Wikipedia:Deletion review

(Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)

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

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

Purpose

Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

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

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

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

Click here 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=
}} ~~~~
2.

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

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 February 21}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

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=2024 February 21}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 February 21|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. 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 closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

  • If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
  • If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

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

Speedy closes

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



21 February 2024

20 February 2024

Submachine (series)

Submachine (series) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It was deleted due to failing WP:GNG, but now more sources are available. For example, Rock Paper Shotgun, Destructoid and PC Gamer. Also, one of the commenters said that the games will no longer be playable online. This is not true as it's playable on Steam and on Kongregate with the Ruffle flash player. Jannaultheal (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Allow Recreation either as draft for AFC review or in article space subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion that justifies undeleting this article about what we now know is a notable topic. It doesn't matter whether the new sources are included in it at the time of undeletion (not a BLP, the information is not going to be badly outdated et cetera). There is no need for anything else such as a procedural AfD.—Alalch E. 11:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    After reading subsequent comments, I'd like to reiterate my view that this is undeletable to mainspace. Doing this entails overturning the AfD. It's not a judgement that the AfD was closed incorrectly at the time. That is better for page history continuity and attribution. Since notability is questioned even after these sources, a procedural AfD is in order. I am against DRV prescribing AfC. —Alalch E. 23:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No action needed, it's a five year old AfD. Jannaultheal is welcome to create a new article, which can go to AfD if folks feel notability hasn't changed. It would not be a G4 Star Mississippi 14:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse close. I wouldn't consider 2 5-paragraph articles and a 1-paragraph mention in a listicle to meet WP:SIGCOV. Are there more sources? (I briefly used the WP:VG/RS custom Google searches but nothing jumped out at me.) Happy to change my !vote if significant coverage is out there. Woodroar (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Draftify if there is an editor ready to work on it. The appellant has a grand total of 10 edits to their name, all of which are AfD or DRV related, which makes me worry they don't intend to follow through with actual content copyediting. (@Jannaultheal: is this your primary account?) I doubt the sources presented here are enough to meet SIGCOV, but as Star Mississippi said, we're not bound by the 2019 AfD, and can leave the decision about the new article to AfC or a future AfD. Owen× 14:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse close but allow recreation. The close at the time was solid, and this probably should go through the Draft/AFC process for the reasons mentioned above, but I don't think with the new sources anyone is going to be jumping for the G4 stick. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What everyone else said. Deletions based on notability are always up for new information that demonstrates notability, which is the most common case of an old deletion discussion being disregarded when the reason for deletion no longer applies. New such information AFTER the date of the AfD is a great reason to change the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse close I think this still could go to AfD if recreated based on the presented sources - listicles aren't great for notability - but this AfD shouldn't be the reason why it would be deleted, so a draft or new article is fine. SportingFlyer T·C 19:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Allow recreation either by refunding the deleted version to draft space or restarting from scratch. There is new information since the last AFD that demonstrates notability. Frank Anchor 22:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unworthy of DRV. No nothing from here. If you are sure the reasons for deletion at the old AfD are overcome, and you are Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed, then create. Otherwise, use AfC. In both cases I recommend going to WP:REFUND and requesting undeletion to your userspace or draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since it's already here, I think an admin would be happy to provide it if consensus closes that way. No reason for them to go to a 2nd board. Star Mississippi 12:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • undelete without prejudice to a new AfD AfD closure was fine. Things have improved, probably to the point the GNG is clearly met. But others may disagree. But best to give the applicant the old article as a starting point unless it was TNT-levels of bad. Plus A) it's old and B) frankly, that AfD wasn't great. Hobit (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reşit Inceoğlu

Reşit Inceoğlu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was speedy deleted as G7 while there was an AfD going on. The problem with the current outcome is that it makes it eligible for WP:REFUND because of the G7 (otherwise it wouldn't matter much) while that certainly wasn't going to be the outcome of the AfD. So it's used as a way to evade the AfD process. Can this be reviewed please? Tehonk (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Temp undelete and protect for the remaining six days to allow the AfD to complete. The closing admin was right: pages undergoing AfD are not immune from speedy deletion. But in the case of G7, there is a real risk of an author gaming the system, so as to allow REFUND or evade G4. As the article will be behind a temp-undeleted template, there's no potential harm, and participants can view it in the history to decide about future recreation. Owen× 02:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Or endorse and amend close per Alalch E.. Owen× 12:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist and continue the AFD, because, as the nominator and OwenX have said, interrupting an AFD for a G7 can be used to game the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse but amend the close. Enhance the outcome to be of the same quality as an outcome of a full AfD based on a consensus achieved, by amending the closing statement. Do not relist. Apply WP:NOTBURO to the duration question (WP:SNOW—there is a snowball's chance in hell for an outcome other than 'delete'). This should always be done when a G7 (specifically this criterion) is actioned during an AfD with unanimous delete !votes in my opinion. Closes should reflect this.—Alalch E. 12:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I like this approach. We don't normally "SNOW" with only nom plus three !votes, but in this case, I agree with Alalch E. that it would be appropriate and avoid unnecessary process. Owen× 12:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is what I roughly meant with my last comment on the AfD, so I'd support this. Styyx (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, look, none of this makes sense. Sysops have brains.
    When a sysop is asked to restore, they'll look at the latest revision. They'll see that there was an AfD in progress and refer the petitioner to DRV, because that's the process. And if they don't look because they're editing while medicated or tired and emotional, which unfortunately does happen because sysops are human, and they somehow miss that there was an AfD in progress, then the revision they restore will literally have a huge AfD template on it. It's not plausible that they'll miss that at that stage.
    And I do think that in the circumstances, it would be polite to ping David Eppstein and Explicit, don't you?—S Marshall T/C 16:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, tbh, I saw an admin refund something that was not eligible for REFUND at all (3 AfDs with delete and salt result, and the last deletion is speedy, so in no way was it eligible for REFUND) and the admin did not "refer the petitioner to DRV" (even a DRV for that thing would be disruptive as there was no valid reason for the undeletion, I see that the requester was also recently blocked for disruptive editing for similar behavior.)
    So even if that can happen, this result is prone to being used to game the system more than that. Tehonk (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sysops have brains, but we know that some sysops don’t engage their brains when emptying CSD categories. If an AfD shows a consensus to delete, that should be reflected in the deletion log, and not avoided by a g7. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree that this is a potential GAME issue. Let me propose a change to G7 to fix this... Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse if the author requested deletion in the midst of an AfD and G7 applies, whoever would go to refund it - and let's be honest, it is almost certainly going to be the person who requested G7 - should be able to see that there was an AfD open. I don't see this as potentially gaming the system. I'm a bit confused considering the author seemed to want to keep the article in the AfD, though. SportingFlyer T·C 19:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to “Delete per consensus at AfD”. It’s a gaming route. User:Explicit Should have noted the page was at AfD, and take the option to close the AfD as “delete”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn speedy, relist AFD and let it play out for the full seven days. Four delete votes (including the nom) and roughly one day listed at AFD does not justify a SNOW close, even with the G7 request.Frank Anchor 23:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think an AfD discussion with no keeps and a G7 claim, if correct, amounts to a consensus to delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not after just a single day of discussion. Frank Anchor 11:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But, an eligible G7 means there is consensus to delete it. So it is a waste of volunteer time to keep the AfD open. The G7 tagger can reasonably be assumed to be aware of the AfD, meaning the tagging is acquiescence. I think giving the deletion that status of an XfD consensus decision to delete is a good practical outcome. It can be REFUNDed to draft or userspace, but not back to mainspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can see both sides of this argument. We routinely speedy-close an AfD after one day when the nom withdraws their nomination. By the same token, we should be able to speedy-close an AfD after one day when the author and only contributor asks for a G7, especially when there isn't a single !vote to keep it - provided we show it as an AfD close, not a CSD. That said, I also don't see much harm from allowing such an AfD to run its course. We've already spent more time debating this here than editors would have spent casting a few more "Delete" !votes before the page was finally given its mercy deletion. Owen× 13:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment as closer. If we're going to introduce a new rule that G7's are disallowed during AfDs because bad faith "it's a gaming route", can we perhaps at least try to include that rule in the WP:CSD description of the G7 criteria, rather than pretending it's already included there when it isn't? FWIW, my own interpretation of a G7 mid-AfD (especially one like this that was clearly headed towards deletion) is not "I'd like to preserve the option of a refund" but rather "ok, I give up, it's going to be deleted, let's stop dragging it out". —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is reasonable fine tuning. G7 tagging means the page will be deleted, but I think the deletion log should be accurate, and point to the deletion discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I made such a change, based on the discussion here, to CSD-G7 several hours ago. It has yet to be reverted. Jclemens (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19 February 2024

