the encyclopedia from crud, with the admin being second. So don't worry. You didn't do anything wrong, just made a mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and keep in draft space - I don't think it would pass another AfD yet, but it's not promotional and the G12 was a clear flop which should have been easily identified by the deleting user. SportingFlyer T·C 07:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and trout. That WP:G12 doesn't apply should be blatantly obvious. The page cited as the copyvio source says, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASLite was the original source., although it should take anybody about 2 seconds to identify this as a likely wikipedia mirror from first glance. I don't think this is a great article, and probably wouldn't get past AfD in its current state, but it's far from a WP:G11 candidate. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn Lightburst (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pile on overturn. Neither criterion was valid; the "source" wasn't the creator of the content (as others have pointed out), and the draft would not need a fundamental rewrite to be non-promotional. Glades12 (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

List of Forgotten Realms deitiesEdit

List of Forgotten Realms deities (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The sourcing for Deities in the Forgotten Realms satisfies WP:LISTN and the closer may have too narrowly construed the text of this guideline. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm involved as I !voted, but did you discuss this with the AfD closer before coming here? I was curious what they had to say and can't find the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 10:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, I've only recently begun participating in AfD discussion and this is the first one that I am nominating for review. I posted the suggested template notification to the closer's talk page. Insofar as the closer did not appear to address WP:LISTN in the close I posted here. Typically, how often does a closer reverse a decision based on a talk page discussion? And if so, how often is the article renominated? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @AugusteBlanqui: Upon closer inspection, it's not a requirement (I thought it was? Question for elsewhere: should this be a policy discussion to make it mandatory?), but it's highly recommended, as it gives the closer a chance to review their close and potentially explain themselves further. Reversal's unlikely if the closer considers the close was proper, but the goal is to avoid a needless DRV. Renomination depends on how the article is ultimately closed and the essay WP:RENOM and is separate from the DRV process. Hope that helps, happy to answer any other procedural questions you might have. SportingFlyer T·C 11:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The longstanding consensus is that it should not be compulsory to approach the closer before listing a DRV. Firstly because some editors, and particularly those who're unfamiliar with Wikipedia, find sysops intimidating and that's a disincentive to get decisions reviewed or explained; and secondly because as a matter of principle, the person who made the call shouldn't be the gatekeeper for a discussion about whether they made the right call.—S Marshall T/C 12:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • endorse- Should have been closed as delete even before the relist because there were literally no arguments made for keeping. The usual "keepormerge" without explanation, "it's got blue links", and "It's valid" are not arguments and were quite rightly given no weight. Reyk YO! 11:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • question Is it incumbent on the closer to assess the original nomination or just the arguments for keep? If only the latter, doesn't nominating articles for deletion potentially create a lot of work for "keep" editors particularly if the original nomination was specious? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • That's something you should have asked the closing administrator before bringing it here. But generally yes, the closing admin should take into account all the opinions in the discussion. In this case it was clear that the delete !voters made better arguments. Reyk YO! 11:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Sigh. An AfD where the "keep" side failed to express their only strong argument. This was a navigational list that clearly satisfies WP:CLN. In other words, because you can have Category:Forgotten Realms deities, per policy you can have a list that duplicates it. But this wasn't said. The close was in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus was wrong on policy; therefore the correct DRV outcome is relist as a defective discussion.—S Marshall T/C 12:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Where in there does it say a category necessitates a list? It seems to simply to defend the idea that you shouldn't delete a list on the argument it has a category and vice versa. I don't think anyone put forth that argument, and consensus can otherwise say a list is unneeded per that page. The category is also on its way out, having been gutted to I believe literally a tenth of its former size. It will be gone shortly. TTN (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It will? Is there some sort of campaign or crusade going on?—S Marshall T/C 12:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • For several months across numerous fictional universes, among several editors, clearly yes. BOZ (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There are so many D&D articles currently up for deletion that it can be difficult for editors to find the time to make detailed keep arguments, or to improve the existing article. For example, a legitimate article could be fancruft-contamninated. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Or maybe the majority of the articles simply aren't notable. It's not impossible for a potential notable article to be overlooked, but I'd doubt that's the case. Maybe if a certain group of people actually took heed to the concerns from 2014 and made any attempt to actually fix their space... TTN (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The above editors are contending that you're creating so many AfDs that you're overwhelming our normal deletion processes. I've just checked a random sample of the recent AfD logs and I feel there does appear to be a high proportion of deletion discussions about role-playing games, which to me implies that what we actually need is an RfC to create clear principles governing the whole topic area. Personally my feeling is that beating up the D&D nerds is a mistake. Fictional topic fandom is a major source of new editors for the project, and I think that the shrinking number of Wikipedians is a bit of a concern. In any case they aren't doing any harm. Perhaps this deletionist zeal might be better aimed at poorly-sourced BLPs?—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I personally stopped at the request of someone wanting to clean up the space, but I am fairly doubtful on the completion of that campaign regardless. But I'll still participate in those started by others. The largest problem in them being against these is that they've had well over a decade to attend to these, and the majority of these are just outright not notable. Complaining that one or two may be overlooked is pointless when they could just be brought back after sources are provided. TTN (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I've temporarily undeleted the article to facilitate this discussion. WilyD 12:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I can neither see in the discussion, nor discover on my own, why this is supposed to pass WP:LISTN. Is that elucidated anywhere? WilyD 12:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It's a navigational list. It passes NOTDUP rather than LISTN.—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm giving that argument some thought. But the nominate here asserted it passed WP:LISTN, which I don't see at all, which is why I'm asking. WilyD 12:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, now that the article has been tempundeleted and I can see what it was actually like, I have to say that the argument that the list is navigational is... not convincing. For a navigational list there sure is a lot of unsourced plot summary of redlinked or nonlinked entries. At best this is a crufty fandump cunningly disguised to look navigational. Reyk YO! 12:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • So we'd delete this list and then create a navigational one in this space?