Lunatic Lateral

Lunatic Lateral (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don’t think delete would’ve been appropriate but this seems like a no consensus close (which there is a big difference, as a no consensus close allows rediscussion in 2 months whereas a keep closure requires a 6 month wait.) I think no consensus was a better call because the amount and the reasoning of the support and oppose sides cancelled each other out. If a keep was to be the right call, then the closer could’ve at least provided an explanation for keep over a no consensus closure, but they did not. 50.225.13.170 (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Closer here. Happy to be trouted if this was out of line for an NAC, but I didn't think this was terribly controversial to close as keep, so I a) felt confident closing it and b) didn't write any additional explanation. We have two non-keep !votes, one being a redirect that acknowledges some possibilities, and one being a very brief delete !vote that was countered by later keep !votes. Two of the four keep votes are extensive and bring up numerous sources. I don't see a reason to close this as no consensus. -- asilvering (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surely the nominator rationale and the IPv6 comment counts? 50.225.13.170 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely the nom rationale is part of the consideration. It's just not a !vote, so I didn't tally it as one when I said we have two non-keep !votes. Likewise for a comment. -- asilvering (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist. The Keep views may very well have the upper hand here, but I'm counting three non-Keep views. Even with just one dissenting opinion, this would no longer qualify as an uncontroversial result, making it unsuitable for a non-admin closure. Owen× 02:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no guideline/policy that suggests a small amount of dissenting votes automatically makes a AFD “controversial.” Frank Anchor 22:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't see a consensus there, but I'm not sure the two/six month window is as firm as IP50 is concerned about in their nomination here. It seems to have drifted. FWIW, I contemplated closing it as N/C as I don't think a 3rd relist was going to help, but asilvering got to it in the log before I did. I don't mind this as an NAC as the outcome was going to be retention, regardless, with a close right now and it had already been relisted twice. So while I see IP50's point, I don't see a need to overturn and reclose/relist. Star Mississippi 02:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse Don't just look at the numbers, look at the timing. For the last week of the final relist there were three unrebutted keep !votes that provided evidence that previous delete !votes were incorrect. I'm not sure "no consensus" was even within the range of reasonable outcomes given the trajectory of the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This definitely rebutted this. Also, trajectory of discussion usually does equate to a relist, or at a bare minimum a lengthy explanation in the deletion rationale especially for an NAC.50.225.13.170 (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid conclusion of rough consensus by the closer. No Consensus would also have been valid, but Keep was valid. Overturning a close just to allow another nomination a few months earlier would be silly. I would have !voted Keep. It was notable both in the usual sense and in the Wikipedia sense for its stupidity. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse per Jclemens.—Alalch E. 09:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn I don't see a consensus to keep, and it was probably just contentious enough that it should have been closed by an admin. Would overturn to no consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 17:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse there is consensus to keep, particularly after the final relist, such that keep was well within the closer's discretion. No consensus would have probably been a valid close as well. The three valid keep votes with very little response after the final relist (two of the three stood for over five days prior to the close) shows that keep was a better outcome. I do not think this (or any relisted AFD) should have been closed by a non-admin, but it is pointless and unnecessary to reopen a discussion solely for an administrator to close in the same way. Frank Anchor 18:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Closer discretion only comes into play for admin closes. For non-admin closes, anything other than a unanimous result is a BADNAC. Owen× 18:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Rubbish.—S Marshall T/C 19:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think the rule is that it has to be strictly unanimous, but it would have to be pretty close. The fact it would wind up at DRV is a pretty clear sign it's not uncontroversial. SportingFlyer T·C 19:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned rebuttal, S Marshall. Owen× 20:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And thanks for the thoughtful and well-reasoned comment that prompted it.  :)—S Marshall T/C 20:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is no requirement that NAC is limited to unanimous discussions. WP:NAC explains that NAC should be avoided when [t]he outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. In this case, there was zero chance of any outcome involving the page not being kept. It makes no reference to non-admins not having discretion in such a close. As I already stated, a non-admin close on a relisted discussion is a generally bad idea. However, in this case the end-result is correct. Frank Anchor 22:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • endorse I'd have endorse NC too. Both are reasonable readings of that discussion. NAC does not play a role here--this was never getting deleted. Hobit (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michele Evans (closed)

  • Michele EvansSummarily endorsed. Nominator's blocked for DE and the community's enacting a topic ban, with, at the time of typing, unanimous support. I'm invoking the fourth limb of "Speedy closes", above, to close this without wasting further time.—S Marshall T/C 19:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Michele Evans (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Evans and her book Rikers Island were prominently featured in The New York Times. The deletion discussion centered around no independent sources available. Two independent prominent sources have been found and incorporated.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html

2. https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ PenmanWarrior (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you should explain the source of your strong personal investment in this draft, because its getting to the point of being disruptive and as such a discussion about you is at WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You were already told that the rockymountainnews ref is a puff interview, and therefore is not an independent RS to support notability. DMacks (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse close as correct. Assuming productive behavior following unblock, user is welcome to work on draft, however it should go through AfC due to the clear COI present here. Star Mississippi 01:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as the only possible outcome of that AfD. The appellant hasn't raised any arguments as to why the reading of consensus was wrong. They're merely continuing where they left off at the AfD. Owen× 01:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as the proper finding of consensus from the AFD. It isn't clear whether the appellant is arguing that the closer made an error (which they did not), or arguing that the community made an error (which isn't a reason for DRV), or saying that they have new information (which they have not introduced). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse (NB: I originally nominated the article for deletion). Deletion was clearly the consensus outcome. If sources have now been found which would show that Evans meets WP:GNG, then Draft:Michele Evans can go through AfC – though I would note that the coverage of Evans in both the Rocky Mountain News article and the new New York Times article seems to be primarily based on quoting statements by Evans, and I am not convinced that either of those is an independent source for GNG purposes. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse there was only one possible outcome for that AfD discussion, and the first source shown might be okay even though it's interview-y, the second is not. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

King K. Rool

King K. Rool (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As the original editor of the page, I was unaware that the article was nominated for deletion. There is nothing in the deletion criteria that mentions relative notability. Declaring that K. Rool is not notable because "he is not on the same level as Bowser"—the most well-known villain in video game history—is not a fair standard to measure against, nor does the general notability guideline make any such stipulation. Every claim in the article is meticulously cited and verifiable, with 61 citations in total—which is more than what Donkey Kong himself has. The article details K. Rool's history in great depth, including his appearances outside of the Donkey Kong video game series as covered by reliable sources.

Furthermore, by merging K. Rool's page into List of Donkey Kong characters, the character is not being documented accurately when a significant portion of his notability and fandom is centered around his appearance in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, the best-selling fighting game of all-time.

Characters derive notability from their source material, not because they are in some arbitrary number of pop culture articles. That being said, the original King K. Rool page is filled with numerous mainstream sources and online news outlets discussing K. Rool at length. His inclusion in Smash was even covered by a local newspaper[1] and an episode of the Netflix TV series Inside Job.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Smash Bros. Ultimate's King K. Rool reveal makes newspaper headlines". GoNintendo. August 13, 2018. Retrieved February 19, 2024.
  2. ^ "We Even Got K. Rool In Smash! - Inside Job".

Toadster101 (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment as the closing admin: contrary to your statement, the King K. Rool page was created in 2004, a full nine years before you joined Wikipedia. Your first edit to that page was in 2015, when the article had already been edited over a thousand times, making you, Toadster101, one of the latter editors to that page, rather than its "original editor".
I am sorry you were unaware that the article was nominated for deletion. The nominator did, in fact, notify the IP address from which the page was originally authored, admittedly a rather pointless exercise twenty years later, but that is how WP:Twinkle works. They also placed the notice on the article itself, but it seems you were on a wikibreak for the past six months. I find it ironic that while you complain about not being notified, you skipped Step #2 for the DRV, and failed to notify the AfD closer (me) of your appeal. Thankfully, the ever dilligent Cryptic did this in your stead.
As for the AfD you are appealing, even if you had participated in that AfD, if your argument was based on the two sources you cited above - a spot in a local newspaper (which?) and a single episode crossover in another show - it would likely not have changed the tide on what was a unanimous consensus to merge. DRV is not AfD-round-two, but even if it were, I doubt we'd see a different outcome. But by all means, let's hear what uninvolved participants think. Owen× 20:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies for not notifying you directly as per the recommended guidelines. I don't have an extensive editing history beyond pruning the K. Rool article and I haven't accessed this platform in over six months, as you correctly pointed out.
While it's true that I didn't start making edits until 2015, that's because the original version of the article was deleted for being badly cited and because K. Rool wasn't considered notable enough. However, the article was restored after I successfully plead my case to the editors and remade the article from scratch with well-researched citations and proof of the character's notability. As you can see, it was restored by @user:UY Scuti for "currently meet[ing] notability" less than an hour before my first edit on November 5th, 2015.
This was prior to Super Smash Bros. Ultimate's release in 2018, which revitalized the character and increased his notability significantly. For certain editors to suddenly conclude that K. Rool is no longer "notable," despite previously meeting the criteria eight years ago before the release of this major game, feels arbitrary. Has the criteria recently changed? Toadster101 (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse there's no other way to close that discussion. I've also taken a look at the last version of the article to appear in mainspace and in spite of 67 references, I don't see any obvious pass of GNG, suggesting the merge !votes weren't in error. SportingFlyer T·C 21:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as the proper finding of consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. The DRV nom makes argument that could be relevant in an AfD, but the AfD is over, ending with a consensus to merge, and a merger was performed. Mergers can be reversed by splitting.—Alalch E. 09:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • relist A) the applicant is correct, he really should have been notified. Yes, he wasn't the creator per se (since it was restored) but still. And B) this is so far past the GNG it's not funny. Newsweek has an article about the character including some history of the character's creation. [1]. [2] is a RS solely about the character. [3] is another. The addition of this character to Super Smash made news in the mainstream (non-gaming) media including [4] Esquire. When the creator tweeted about the character's name and history, it was picked up by what looks like a dozen news outlets. I think we need a new discussion that is actually informed. Heck, the links provided above darn clearly show we have newspaper articles on this topic. Folks might be able to argue "game guide" or ONEEVENT or something, but "not notable" just isn't something we should be entertaining given the actual sourcing. Hobit (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17 February 2024