—S Marshall T/C 17:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see the point of making a navigational list in its place, actually. A purely navigational list would be useless but also pretty harmless. But keeping the edit history of this one in place would be a bad idea since in my experience the D&D fans sometimes like to sneak back when nobody's watching to restore, for instance, crufty articles that have been converted to redirects. Reyk YO! 18:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist per the suggestion of S Marshall. I think there may be some room to reconsider for a Keep, but perhaps more importantly I suggested a smerge to the main parent article and at least two editors said that was worth exploring, but the closer did mention taking that into account in their close, so that is another possible outcome. BOZ (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I don't think S Marshall's argument applies here. If this had been a straight delete on the basis of the category existing, that would be a pertinent argument, but the very page he links to says that "At the same time, there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia." Otherwise, there was no strong evidence of passing list notability or establishing the article as a proper fork. TTN (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn or Relist. The closure seems a bit like a supervote and does not tally with the opinions expressed in the discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • What policy/guideline based opinions were ignored? Your contribution is literally "it's important." TTN (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn A list article is valid if it aids in navigation, that one of the purposes a list article can have. Claiming my argument, that it had a lot of blue links to other articles, is invalid because some of those links are now redirects are at AFD, is wrong since the closer didn't click on all the blue links, otherwise they would've found that not all of them are up for deletion, and even those who are might not be deleted. The list shouldn't be nominated unless all the things linked to have already been deleted. I have gone through Category:Forgotten Realms deities and erased all the categories on the pages that were just redirects. This helps identify which of the blue links in the article link to actual articles and not redirects. Note that most of those left are not being nominated for deletion. It is a supervote to ignore all those who gave valid reasons for keeping it. Dream Focus 13:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    Update: Some of those in the list article that are valid blue links are not listed in this one category but instead Category:Dungeons & Dragons deities. If there is a bot that can just take every link on that list and then say which ones are redirects and which ones are not, that'd be helpful. At any rate, there are enough valid links easily verified in the first category to justify the list. Dream Focus 13:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment/analysis as AfD closer As for the bluelink !keep vote, of the 282 bullet-point deities, 138 (49%) were linked, and of these only 30 (10% of total) were actual articles (i.e. not redirects) and not up for AfD at the same time. At the rate that Forgotten Realms currently experiences AfDs, I expect(ed) hardly any stand-alone article to survive. On my perusal of the List before deletion, all references either only proved the existence of individual fictional deities or in-universe info about them (WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:PRIMARY WP:PLOT, as noted by delete !voters), which in my eyes means WP:NOTABILITY is not satisfied. In my closing notes, I solely focused on why I therefore discounted the keep !votes, leaving the delete recommendations speak for themselves. I have no vested interest in this AfD or the list itself, so go ahead and do what you need to do with this AfD/List. – sgeureka tc 14:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • comment On the one hand WP:CLN validates a list with blue links/categories; on the other hand WP:LISTN potentially validates a list without blue links (disputes will come down sources) so it seems like a list that addresses both (one perhaps more than the other) is a useful contribution to Wikipedia. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The only thing CLN does is says that lists/categories can coexist, and that it's seen as a beneficial on a general basis. It's not an argument that a page should/needs to exist because a category exists. As per the quote I posted above, consensus can say that a list is unnecessary. Though if we want to do a bare-bones, blue link only list that can nominated again if/when the category is deleted, I'd be fine with that as a compromise. TTN (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:CLN seems like a "no brainer" for keeping a list article and I suppose the argument will come down to how many articles justify a category. Regarding WP:LISTN, when I review WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and consider the ubiquity of D&D content (deities, monsters, settings, character classes, and more) in popular culture then I still consider there is a valid argument to be made for this (and similar list articles) whether or not a category exists.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Endorse and Yuck. I would have !voted to Keep the list, but I didn't take part in the discussion. I would have closed the discussion as No Consensus, but I am not an administrator. However, the appellant appears to be re-litigating, not arguing any error by the closer, and I don't see an argument that Delete is an obvious error. So Weak Endorse. I don't know what the basis of this appeal is. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Most of this discussion seems to be re-litigation of the AfD, with four of the seven distinct !voters so far having participated in the discussion. I'm not explicitly voting as I also participated and I agree with the close, but I don't see why delete would have been an invalid conclusion here. SportingFlyer T·C 03:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I voted keep in the AFD discussion on this article. I wasn't aware of the WP:CLN policy per User:S Marshall above), or I would have referenced it directly, but I believe I tried to put forward the spirit of that policy by the argument I supplied in the discussion. I went back and had another look at the article pre-deletion, and for the most part it is simply a list of, exactly as it says, the various fictional deities in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, and I would agree that the vast majority, if not all of them, are not independently notable. However, they are all perfectly valid search terms which would lead an interested user to the Forgotten Realms campaign setting. I would consider that to be inherently notable; it's huge, it's been written about and played in for somewhere close on 30 years, and (I checked) it contains significant coverage in secondary, independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Could this list be reproduced there? Yes, presumably - but it would unnecessarily clutter the article. Could you redirect the individual names to the Forgotten Realms article? Yes - but you'd lose the context, unless you incorporated the list again. As such, my argument is that this is a subelement of the Forgotten Realms setting which is large enough in and of itself to justify a separate list article, per WP:LISTPURP. If there's a problem with the content of that article, fine - edit it. I'm not necessarily convinced that any individual entry in the list needs more than a single line anyway - but I am convinced that it should not be summarily deleted. (Also - thanks to User:AugusteBlanqui for bringing this to deletion review.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn or Relist. The closure is a supervote. The assessment of the AfD participants !votes was not correct. Lightburst (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Additional Comment: I concur with and support User:S Marshall's suggestion of an RFC on the topic of role-playing games, and suggest it be extended to fiction in general. The multiple failures of this project to produce usable guidelines for writing articles about fiction are at the core of the arguments to delete (and save) articles like this one.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's vast range of guidelines and essays about notability as it applies to fictional topics is akin to scripture, in that somewhere in the labyrinthine mess of rules, you can find support for almost any position. This has come about because editors simply can't agree about how notability applies to fictional topics. It means that any RfC on fictional topics in general will inevitably lead to a "no consensus" outcome. But it might be possible to get consensus on how best to deal with role-playing games. With RfCs, the more specific the topic the better the outcome.—S Marshall T/C 12:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse – There was nothing wrong with this close. NOTAVOTE, but just on the numbers, there were 6 delete !votes, 4 keep !votes, one "keep or merge", and one "selective merge"–that's almost 2:1 against keeping (7:4). Numerically, the deletes have it, before considering the discounting of any !votes. If you consider the arguments on either side equally-strong, then there is consensus to delete. I see no reason to consider keep arguments to be so strong that they should outweigh the delete arguments. So, the closer accurately judged consensus to delete here. If an RfC were held, maybe the list could be recreated in a form that complies with the RfC and CLN. Levivich 20:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