Deanne Pandey (closed)

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

A non-admin closure of a controversial AfD with views evenly split between Keep and Delete. As with two other recent non-admin closures by this editor, this comes across as a supervote. I suggest a speedy Overturn and relist. Owen× 18:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Overturn and relist as that would have been the most likely action of an admin if it had been handled by an admin. Tehonk (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn and relist per my suggestion in the other DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 20:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Chikki Panday (closed)

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

Another non-admin closure by this editor where they cast a supervote ("keep per WP:HEY") in a controversial AfD, which doesn't reflect the actual lack of consensus. Owen× 18:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Overturn and relist - the best close there is no consensus but the discussion on both sides isn't great, so another week may help clear this up, and this was a clearly controversial close per BADNAC. SportingFlyer T·C 18:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn as a BADNAC as it was clearly controversial and "keep per WP:HEY" is clearly a supervote rather than a consensus. Tehonk (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ivan Katchanovski

Ivan Katchanovski (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion just one week after the nomination. The projects were notified selectively and the users who participated in the previous AfDs weren't notified. Alaexis¿question? 13:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse. I see only one coherent argument for keeping the article, versus two clear Delete views, two more that imply a lack of notability, and of course, the subject of the article himself, who is entitled to call for the deletion under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Normally, this level of participation and distribution of !votes might allow for an extra week of relisting, but in the case of a BLP that contains potentially disparaging assertions, time is of the essence. Kudos to the closing admin for doing the right thing, and not letting this drag on beyond the minimum seven days. We normally notify the author of an article when it is listed in AfD, but it is neither required nor common practice to notify participants in previous AfDs for that page. Owen× 14:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, does seems like a bit of a rules for thee but not for me on the OP's part; i.e. ignored the Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer portion of the instructions. Curious. El_C 18:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I haven't initiated deletion reviews for a long time and didn't notice this recommendation in the Instructions section, my apologies. I'll do it next time, but since the review has been opened, I think that this should be decided on the merits of the case. Alaexis¿question? 22:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse I think delete was not only a perfectly valid conclusion but the best conclusion. Selective notification doesn't make for a defective AfD except in very specific circumstances (selective canvassing) not met here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. A week is the standard period, it is not necesary to ping previous AfD's participants, and there was a consensus to delete. A normal number of editors participated and exhibited an above-average level of interest and activity, making this a well-attended AfD. In my opinion, which projects were notified never matters to the extent that a close should be overturned only because of that, because assuming that members of a particular project would have !voted contrarily to the outcome reached (keep instead of delete in this case), is conceptualizing them as a voting block and assuming that they have a particular tendency, so under that premise it would be better never to notify any such project harboring noticeable tendencies, and if the idea that one voting block is needed to oppose another voting block (the projects that were notified), that is contrary to how consensus is reached, and is an implicit accusation of tendentiousness directed at the actual participants (even if a very mild one). I'm of a view that DRV should be agnostic as to which WikiProjects were notified.—Alalch E. 22:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah. The usual standard for DRV to overturn a deletion discussion due to insufficient notification is if there's no meaningful notification to anybody at all - usually this means no {{afd}} tag on the article (or the process's equivalent), but we've also done so for noincluded {{tfd}} tags and once or twice for images with neither {{ffdc}} in their captions nor notification on the article talk pages. Participants in previous deletion discussions are almost never specifically notified, nor should they be. If they care about improving content and not just scoring points in the inclusionist-deletionist wars, they should be watching the article anyway.
    That said, we might be willing to reopen this if you've got very strong, substantive reasons (ie, not the purely-process ones you raised above) to keep this content that you were unable to express because the afd closed before you saw it. Do you? —Cryptic 01:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse both as a case of a deletion request by the subject and as the rough consensus conclusion. I also concur with the comments by Cryptic and Alaich E. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment It looks like the same four DELSORT lists were notified in the most recent AfD as were notified in the previous. Was something else expected? Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • overturn this person is hugely quoted in the press (as was shown in the AfD) and cannot be considered "non-public" per the requirements of WP:BLPDEL. If you are regularly giving quotes to major news sources (which they use) and doing interviews online, you're a public person. Hobit (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lion of Oz

Lion of Oz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This non-admin closure says that the consensus found the film passed WP:NFILM and WP:NFO criteria 1. To my eye, the consensus was that it did not meet criteria 1 (or any other NFILM criteria), but that those in favour of a keep considered the sources sufficient for WP:GNG. I think the closing rationale does not accurately reflect the consensus, and I think the discussion overall was too controversial to be suitable for a non-admin closure. I request that an admin review this close. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • (disclosure: I was the nom) I agree that this was a poor close. The closer's statement, The sources provided, including reviews, adequately establish the film's notability under WP:NFILM. Additionally, given that the film received reviews from major publishers, it fulfills the requirements outlined in WP:NFO#1, looks to me like a supervote, especially considering that everyone agreed the case for WP:GNG was stronger than the one for WP:NFILM, even the respondents who thought it met both of them. I would grumble at, but accept, a keep closure; however, I agree with LEvalyn that the closing rationale does not accurately reflect the discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I stand by the rationale behind my closure. As highlighted by multiple users in the AfD discussion, the film has received reviews from notable publishers, thereby meeting the criteria outlined in WP:NFO#1, a crucial component of WP:NFILM. GSS💬
      • Point one, the question isn't whether your assessment is a correct identification of the film's notability: the question is whether this close accurately summarized the consensus of the AfD discussion. I can understand a conclusion that consensus was for a GNG keep, but no one in the AfD said it was a pass of NFILM#1. That is because, point two, NFILM#1 requires full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, and this film has zero of those. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • It seems you might have overlooked the comments by those who !voted to keep (there are four of them), referencing reviews that automatically point toward WP:NFO#1. GSS💬 07:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse the closure of Keep, which was a valid reading of consensus, and the most plausible reading of consensus. With 6 Keeps, citing reliability of sources, and 3 Deletes including the nomination, this appeal appears to be saying that the closer should have supervoted by ignoring consensus.
    To be clear, I don’t object (too much) to a closure of keep, which I agree is a plausible reading of the debate, and there’s no need to pass NFILM if GNG is met. However, I strongly object to the closer’s stated rationale, which inserts its own supervote by making assertions about NFILM#1 which are not supported by the AfD. It is the citation of NFILM over GNG that I contend interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I don't think a pass of NFILM#1 should go "on the record"; I'm not asking for a different decision, but for a more accurate statement of closure rationale. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn as a WP:BADNAC, as the close has become controversial, and re-close by a competent administrator. The closing statement reads like a vote instead of reflecting the result of the consensus. I'm not sure there's a better outcome for the initiator of this DRV, though, even with a couple keep !votes that I read as weak. SportingFlyer T·C 10:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn and get an admin to close, without relisting. I appreciate GSS's transparency, but this transparency allows us to see the improper reasoning behind the close. An XfD closer's job is not to assess the article and its sourcing, and it is certainly not to come up with their own fresh arguments. Their job is to read the consensus of the participants. And participants excludes the closer, who is expected to be neutral and impartial as to the page being discussed. If we had any doubt that this was a supervote, GSS's comments here, doubling down on their mistake, removes that doubt. This is a classic WP:NACPIT situation. Relisting would be a waste of time, but the current closure cannot be allowed to stand. Owen× 13:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • My reason for closing the AfD should not be treated as a super !vote. It's a standard practice to summarize the consensus outcome, which is why I indicated it when closing the AfD. Additionally, it was crystal clear that the subject is notable and meets the notability criteria mentioned in WP:NFO, which is what I mentioned while closing the AfD. Thank you. GSS💬 13:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Once again, you prove my claim. If it was crystal clear that the subject is notable and meets the notability criteria mentioned in WP:NFO, then you should have !voted that way as a participant in the AfD, rather than imposed your view as a closer. You did not "summarize the consensus outcome". You took bits and pieces of the views you agreed with, added a bit of your own view that wasn't reflected in any of the participants' comments, and closed it based on that. That, GSS, is what we call a supervote. And as SportingFlyer mentioned, this was clearly not an uncontroversial AfD, which means that it should have been left for an admin to close. Owen× 14:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Yeah, your response makes it crystal clear this was a BADNAC close, even if Keep is a viable option. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Indeed. -- asilvering (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse keep closure as the correct result, but I agree this close would have been better left to an admin. The wording of the close is more appropriate as a “keep” vote rather than a close, making the close a (likely unintentional) WP:SUPERVOTE. That said, there is consensus to keep, and the discussion does not need to be reopened so an admin can close it the same way. Frank Anchor 15:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - It is true that the close was less than ideal, but any other close would need to be brought to DRV and overturned. Reopening the AFD so that it can be closed by an admin would be process for the sake of process. Either this DRV or the close of this DRV should serve as the non-controversial close of the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment - I may seem to be usually in favor of what seems to be process for the sake of process, but that is because it is important to get the right answer, that is, the answer that improves the encyclopedia, so that it is important to ascertain what the {rough} consensus is if there is a (rough) consensus. In this case, we know what the right answer is, and can ignore any process for the sake of process. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as the only result that could be reached in the discussion (as even a no consensus close would be a stretch). I think the problem here is not with the close but the rational provided. I find it helpful if a closer summarizes the discussion with works like "Participants say" or "Supporters of keeping the article" or something similar to indicate to readers that the closers comments are a summary of the discussion, rather than a statement that appears to be a comment in support or opposition to deleting an article. --Enos733 (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn as a WP:BADNAC as it was not an unambiguous closure and became controversial. As a side note, I also find some of GSS's non-admin closures problematic and rushed. These two recent closures were also not appropriate as well and bothered me as they were clearly controversial and not unambiguous Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chikki_Panday, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deanne_Pandey Tehonk (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree. Both of those should have been left to an admin. The second one should probably have been relisted. SportingFlyer T·C 18:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you, Tehonk! I listed both here at DRV. These out-of-process WP:BADNAC non-admin supervote closures need to stop. Owen× 18:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's nothing wrong with a non-controversial non-administrative close, but as soon as there's a delete or it's a close call the correct thing to do is to cast a vote in the AfD! The most valuable thing someone can do at AfD is participate. SportingFlyer T·C 20:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn and close by an administrator as a BADNAC. The closer's rationale is an excellent argument for !voting 'keep', but is a distinctly poor rationale for closing as keep - closers are responsible for assessing consensus in the debate, and referring back to that consensus in their closure. I would have done this myself under the provisions of Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions ("an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity") but given it's being discussed here with some split opinions, would rather leave to the closure of this debate to take action if that's where consensus lands. Daniel (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn bad non-admin closure. NOTBURO was mentioned, but vacating closes is not very BURO because it just takes one person to reclose. It is not running the whole process again, and while overturning a BADNAC can also lead to a relist (not in this case), if a relist is truly needed, that would especially not be a BURO moment. So overturning such closes is usually worth the community resources as having more certainty in the correctness of the outcome and a better written closing statement is not quite so insignificant.—Alalch E. 00:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn for an admin to close. Bad close verging on Supervote. Correct result, but closing summaries must close per the consensus of the discussion, not introduce the closer’s rationale. NACers when challenged should not stand their ground and force a DRV case, that is not a net positive to the project. NAC closes should be restricted to closes that will not be challenged. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Someone please reclose as we seem to be split on leaving vs. reclosing, but that the ultimate result was correct. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is a case of a non-admin close that shouldn't have been a non-admin close, but was ultimately the correct result of keep. So let's just move on, endorse the end result, WP:TROUT GSS for the BADNAC (and the other BADNACs brought up in this discussion), and trout LEvalyn for the futile challenge to the result. Carson Wentz (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I respectfully disagree. LEvalyn did the right thing in bringing this to our attention here. The two other BADNACs have since been speedily overturned, and hopefully GSS has finally received the message. None of this would have happened had the appellant not spoken up. Owen× 15:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    LEvalyn has also been clear that the desired outcome is not a futile challenge to the result. From a reply above: I'm not asking for a different decision, but for a more accurate statement of closure rationale. -- asilvering (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with Owen and others above that this absolutely isn't a futile challenge. This isn't the equivalent of swapping keep to no consensus, and the minimal change that comes from that difference. A faulty AfD close rationale is something that should absolutely be corrected at DRV, especially when done by a non-admin. Daniel (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oyi, closing statement didn't reflect the discussion but the final result (keep) was easily justified by the discussion. Eh, I'm okay with a new closer, new closing statement, or just an overturn so someone else can close it. The NAC doesn't play a role--it's just a bad summary of the discussion and should not stand. Hobit (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16 February 2024