2 December 2019Edit

Protests of 2019Edit

Protests of 2019 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Articles for Deletion discussion was closed as no consensus (and thus kept) with a untrue and inaccurate closing statement on the basis of a so-called 50:50 split headcount (it was actually 8 delete with 1 merge vs 4 keep votes). Beside that, I feel no proper weight was given to the arguments with consideration of reviewing the sources used. Discussion with the closing admin is HERE (started by another user) for further info, which is not much responded to. I suggest an overturn. Cold Season (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be invoking point 1 if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly - but Ritchie333 explains that the 50:50 split was metaphorical. For a !vote, what counts is arguments, not pure numbers of !votes. The lead of the present version shows that prominent journalists and academics at reputable universities in both the English-speaking and French-speaking world claim that the Protests of 2019 are a topic of human knowledge. Some of the deletion discussion participants - Wikipedians - disagree with those external sources. An argument one way (pro-deletion) is that it is WP:OR to agree with the sources; the opposite argument (pro-keep) is that it is is WP:OR to disagree with the external sources. Surely we can agree that Ritchie333 has accurately summarised our lack of agreement on this point?
My worry is that this falls under point 5 of arguments that don't justify a deletion review: to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion. Boud (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse, with the disclaimer that I'm one of the main editors of the article (not the creator!); and I've been an active participant in the AfD. Boud (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer that there was no consensus either to delete or to keep. I am assuming that the appellant wants the close changed to Delete, but it doesn't matter, because No Consensus is valid. If there is disagreement about the wording used by the closer, it isn't worth the argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse I understand the frustration of the nominator as I would have likely !voted delete in this AfD on OR/SYNTH grounds, and I think delete would have been a stronger close here, but multiple closes can be valid in a discussion and no consensus was a valid close here. This was especially outlined by the discussion on Ritchie333's talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 02:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse On the "keep" side we have DGG (not exactly unknown for making good arguments to delete) saying "(BBC, The Independent, The Guardian) all talk specifically about he connections between the protests. That's enough evidence for a genuine topic" while on the "delete" side we have "Fake news!" Although this is cherry picking, it does easily demonstrate that you cannot close an AfD on numbers alone. This reminds me of the time somebody complained about me advocating violence after I said "DYK should be taken outside and shot". Good grief. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn to Keep - the delete arguments consist entirely of variants of "I don't like it" or factually incorrect assertion that it's OR not based on the sources (any examination of the sources will reveal this to be false, which DGG pointed out fairly early on). The keep If there are bits of OR in the article, they can be pruned (as with any article). Note that the discussion was advertised here and possibly other places, making a straight headcount particularly dubious (and of course, I'm always suspicious of discussions where a factually incorrect argument gets repeated, as it was here). WilyD 09:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. XfD isn't a vote. In this case, each side had equally strong arguments, and thus, there is no consensus. InvalidOS (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse on the basis that the closer weighed the strength of the arguments, and did not count the votes (!votes). This is as it should be. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse the numbers are weighted towards deletion but not massively so and several of the Delete comments don't state valid arguments at all. The main question in that debate was whether the sources cover the subject as a coherent topic, opinion was pretty split on that question and neither side had a knockdown argument. A no consensus close reflects that. Hut 8.5 21:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse You shouldn't waste time with deletion review just because you didn't get the result you wanted. Nothing wrong with the close here. Dream Focus 23:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse Most of the delete !votes were simply nonsense and may have resulted from WP:CANVAS or other inappropriate motives. I'm sympathetic with the argument from WilyD that it should be overturned to keep, but ultimately I consider it a waste of time to discuss whether it should have been closed as no consensus or keep, as the effect of either is the same, and will not do so. If we discount the nonsense !votes, consensus clearly wasn't to delete. Smartyllama (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse I opened the AfD, and questioned Ritchie on the close. See, I agree with his explanation. Though there were more delete!votes, many of them were a standard "delete per X" - and the same goes for the keep!votes. This ultimately means that there was effectively one argument for each side. Though I do feel some of the comments attached to votes (see: "fake news!") were made with the belief that no more needed to be said on the matter when it looked quite SNOW, we can easily open another deletion discussion, because, yes, my concerns about OR and SYNTH have not been assuaged by new sources - but that is not an argument to challenge a close, so I do not think there is much to argue on the close front, Ritchie's reason made sense. Kingsif (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse Lightburst (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse-ish - I think the close was a fair assessment of the consensus at the time of the close, even though I would have preferred a re-list to get closer to a better consensus. It's perfectly acceptable to re-nom this article in the new year (e.g., next summer) if no-one is talking about these protests as linked then on possible grounds of it failing WP:LASTING. I think, for a supposed year-long event, if no-one is talking about them in following years then the impact was clearly not lasting, and I expect that this will likely actually be the case. FOARP (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Ryszard WalkiewiczEdit