Sills Cummis & Gross (closed)

  • Sills Cummis & GrossSpeedily endorsed. This COI-colored page reinstatement request that does not even allege that the deletion discussion was improperly closed does not adhere to WP:DRVPURPOSE. There is no prospect of success. "Top x firm based on profit" does not attach to any relevant factors in closing a deletion discussion or reviewing one on Wikipedia. (non-admin closure)Alalch E. 01:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sills Cummis & Gross (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Based on this New Jersey Law Journal article, Sills Cummis and Gross is one of the top 5 law firms in New Jersey based on profit. Our competitors, both above and below our firm have Wikipedia articles with reference links that are similar to those provided on the Sills Cummis and Gross Talk Page. How can we have our page reinstated? Gdavis22 (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse that was the correct close for that discussion. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisements, it is a place where we cover organisations that have been deemed notable by secondary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse closure as redirect. Gdavis22, am I right in assuming you are Mr. Giavonni Davis, the law firm's Marketing & Business Development Manager? If so, you should start by reviewing our conflict of interest policy. Then, you may wish to familiarize yourself with our notability guideline. Being among the most profitable law firms in the state does not automatically confer notability on a firm. The inclusion of those other firms likely has nothing to do with their rank in the profitability lists, not to mention that "similar articles exist" is not a valid reason to keep an article. If you manage to find coverage about the firm that wasn't available to the participants of the AfD that closed earlier today and amounts to our standard of significant coverage, I encourage you to share your findings with an experienced editor who is not affiliated with the firm, and if granted, they will take the necessary steps to add the content to the section about the firm in the Arthur J. Sills page, and weigh the possibility of spinning it off to a separate article about the firm. Owen× 23:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse the close of Redirect as reflecting consensus. Having read the redirected article, I would have !voted to Delete, because the article did not establish notability and was no more than a profile entry. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse there was overwhelming consensus to not keep the article, with redirect being a suitable WP:ATD in this case. Frank Anchor 15:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

X-42 Pop-Up Upper Stage

X-42 Pop-Up Upper Stage (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

WP:A7 applies only to articles covering a specific set of subjects, of which experimental vehicle is not one. Request to the deleting administrator to undelete was archived without comment, as such I am bringing this here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5D74:4C06:438E:102E (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Speedy overturn as an incorrect application of CSD:A7, which clearly states, it does not apply to articles about albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), products, books, films, TV programs, software (emphasis mine). Owen× 15:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: It's hard to say what the topic actually is. It was described in the article as "a program" but in the category as "a vehicle". I'll be happy for anyone to restore it as long as the requester is able to add some meaningful detail. If they're not, I'm sure another admin will be able to come up with another criterion for deletion. Deb (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Neither program nor experimental vehicle is covered by WP:A7. We actually have a brief sourced explanation at List of X-planes as an "Expendable liquid propellant upper-stage rocket". I do not know if it is notable, all the other projects on the list have articles, and other language Wikipedia's have additional sources than the one questionably reliable one that was present in the English article prior to deletion. However many of those sources are primary, others have limited coverage or uncertain reliability. Coming in to this cold I probably would have been inclined to redirect, even if only as an interim, as it is clearly a valid Template:R to list entry. Regardless it is not covered by any CSD, and so the deletion decision is not one to be made by me, you,or anyone else unilaterally, but is instead for the community to decide at AFD. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5D74:4C06:438E:102E (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not sure I'm seeing the difficulty here. The article clearly states it is about a US military development program for a rocket stage. It may still be a hoax, in which case it should be deleted under G3 (assuming it's a blatant one). But A7 is not a catch-all no-indication-of-importance criterion. Owen× 16:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Speedy overturn and send to AFD if desired. A7 does not apply per nom and Owenx's rationale. And even if A7 did apply to products, there is enough content on a Google search to make a credible claim to significance, (but in my opinion, not enough to survive an AFD). The Google search includes reliable content from NASA, so I don't see this as being a hoax (therefore G3 would not apply either). Frank Anchor 20:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A claim of significance to defeat A7 has to be in the article, or at least in a reference or external link in the article. That said, the Related Content section (in previous revisions) should have made it clear this wasn't an A7-eligible subject. —Cryptic 20:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Send to AfD the discussion so far makes me believe that A7 does not apply or was ambiguous (possible event from the sounds of it), this should probably remain deleted, albeit within process. SportingFlyer T·C 23:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn A7 and send to AFD, or Temporarily Undelete so that we can see that the subject fell within the scope of A7. It appears that it did not fall within A7, and so should be restored to be sent to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • overturn and send to AfD where it will almost certainly be deleted (for now). But yes, it's important to only speedy things that qualify. I'll send it to AfD if the closer doesn't feel they should. Just let me know. Hobit (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okoo

Okoo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted as an WP:R3 but fails both prongs, "pages older than about 3–4 months almost never are" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=155091595) and as a channel offered by France Télévisions it cannot be considered implausible. From their one terse reply the deleting admin seemed to believe that the fact the page was briefly converted to an article by an inexperienced user reset the R3 clock. I believe that interpretation is incorrect as that would allow anyone to reset the clock by simply inserting nonsense onto a page, thereby removing the recently created requirement. The deleting admin declined to engage any further with my concerns over this deletion and archived the thread without comment, as such I am bringing this here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5D74:4C06:438E:102E (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: I've seen nothing to suggest that Okoo actually is a channel offered by France Télévisions, therefore I have no reason to think that it's a plausible redirect. Deb (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Easily verified by a quick search which should have been done prior to pressing the deletion button, see [5]. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5D74:4C06:438E:102E (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn and list last non-redir rev on AfD. The page is new, having been created on 13 November 2023, just over three months ago. But it is not an implausible typo. In fact, it is not a typo at all. "Okoo Francetv" is the official name of the channel, which can be easily verified by an abundance of sources. Whether it is notable or not is a question for the AfD to adjudicate, but it certainly doesn't qualify for R3. Owen× 15:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn. R3 does not apply, as Okoo is not an implausible typo, but rather an abreviation for "Okoo Francetv." Frank Anchor 20:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • R3 excludes redirects with article content in the history - even properly re-redirected, single-sentence article content, like here - so the question of resetting a clock can't arise. Don't bother sending to AFD per Frank Anchor. —Cryptic 20:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15 February 2024