Ryszard Walkiewicz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is the reverse situation from the recently closed Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_November_20 Ernesto Alcati DRV, where consensus was clear a historical article with potential non-English which passed a sports SNG should be kept even though WP:GNG had not been definitively established. As I noted in that DRV, whether WP:GNG was met was not disproved by any of the delete !voters. Here, consensus to keep this article about a Polish footballer from the 1950s was even stronger, as Mr. Walkiewicz did make several appearances in modern sources, and whether WP:GNG was met was not disproved by any of the delete !voters. The closer applied their own interpretation of policy, which was that none of the keep !voters demonstrated WP:GNG was met, see here for the response. This misinterpreted my !vote. As I noted in my vote, we delete articles which meet the footy/sports SNG when it is clear the presumption that WP:GNG-qualifying coverage exists has been overcome. This is very easy to do with current players, but as I noted in my !vote, we cannot tell if he passes WP:GNG without looking at contemporaneous sources. This is nearly impossible for me to do given the era and the language, but the !votes which mentioned this difficulty were discounted by the closer for not demonstrating any sources where the presumption was challenged. None of the delete !voters performed a search either, and the nominator did not mention WP:GNG. Furthermore, the article itself was perfectly fine, with a number of distinct albeit short mentions in modern sources. For examples of a situation where historical articles have failed the WP:GNG presumption, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Adams (1920s footballer) SportingFlyer T·C 11:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Endorse - I am the closing admin for this AfD. The key point here from the statement above is we cannot tell if he passes WP:GNG. I'm not sure where the accusations that None of the delete !voters performed a search. This seems to be completely unfounded. Furthermore whilst the article did contain a number of distinct albeit short mentions in modern sources, these were either in primary sources or were mentions by name, and little to nothing else, certainly nothing to satisfy GNG. Finally to then list examples where articles have been kept despite not demonstrating GNG seems to strange, WP:NFOOTY, as part of WP:NSPORT is merely a presumption of GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT is quite clear on the sourcing required under the presumptions of the various SNGs within NSPORT.
To add further clarity on me deletion decision, the below as from my own talk page outlining my assessment of the keep votes and why I felt that their strength was so weak as to not support a keep conclusion:
Let's review the keep votes, so you can be in no doubt about my conclusions regarding the weakness of these:
  1. Sporting Flyer - keep vote that does not cite any sources to support GNG. Vote actually acknowledges inability to find sources. Singularly fails to deal with the challenge put in place that the presumption of GNG is not met.
  2. Lightburst - again just a "meets NFOOTY" keep vote, no attempt to deal with GNG. No sources cited to indicate GNG in this instance.
  3. Nfitz - again just a "meets NFOOTY" keep vote, no attempt to deal with GNG. No sources cited to indicate GNG in this instance
  4. OLLSZCZ - a discussion of GNG, but not in any real way to address the subject, just a theoretical conversation on the nature of GNG which adds nothing to this specific discussion. No sources cited to indicate GNG in this instance.
  5. Alexh - no policy cited. In fact the statement that this player was playing in a non-professional period seems to indicate NFOOTY failure, let alone GNG.
  6. Smartyllama - statement of passing GNG but no attempt to support this with any sources. No engagement when challenged.
To reiterate for the third time, NFOOTY is not a guarantee of notability, it is a presumption. This was challenged and even though the AfD was relisted twice, nothing was presented which even begun to support GNG. This should be unsurprising to almost everyone as the player played only a very small number of games, so I am not sure what sources editors would expect to see to support GNG for someone who had such a minor impact on the game. Fenix down (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I explicitly rebutted the nominator's presumption that the SNG should be higher than just one game, even though that's clearly what WP:NFOOTY says. The nominator did not discuss WP:GNG at all, or even if they had performed any sort of WP:BEFORE search. I also explicitly noted WP:GNG is difficult to determine for this article as he's noted in several modern sources, but not substantially. I could only find digitised Polish newspapers online through the early 1930s. My point, as it stood in the AfD, is that it's very difficult to determine whether he meets WP:GNG, and we give the benefit of the doubt - the presumption, as you will - to non-BLPs who meet SNGs from outside the English-speaking world when WP:NEXIST isn't disproven (especially in light of the fact he has been mentioned in modern sources), and I've noted a recent DRV where no consensus existed on this exact point. This viewpoint should not have been discarded. SportingFlyer T·C 12:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse- there seems to be a misconception that meeting an SNG permanently exempts the subject from the usual sourcing requirements. That is not so. It's merely a rebuttable presumption that the subject meets the GNG-- when challenged, you do actually have to come up with the sources. And it's no use reversing the burden of proof by trying to claim that people who looked for sources and couldn't find any have an obligation to prove they actually looked. Good close. As for a good way to proceed from here, generally the best thing to do with sportsperson stubs amounting to only statistical entries and no biographical information, is to merge them into a suitable List of XYZ footballers or the like. Reyk YO! 12:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I just want to make clear I'm not trying to get this article "exempted from sourcing requirements forever" because it meets a SNG. The fact the player has been mentioned by modern historians makes it likely there's contemporaneous sources from the 1950s in Poland, but nobody in the discussion has access to those sources. If someone had been able to search those sources and yielded nothing, that's a clear delete. As it stands, we're deleting a valid article because the sources about him on the internet don't rise to our modern standards, even though there's enough modern sources to write a valid stub. SportingFlyer T·C 13:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • That might not be the intention, but it would certainly be the effect. The AfD was open for three weeks. That should be enough time to procure sources if they actually exist. If that's not long enough, how long would you suggest? Three months? Three years? An indefinitely prolonged exemption from WP:V and WP:GNG might as well be a permanent one. Reyk YO! 14:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • What are you suggesting I do, learn Polish and raise money for a trip to search the Warsaw library to definitively prove or disprove this person's notability? I've tried to find newspaper archives to search from the time period online and haven't been able to search, and I don't know Polish anyways. The subject has been mentioned in five modern online sources, WP:V is met, the SNG is met, the only thing we don't have is a definitive answer on whether he's notable because of his era and the part of the world he came from, but the consensus acknowledged this and still voted to keep. This is an edge case just like Alcati last week, and typically in edge cases, we've defaulted to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 15:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm writing too much on this, so I'm unwatching this discussion. Please ping me if you have any further questions or responses. SportingFlyer T·C 15:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The article was sourced - why say otherwise? Personally, I didn't over those weeks spend hours trying to research further, as it seemed clear that there wasn't the consensus to delete during the discussion. Nfitz (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse (!voted delete in AfD) – this player played in one professional game. There are no GNG sources. That's a delete. It doesn't matter how many editors !vote "Keep, meets NFOOTY", all those !votes get discounted, because they ignore WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. In response to SF's question above, "What are you suggesting I do, learn Polish and raise money for a trip to search the Warsaw library to definitively prove or disprove this person's notability?" I would say what we're supposed to do is delete this article. Obviously it's not worth a trip to Warsaw to investigate a player who played in one professional game. These barely-pass-NFOOTY-but-no-GNG articles are routinely deleted at AfDs (and "NFOOTY keeps" are routinely discounted), so I'm not sure why this article is different and worth DRVing. There were two relists by two admins, each of whom noted that GNG wasn't being addressed by keep !voters. I'm not sure how this could have gone any other way, given the extremely, abundantly clear guidance at WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and the FAQ at WT:ATHLETE, that meeting the SNG but not meeting GNG = delete. I really, really don't understand why some editors !vote to keep articles about football players that played in one game about whom there is no sourcing to be found. Why is it so important to give every damn footballer their very own page in the encyclopedia? I don't get it. Levivich 15:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment My recollection was there were several sources in the article. However the article isn't visible. Can it be made so, for the purposes of this discussion? Nfitz (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Support request for temp undeletion as always, but going off of this mirror, there were five refs in the article. Two were statistics websites [4] [5], two were just his name in a list of players [6] [7], and the fifth [8] had one sentence about the subject, "Gdzieś z Trójmiasta przyszedł Ryszard Walkiewicz", which translates to "Ryszard Walkiewicz came from somewhere in the Tri-City", and that's it. None came even close to being WP:SIGCOV. Levivich 17:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn Consensus was clearly to keep at the AfD. DRV is not supposed to be a rehashing of AfD arguments. The question is did the closer judge consensus correctly, and the answer is clearly no. If the closer disagreed with the consensus, they should have !voted. Smartyllama (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    Above editor !voted keep in the AfD. Levivich 17:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn to No Consensus. I disagree with User:Smartyllama in that I don't see a consensus to Keep, but I don't see a consensus for anything. In particular, I don't see a consensus that GNG wasn't met. I see a lack of consensus that GNG was met, but Delete requires a rough consensus to Delete, which isn't there. I respectfully disagree with the endorsers, because I think that they are relitigating, and are saying that GNG wasn't met. That isn't the question, which is whether there was a consensus on GNG, which there wasn't, either way. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus - exactly how in depth sources need to be is somewhat subjective, and there's no consensus in the discussion whether they're adequate or not here (and really, when we're looking at the kind of records you get with sports, this is a common source of non-consensus). If you ever thing your close is being bold, you really need to be confident you're synthesising the discussion into an outcome everyone can live with; not just choosing one side you personally find more convincing. WilyD 08:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion (and I !voted 'delete' at the AFD) - good close, GNG clearly not met which is well0established as being more important than passing WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn to Keepno consensus. Much of the discussion above is rehashing the AFD, not looking at the closure. I feel review of the keeps above, misrepresents my keep discussion, falsely claiming that I just said "meets NFOOTY", and ignoring my discussion of GNG. Consensus in the closure is that WP:NFOOTBALL was met. The article was nominated on the basis it didn't mean WP:NFOOTBALL with no mention of GNG. Only two people endorsed deletion, with the first also claiming that WP:NFOOTBALL wasn't met, and making the first mention of GNG, but not giving any indication why GNG wasn't met; the second concludes that WP:NFOOTBALL was met, but says that GNG wasn't met, with no indication what they looked at to conclude that. There's a lot of time necessary to search for foreign-language sources from a player active almost 70 years ago - personally, I never even started to do that, because I never saw any consensus to delete the article, and there are sources in the article to meet any WP:V,WP:RS, WP:BLP, or WP:NOR concerns. Nfitz (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Changing from Overturn to no consensus to Overturn to keep. Dream Focus makes a good point below, and several Keep votes were clear that subject specific guidelines were met. Nfitz (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, could someone just explain to me which one of those sources is meant to be reliable?—S Marshall T/C 17:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not about rehashing the arguments at AfD. Many people here don't seem to get that. The question for this DRV is not which sources are reliable, it's whether the closer correctly judged consensus. That is the only question that people here should consider, and I'd encourage whoever closes this DRV to disregard other opinions. Smartyllama (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • We're supposed to judge whether the closer correctly applied policy. In order to help me do that, I'd just like to ask: which one of those sources is meant to be reliable?—S Marshall T/C 18:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any discussion in the AFD that any commentators expressed concerns about the reliability of the sources - nor was it mentioned in the closing statement. If that's a real concern, then there's no prejudice against a future AFD (or even relisting) - it doesn't validate the closure as being correct. Nfitz (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. A badly-sourced biography, rightly deleted.—S Marshall T/C 21:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus I think that close crosses the line between reading the consensus and taking part in the discussion. Subject-specific notability guidelines such as NFOOTBALL are supposed to create a presumption of notability, and WP:N makes it clear that topics shouldn't be deleted on notability grounds if sources are likely to exist, and that notability is based on the existence of sources rather than the current state of the sourcing. It is reasonable for the Keep proponents to rely on NFOOTBALL as creating a presumption of notability. It is a notability guideline, after all. Whether it should be a notability guideline is a separate question that isn't for an AfD to decide. Determining whether the subject here actually does meet the GNG would require searching of 1950s Polish sources, and there wasn't any indication that anybody had tried this. Hut 8.5 22:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn WP:NOTABILITY clearly states an article is notable if it passes the GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines. It has never had to do both. The subject specific guidelines would not exist if the GNG had to be passed no matter what. If most people believe the article passed the appropriate subject specific guideline, then it should've been closed as KEEP. This is clearly a supervote. Dream Focus 23:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - this completely incorrect, NSPORT is very clear that the standards in each SNG are mere presumptions of GNG. Specifically WP:SPORTCRIT is key here and clearly states A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject. Passing an SNG is merely a presumption of notability. Wider GNG still needs to be shown, especially when challenged and we were not even close in this AFD. Fenix down (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The word "presumed" on the notability page links to Rebuttable presumption. You are assuming the presumption has been rebutted because no one demonstrated sources, but it hasn't. You noted here that "if you can't find sources, you shouldn't be voting keep," which I strongly disagree with in this instance. As an example, if this were a Polish politician stub from the 1950s that passed WP:NPOL and WP:V from modern sources but not quite WP:GNG because 1950s sources are difficult to find, the presumption the politician is notable hasn't been disproven if nobody does a source search at AfD. I also admit it's rather rare to be in a position where you can't search for sources, which makes the consensus of the AfD even more important. SportingFlyer T·C 11:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This is incorrect. In your example above, WP:BASIC, clearly noted at the start of WP:NBIO, is key, you can't just ignore it and jump to a later section that is clearly governed by an earlier one. Furthermore, per WP:NRV, Notability requires verifiable evidence. If you can't present sources to verify notability then the subject is not notable. It is not up to editors to prove a negative. Fenix down (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The closer did not correctly assess the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Dream Focus, who has given us a correct explanation of the notability policy. Lepricavark (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus as the closer did not accurately assess the debate.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse Because the closing admin properly weighted Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ which says that none of the topic-specific notability guidelines (WP:NFOOTY) described on that page replace the general notability guideline. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