Hidayat ur Rehman Baloch

Hidayat ur Rehman Baloch (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hidayat-ur-Rehman Baloch is elected ([6], [7] [8]) as a member of the Balochistan Assembly in the recent elections, now he meets the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Ainty Painty (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Neutral. I closed the AfD, but was asked to restore the bio because of the election. I recommended Ainty Painty to go here, as I'm not sure that being a member of the Balochistan Assembly meets NPOL. --Randykitty (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse AfD closure but allow undeletion due to the subject's new position. NPOL confers a presumption of notability to elected provincial legislators in Pakistan, but the sources cited by the appellant don't offer any significant coverage. Hopefully we'll get more soon. Owen× 12:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's been a year, but the nom was a sock and the non-weak delete vote may have been a sock, leaving one weak delete. I'm not sure what the article was like before but I don't see any reason to not allow a new article to be created here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I temp-undeleted the page to allow all here to see it. Owen× 14:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Eh, there's not much there. If they won an election, it's probably still usable information though. SportingFlyer T·C 22:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse the closure, which was a valid closure.
  • Allow recreation per WP:POLITICIAN; a provincial legislator in Pakistan ought to be notable, as Pakistan is a very populous country with very few provinces. The previous version of the article was only three sentences long, so I hope that a better version can be created with appropriate sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to soft delete as the nom is a confirmed sock and that only leaves two delete votes, which is not a quorum to delete an article. Soft-deleted articles should be speedily restored upon any good-faith challenge to the deletion (e.g. this DRV). Further, with the subject's recent election win, he now has presumed notability under WP:NPOL. However, adequate referencing must be added to the page or it is subject to another AFD. Frank Anchor 20:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: just as an aside, the fact that socking was a problem only emerged after the AfD was closed. --Randykitty (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree, there is no way you were expected to know that when you made your close which was 100% correct based on information known at the time. Now that the sock information has been made available, the close can be modified. Frank Anchor 01:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14 February 2024

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

While I do not personally think it's that important whether this redirect is kept or deleted, I feel that closing as keep was inappropriate and that no consensus (and perhaps even delete) would have been more appropriate. I am not here out of a very strong feeling that the redirect has to go, just that there's a mismatch between the discussion and the result. While Wikipedia is of course not a vote, keep was the slim minority position in this discussion (myself included as the nom, delete !votes were a majority of 1), and both sides provided valid arguments to support their positions.

In my time editing Wikipedia, I don't think I've ever seen a majority position be overridden without a clear and obvious difference in the quality of the arguments, no matter how slim the difference in !votes may be. Usually only in situations where the majority was the result of a discussion being flooded with nonsense !votes from unregistered canvassed users. And even then, I may have never actually seen an example of the majority being overridden, as even extreme cases like that tend to result in fresh discussions.

While one could argue in good faith that the strength of the arguments was not equal on both sides in this discussion and the 1 !vote majority is not sufficient for a delete consensus (though at Redirects for Discussion it is incredibly normal for every discussion to be low participation and decided by slim majorities like this), I feel that even a most charitable assessment of the discussion would conclude that no consensus is a more appropriate close than keep. Functionally the same thing, as no consensus to delete means keeping by default, but it matters that this would be a more accurate reflection of the discussion as there was certainly not a consensus in favor of keeping.

Initially, the discussion was simply closed with a statement reading that the result was keep and had no further elaboration. I reached out to the closing administrator to discuss this, and to their credit, they did amend it with a rationale note, but I was disappointed to see that the rationale note simply stated that "All arguments were countered by participants who voted to keep the term as a redirect" as I felt this didn't really say anything specific about the merits of the arguments. Again to their credit, the closing administrator took the time to reply to me with examples of editors replying with counterarguments. But while I appreciate their time, this reasoning baffled me. Never before have I seen it implied that one editor simply expressing disagreement with another editor is enough to nullify the !vote of another editor. The examples the closer gave were things like: one editor says the title is not a plausible search term, a second editor says it is a plausible search term. But according to the closer, "the deleters were countered by the keepers, but the keepers weren't countered by the deleters", as if to suggest the consensus is determined by whoever gets the last word in?

In short: to me this looks like a no consensus situation at most, and given that it's normal for redirects for discussion to be decided by even 1 !vote majorities, delete would have also been a valid close, but I think the closer's decision to close as keep is very strange and confusing.