That fails to note that the same FAQ (Q1) then goes on to note that "They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them" - and given the time to fly to Warsaw and search 1950s newspapers, we would suspect to find additional soruces. The page also notes that "These FAQ answers reflect the decisions found in the talk page archives. Please feel free to change them in light of new discussion.". Nfitz (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll note that this is the only endorse !vote so far that actually commented on whether the closer judged consensus properly rather than simply rehashing the arguments at AfD. I agree with Nfitz's rebuttal, but at least you used DRV for its proper purpose. I hope the closer treats the endorses with appropriate weight. Smartyllama (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – If a player played 50 years ago, editors vote "keep, meets NFOOTY" and argue for an "inaccessible sources" exception to GNG as they are doing here. But if a player is playing today, editors vote "keep, meets NFOOTY" and argue for a "young and ongoing" exception to GNG, as they just did there. They just want a stand alone page about every pro footballer, period, end of story, secondary sourcing be damned. Arguments that meeting an SNG is sufficient ignores all of our notability guidelines-GNG, NBIO, ATH, etc. If a closer isn't allowed to discount such votes, that ignores NOTAVOTE and turns Footy AfDs into a mere head count. The argument that playing in one game means we can "presume" there will be sources is complete BS, we all know it, and it's been shown to be false in AfDs time and time again. Has there ever been a one-game player who been shown to meet GNG? So long as editors are allowed to put forward statistics websites and suggest they count for notability, or vote keep just because a player meets nfooty by having played in one game (or two)—and closers aren’t allowed to discount such votes—then Footy AfDs will be a completely pointless exercise. Levivich 13:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  •   Note: @Levivich: As Dream focus has stated: The subject specific guidelines would not exist if the GNG had to be passed no matter what. Professional athletes are known for their participation in competitive professional sport. They are not un-notable because they have not generated press. SNG is a hurdle which has been cleared and the majority of editors have stated this in the AfD. In any event we are here because the XfD closer has rejected the will of the many editors who have participated in the AfD - we have an actual policy which was ignored WP:CONSENSUS. The article can be nominated over and over again, but in this case, the closer incorrectly gave the article the death penalty. Closer claimed I'm going to be bold and close this as delete. It is ok to be bold, but it is not ok to go against our very clear policies. Lightburst (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    This is absolute nonsense, WP:SPORTCRIT is quite clear what is required, as I have already noted above, namely: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. An SNG is a presumption that at a certain level players will have achieved sufficient success that the level of coverage they have received will satisfy WP:SPORTCRIT, it is not a substitute in any way for GNG. This is further supported by the statement in the Applicable policies and guidelines section of NSPORT, which says categorically that: the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. If this cannot be shown then the player is not notable. We absolutely do not assume notability on the basis that sources must exist. Fenix down (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Precisely - it says "should".; it doesn't say "must", and allows us to apply WP:COMMONSENSE in these rarer cases. Meanwhile WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators says "Administrators must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached". I'm not convinced that the closing was impartial, and correctly judged the rough consensus. Nfitz (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    That's just semantics. WP:NRV is clear: there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. There's no wiggle room there, if you cant show sources demonstrating notability the subject isn't notable. In that sense "should" equates to "must". Fenix down (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    NRV never becomes applicable - at the top of that page (WP:N} it says "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". N is met through the path to the right, not the path below. Nfitz (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    You're also cherry-picking your quotes from WP:DGFA. You have ignored the statements, Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability [specific section chosen by me for emphasis]...) These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. Basically, if you can't show sources exits to support notability, it doesn't matter howm many "keep, meets SNG" votes there are, they count for nothing. Fenix down (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    You cherry picked the consensus - above you described the keep votes, choosing to ignore all the bits that defied your biased opinion that the article should be deleted. You then cherry picked the delete votes to ignore that 2 of the 3 deletes (including the nomination) falsely argued that NFOOTBALL wasn't met! The only valid delete in the debate, simply said "a bare NFOOTY pass (like one game) is not a reason to keep an article when there's a total failure of GNG". That you find a strong argument there, given all the counter-points, easily demonstrates that you failed to be impartial - invalidating the close! And not for the first time either, looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Khalvan. Nfitz (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
On the contrary, as noted above I did what was required and assessed the strength of the arguments. Now there may end up being consensus here that my assessment was wrong and that's fine, but that's completely different from cherry picking. Fenix down (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Lightburst: There are no "very clear policies" about this. Strictly, there are no policies at all. WP:N is a guideline. Generally, the fundamental question is: can an article be kept at AfD if it's only shown to meet an SNG, but not shown to meet GNG? Some say yes, some say no. I think the existing guidelines, including WP:N, NBIO and ATH, and the ATH FAQ, are clear that the answer is no. I think our policies NOR and V are clear that articles must have secondary sources. But there are like 5–10 editors who are regular NFOOTY AfD voters who disagree, at least in part–who feel that, under certain circumstances, an article can be kept even without any GNG sources. I'm on the other end of the spectrum: I would have us speedily delete any article that doesn't have two arguably-GNG-satisfying sources, because I think verification is the most important thing, and much more important than broadness or completeness. I wonder if it's time for an RfC.
      Specifically, as it relates to this DRV, the question is: can a closer discount !votes that do not address GNG? Can a closer discount !votes that assert GNG is met but do not provide any sources as evidence? I think the answer to both is yes. Levivich 17:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @Levivich: Ah... the five pillars. referring to WP:5P5. I was referring to WP:CONSENSUS This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. the XfD closer ignored in favor of their own bold delete. That is why we are here. Again apply the actual policy of consensus to this deletion review - the closer ignored the different interpretations of GNG SNG and cast a WP:SUPERVOTE more accurately a Consensus-reversal supervote which says... There are several varieties of supervote, all of them problematic except the last one:. (by the way this closer's supervote is the first one) Should the closer of this review also go Bold and ignore the actual wp:consensus policy? Lightburst (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        • @LB: All bold emphasis is mine. The WP:CONSENSUS policy says:
          1. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
          2. A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised.
          3. Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
          4. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
        The WP:DGFA guideline says:
        1. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.
        2. Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions.
        Put that together, and I see a policy and guideline that strongly support the notion that if a topic cannot be properly sourced, !votes to keep can be discounted by a closer, and no WikiProject can make an exception for itself. At the top of this DRV, the closer indicated six !votes that he discounted for being contra to PAGs, because they were arguing to keep an article based on the topic passing an SNG, even where there were no GNG sources to be found. I think that's a valid weighting of !votes per the CONSENSUS policy and DGFA, N, NBIO, and ATH guidelines. Levivich 18:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Levivich: I understand your point here. What about your other point? There are no "very clear policies" about this. Strictly, there are no policies at all. WP:N is a guideline. This directly contradicts. For every policy there is a competing policy, guideline or essay. One point I will continue to make, is deletion is the equivalent of the death penalty. The article can be nominated infinite times, but it got the death penalty against consensus when you state WP:N is a guideline. However WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can and does change. Local consensus in the AfD and here is against your position. Lightburst (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The part the many editors ignore in WP:N is it is SNG or GNG not both

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

  1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
  2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Lightburst (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@LB: "Presumed notable" doesn't mean "is notable", and the word "presumed" is linked to Rebuttable presumption, which means it possible that something that is "presumed notable" might not actually be notable (the presumption is rebutted). So right there, meeting those two criteria doesn't mean it has to be kept. I think it's not "a very clear policy" because it doesn't say exactly how that presumption is rebutted. But a "keep meets NFOOTY" !vote is a vote to keep based on the justification that meets the WP:ATH guideline. So we should look at the ATH guideline, and not just at WP:N, to see how the presumption is applied, and how it can be rebutted. The answer to whether ATH applies is in ATH, not in N. And ATH says Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb ... Again, that's not very clear. It basically says that meeting the criteria doesn't mean shit, and failing the criteria doesn't mean shit, you're on your own, good luck! Thanks, authors of ATH. (Athholes.) So, I think we can argue all day long about the vague meanings of our notability guidelines, but boy would our time be better spent drafting new language and having a vote on that. As far as this DRV goes, I think that a closer can properly discount a !vote that doesn't address whether the article can be sourced in compliance with the core content policies. So when core-policy-compliance is challenged, "meets [SNG]" is not a valid justification, because SNGs aren't core policies like V, NOR, and BLP (if applicable), etc. An article that meets GNG would meet all those core policy requirements–that's the point of GNG–but that's not true for an SNG. Levivich 19:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Enough with the walls of text, the incivility, and the WP:BLUDGEONING. Getting more aggressive isn't going to help your case. Smartyllama (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
What User:Levivich is an "Athholes"? Sorry, I'm not able to parse it, what I can only assume is a typo ... no reference in the OED. Nfitz (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
You really didn't gather that it's a pun on "assholes", or are you just sea lioning? Levivich 21:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
It hasn't crossed my mind we were into name-calling and blatant violations of WP:5P4 ... which seems ironic as we ponder enforcement of non-firm rules as per WP:5P5 and a close that violate WP:5P2. Perhaps if I sell the movie rights of the encyclopedia, I can go for the quinfecta. Nfitz (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - The above discussion is a classic example of what should not happen at DelRev - people trying to make it a second AFD. The only question here is whether the closer assessed the consensus properly. The contention, never fully addressed, was that GNG was not met. GNG not being met, the close was appropriate. This was a borderline case but calling it as being on this side of off-side was within the ref's margin of appreciation. FOARP (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure FOARP how you get delete out of that discussion. The nomination didn't mention with GNG or express any concern with the sources, erroneously pointing to other issues. One of the two deletes wrongly identified NFOOTBALL as the issue, and simply claimed GNG not met, without discussing any of the sources in the article. The only other delete also claimed that GNG wasn't met - but didn't discuss any of the sources. If GNG was really the issue, there needed to be more discussion of that in the AFD other than name checking a policy without discussing the sources, or looking for more. Nfitz (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The discussion really goes to two things. One did the player pass WP:GNG as the keep voters didn't bring any references to the table when that inital discussion started. The references that were already in the article were what you would WP:PRIMARY resources as all of the references were statistics and not news resources for this player. Yeah the player might of pass WP:NFOOTY but WP:GNG is usually the main resources for these one game players. Secondly, was the closer right in closing this as he went pass the WP:CON and judged the votes in what he thought was the correct decision. HawkAussie (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

1 December 2019Edit

Xiaomi Mi PadEdit

Xiaomi Mi Pad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Consensus was not properly reached based on arguments provided.

On & after 22 November 2019:

  1. Reliable References were added to the article such as from The Verge, The Washington Post, Ars Technica and others.
  2. Article was updated with content from the mentioned reliable sources,

With reasoning for deletion:

"This product isn't notable and it only serves to mirror what's on phonearena, and it's best such thing remains on resources where it's a better fit." 

No longer seeming valid.

I suggest to undelete article. 0xSkyy (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Endorse The close was squarely within the closer's discretion. Only one editor offered a rational for keeping the article and that rational was questioned by at least one participant. --Enos733 (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
That said, I recognize there might be a slight question of whether the closer became involved in the discussion with the comment "And I am leaning towards deletion at this time, I would have deleted the article yesterday but wanted to give other users the opportunity to respond to the references which you have added," after relisting the article. --Enos733 (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Enos733:, I disagree that closer became "involved". I believe the closer posited that they're inclined to delete at the moment, based on the discussion; and re-listed the discussion to give opportunity for additional input that may shift the consensus. So I believe they were correct to uphold the existing consensus in absence of additional inputs. Graywalls (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I've temporarily undeleted it for DRV. WilyD 08:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus, with the explicit expectation it'll get renominated. Article was massively expanded (including a lot of additional sources), after which one editor argued keep, and one kinda equivocated about the quality of the sources. Previous participant's arguments (which were mostly "per noms") wouldn't carry through to the expanded article (though, I could certainly see a new AfD ending in a merge/redirect to List_of_Xiaomi_products#Mi_Pad_Tablets). WilyD 08:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse I was one of the first delete !voters who should apparently be discounted because we didn't !vote twice?
Sorry, but I still see no reason why this is a notable product. There are many tablets, I'm still not seeing anything to distinguish this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    • It's a discussion, not a vote. If one makes an argument, and circumstances change, and the argument no longer applies, then it no longer applies. When the number/depth of sources is substantially improved, old evaluations of whether WP:N is met don't apply any further. WilyD 13:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • " first tablet from Xiaomi." might carry it. But that's the only reason I can see. Everything is a "first use of next-gen processor" or "popular with userbase". Now, are Xiaomi enough for this significance, and is this enough for its influence on Xiaomi? "First tablet built by Foxconn" would be notable, as would be "first Android tablet" but Xiaomi are a brand, not a mega-corp like Foxconn. Is MIUI enough for notability here?
I'd also note that I wasn't swayed at all by the added sourcing (and why I didn't change my !vote). I never had a problem with the WP:V of what was claimed, and that's what the extra sourcing reinforced. Rather it's still the question "Is Xiaomi's first tablet inherently notable, for being first?" Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Andy Dingley, we are quick to say that lists of accomplishments or distinctions, in the absence of significant coverage, do not satisfy the GNG, and generally do not demonstrate notability. The flip side is that coverage sufficient to satisfy the GNG does establish notability, even if the topic is soemwhat routine (and arguably the trademark dispute makes it not routine). But had the above view bene expressed in the AfD after the sources were added, the closer should have considered it. But it wasn't. If this should be overturend and re-listed, such a view could be expressed then. But it wasn't in the AfD we are now reviewing. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Then if what you really want is to restore this AfD, because the delete !votes had expired invisibly, then fine. Then we can AfD it all over again. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • OVERTURN to no consensus or even to keep. In the comment dated 8:03 pm, 21 November 2019, Graywalls attempted to set a higher bar than the GNG, and so that user's views should have been discounted, as this does not conform to policy. No one in the discussion fvoring deletion engaged with the sources added during the course of the discussion -- this seems to be a WP:HEY situation. 0xSkyy seemed to misunderstand the nature of notability in the comment dated 6:54 pm, 22 November 2019, But the sources added during the discussion and listed in the comment of 10:08 pm, 23 November 2019 (the last substantive comment, but a full week prior to the close) see to do a fair job of establishing notability, and no one gave any reasons why these sources were not sufficient, or indeed wrote of having read these sources at all. The non did not mention any WP:BEFORE search, and one must wonder whether a reasonable BEFIRE search wouldn't have found at least soem of these sources. The Time, story, the Mashable review, the Android Authority review, the Eurogamer review, the review by The Verge, the PC Mag story, and the Reuters. and 9to5Mac stories on the trademark dispute together make a decent case for notability, and no one in the discussion addressed that case at all, although there was plenty of time after those sources were added to the article. Since the AfD nom was based entirely in lack of notability, and the three further delete views (all the same day) did not discuss added sources at all, or indeed make any further comment after the sources were added, those opnions should be discounted. The nominator, Graywalls, did comment further, but mostly to opine that reviews were not sufficient (contrary to the GNG) without indicatign what else would be needed, or engaging with the sources (like the Timne story) that are not reviews. But even if the views of Graywalls are not discounted, the early delete supportes who did not reengage should be, leaving 1 delete view and one keep view, and no reasons given why notability is not established. The relisting by ST47 specifically said ... 0xSkyy has added some references to the article, and more input would beneficial., but no new commentators, and no significant further comment was provided. Under tjhose circumstances, the clsoe was not within the reasonable limits. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep is probably too strong. There's very little participation after the article was improved - a potential re-nomination should be left open, given the very small headcount, which is better served by a no consensus outcome. Since the current article is essentially undiscussed, that there was an AfD shouldn't restrict the possibility of discussing the new article, going forward. WilyD 09:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse- It seems that even after the expansion participants were unenthusiastic. I don't see any compelling reason to consign early delete votes to the shredder; this is clearly not a WP:HEY situation. And I don't want to encourage, even indirectly, the practice of drip-feeding sources into an article at AfD just to invalidate previous votes. Reyk YO! 17:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Participants weren't unenthusiastic, Reyk, they were silent. No one came back to the AfD discussion and said "I've looked at the new sources and I still say Delete, and here is why." WP:AFDDISCUSS says: Experienced AfD participants re-visit discussions that they have already participated in. They are looking for new facts, evidence or changes to the article which might change their initial conclusion. In this situation, strike through your previous comment using ... (if you are changing your mind) or to explicitly comment "no change" to confirm that you have considered the new evidence but remain unconvinced. That did not happen this time. WP:AFDEQ says: If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out reliable sources, ... and later If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, ... If early comments are taken at full weight in the face of added sources, and early comments not reconfirmed after significant sources are added are used to form a consensus to delete, there is far less incentive to improvce articles during AfD discussions, which I thought was considered a particularly good response to an AfD. In this case the article went from one cited source to 24 citations, including some highly reliable sources with more than trivial coverage, during ten days of AfD discussion (15-24 November). If that isn't a WP:HEY it must be approaching one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Reyk: For your convenience this is: Before Article Improvement and this is: After Article Improvement, and the following is the stated reason for deleting the "Before Article" from Graywalls: "This product isn't notable and it only serves to mirror what's on phonearena, and it's best such thing remains on resources where it's a better fit." WP:HEY 0xSkyy (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Someone commented I was going beyond WP:GNG. This is correct. Product notability falls within WP:NORG which as described in WP:ORGCRIT that "These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals." Review sites provide accurate and reliable information about products and they're not disallowed but their value in providing notability is questionable. You can find pages long extensive review on things like processor cooling compound and making detailed comparisons that sometimes even include things like boogers and ketchup. There are in-depth reviews about specific models of clothes dryers and window air conditioners too, yet it's inappropriate to use these sources to claim notability to make an article ABC-13564 7,500 BTU electric household window air conditioning machine. Shortly after the AfD, several interesting happened, such as cite stacking, that involved cobbling together sources to support uncontroversial specifications, which I have undone in: Special:Diff/927843352. Some sources were not useful at all for notability purpose. https://www.anandtech.com/show/8022/xiaomi-announces-the-mipad-the-first-tegra-k1-device which reads inside "Source: Xiaomi via The Verge" this is Churnalism. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/01/02/can-chinas-xiaomi-challenge-apple-as-the-smartphone-innovation-leader/ the amount of coverage about the product is trivial in this one. I'm not going to do a source analysis on each single source, but the source addition gave a strong impression that numerous sources were being added to create an impression of notability. Graywalls (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


  • OVERTURN to no consensus or even to keep- Graywalls used WP:GNG on the original delete discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xiaomi_Mi_Pad to argue for deletion.
    • AnandTech is a hardware review site with fair amount of credibility, true source of hardware specs would obviously be the original Manufacturer/Company and it uses reliable sources, in this case The Verge hence "Source: Xiaomi via The Verge".
    • Actually it was not cite stacking, it was merely a placeholder for future content - which was added, as can be seen in the last revision Mi Pad Last Readable revision. Graywalls had arbitrarily deleted content previously suggesting to cite sources. As can be seen in: Special:Diff/927749845 ( So, it became necessary to defensively cite sources ).
    • Also, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
    • And How about coverage from Reuters Reuters Article and 9to5Mac 9to5Mac Article again "noting" the topic. Maybe Reuters isn't reliable, as per Graywalls, who knows ?
    • Also, tablet computer is a computing device - a finished product which can be directly interacted with for its utility unlike "processor cooling". And whose main utility is in direct interaction.

0xSkyy (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Continuous response to disruptive filibustering is not required for deletion. Endorse. —Cryptic 02:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Cryptic: For your convenience this is: Before Article Improvement and this is: After Article Improvement and the following is the stated reason for deleting "Before Article" : "This product isn't notable and it only serves to mirror what's on phonearena, and it's best such thing remains on resources where it's a better fit." Please reconsider. 0xSkyy (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist We have a relist left (only relisted once), a WP:HEY of over a dozen sources, the delete !votes were before the WP:HEY, two of the delete votes were per nom. I don't personally think a pre-WP:HEY !vote should be discarded. There's not really much of a discussion on the new sources in the article. There's no consensus to keep, and it's probably too soon to close as a no consensus. Why not let this one run another week, pinging all of the delete !voters again? From what I can tell, it doesn't look like they were pinged properly in the initial discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist per the Flyer of the Sporting. It's been HEY'd with sources like [9] (in the news section), [10], [11], [12], [13], and over a dozen others. These new sources should be reviewed/discussed; although the closer tried, there wasn't much discussion after the first relist (except between author and closer), and so a second re-list should be tried. Levivich 06:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Starsight (novel) (closed)Edit


Recent discussionsEdit

ArchiveEdit