Even shorter version: no consensus > delete > keep. Thank you for taking the time to read my ramblings, I know I'm not good at being concise. Hope my train of thought made sense at least.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Speedy close as a pointless exercise. What possible difference would it make if we change "Keep" to "No consensus"? We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, not interpret Scripture. The closing admin was right in his decision. Unlike articles, redirects don't need to establish notability. They just need to be found useful by some users, and not be found harmful by a consensus. The Delete views in that RfD did not amount to a consensus, and the redir was correctly kept. Owen× 23:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Respectfully, I think this reply has an unnecessarily scornful tone. The first bullet-point of WP:DRVPURPOSE states that deletion review is for situations where one believes the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, which is the case here as I personally believed "keep" was the least accurate interpretation of the discussion we had. It's a bit much to give a disdainful response condemning this request as a pointless exercise equivalent to "interpreting scripture" incompatible with the goal of building an encyclopedia. I simply expressed that I didn't see sufficient reason for overriding the slim majority for delete or stating that there was a consensus for keep as I saw no such consensus. Both sides made policy-based arguments, both sides asserted that the term either was or was not a plausible search term, but neither side substantiated those claims with evidence beyond one !vote making the circular argument that the existence of the title is in and of itself evidence of it being a plausible term. I respect that you disagree, your perspective is entirely valid, I just would have wished you delivered that disagreement in a way that didn't sound so contemptuous as I don't think asking for a review here was such an unreasonable thing to do.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The purpose of DRV is to correct XfD closing mistakes so as to improve the encyclopedia, per WP:5P1. Your appeal is an honest attempt to correct what you see as an RfD closing mistake, but even if it succeeds, it will have zero impact on the encyclopedia. This is an effort driven by your sense of justice or aesthetics, but it serves no practical purpose, hence my comparison to theology. Also, I dispute your assessment of the Delete views on the MfD as being policy-based. "Per the AfD" is not a valid policy-based argument. The original AfD achieved consensus for renaming the article, but any views expressed there about the subsequent disposition of the resultant redirect page have no relevance to the RfD. But again, the question is purely academic and pointless. I urge you to withdraw your appeal, not for being incorrect, but for being a waste of editors' time. Owen× 12:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Final thoughts:
I will agree that without context, "Per the AfD" might read as a confusing statement with no relation to any valid deletion criteria. In context, "Per the AfD" seems to be a roundabout way of expressing that the editor believes in their subjective opinion the title is sufficiently offensive to warrant deletion, which is a valid rationale. Of course, it would not be reasonable to expect a closer to read what the user had to say elsewhere to understand their !vote, but I just wanted to briefly mention that to defend the legitimacy of their rationale.
There are a few reasons why I disagree that this a waste of time:
  1. Most importantly, as I outlined in the nom comments, I believed there was a nonzero possibility of a second opinion finding that delete should have been the outcome as it was in fact the majority opinion, and that certainly would not have been a waste of time. This request was not simply "please change it to no consensus", it was more broadly "please take a second look at this and tell me what you think."
  2. I also believe no consensus results are more inviting to future re-discussions. Not to say that "keep" is in any way inherently prejudicial to the possibility of future re-discussion, but no consensus results recognize that the issue remains unresolved, as opposed to suggesting that the issue has been settled already. This is a meaningful difference which has value to the goal of building an encyclopedia.
  3. Lastly, I also think the question of "was this correct" is in and of itself a valid and constructive reason to pursue a review.
But, in any case, I do intend to withdraw this because it is clear that a consensus will not develop in favor of a change to the outcome. I appreciate that some of the endorsers, especially the weak endorsers, seemed a little more sympathetic to my reasons for bringing this to DR. Thank you to those who took the time to respond to this request.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep this shows the topic is used in academic discourse. Redirection to a more neutral title is appropriate, but this redirect is clearly talking about a legitimate topic covered by RS'es. Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse there was no *effective* rebuttal to the keep arguments of it being a reasonable search term. Keep argumnts provided grounds for it being considered a reasonable search term, delete arguments simply asserted it was not. FWIW, I'd concur with the suggestion in the discussion to use {{R from non-neutral name}}. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd have gone no consensus myself, but keep is functionally equivalent. Weak endorse. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Endorse valid outcome, and no change to the ultimate result. SportingFlyer T·C 09:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am obviously biased here so will not be bolding anything, but I see this close as correct. There were multiple reasons given for why this is a plausible and indeed likely search term (being a redirect from a move, this and similar titles being created multiple times) and Jclemens above provides another reason why it meets the standards at WP:RNEUTRAL (the relevant guideline). It was also noted that it's not a very non-neutral term relative to the target. These fully rebut the only relevant part of the nomination (not a plausible search term) - what AfD or RM said about the title of the article is not relevant to any resultant redirects. The only other argument given for deletion was "superfluous" but as (I) noted that's not a reason to delete any redirect. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 12:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral - I think that No Consensus was the best closure, but overturning a Keep to a No Consensus would be meaningless process for process. Redirects are cheap. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Satoshi Utsunomiya (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • Withdraw. My mistake and lack of understanding regarding notability. I will support the keep of page again, and just will let discuss about user problem in other place.I previously recommended keeping this article in response to a previous deletion request. However, when I think about it again, I think this person is not noteworthy enough to be listed on the English version of Wikipedia. The number of papers he contributed to is not large. As far as I could find, this[9] was the only formally published paper that he contributed to. He has published numbers of thesis, but I don't know if they will be noteworthy. (Compare with Yasuhisa Nakajima, who collaborates with him and has published many papers, have many of media appearance, but does not even have a Japanese Wikipedia article.) He has a lot of media exposure in Japan, has published several books, and is often mentioned in the Japanese news about paleontology, but it is unclear whether he is an important enough person to warrant an article on the English Wikipedia. Of course, I appreciate his achievements so much as Japanese paleo-fan, but I think the Japanese version of Wikipedia's article is enough. The editor of this page (User:山登 太郎) only makes edits about him and his contributions, and causes problems such as negative statements about other researchers, publicity, copyright violations, etc in Japanese Wikipedia.[10] This user also created a page on the Chinese version of Wikipedia, but it has since been deleted, and got the comment "There is no need to translate the same article into other languages." It is about the user just created Chinese language version to Japanese Wikipedia. I mistook, so I will overturn this.[11] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. The appellant has not presented any argument for overturning what was a unanimous AfD, discounting the unreasoned nomination there. Notability is not language-dependent. If the subject of this article is notable, it is notable in Japanese, English, Chinese or any other language. If the zh-wiki admin deleted the page based on the argument, "There is no need to translate the same article into other languages", then that admin's action should be examined. We encourage the translation, with attribution, of all articles into all languages. And unless the appellant uncovered evidence that was not available to the participants of last week's AfD, I suggest they wait six months before renominating for deletion. That said, 山登 太郎 should be looked at in terms of being a SPA/COI editor, with a possible indef page/topic block. Owen× 13:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The problem is that none of the users who voted for these opinions specialize in paleontology articles. Look at deletion request of another paleo-related person Emily Willoughby, in this discussion users who specialize paleontology/biology articles are commented. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I completely mistook, Chinese version of page was contributed in Japanese Wikipedia, so that is removed. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Participants in an AfD aren't required to be subject matter experts. They are merely required to be able to assess available sources, and be familiar with Wikipedia's verifiability and notability policies and guidelines. Several highly experienced editors participated in that AfD. You are attempting to dismiss them all based on your claimed expertise in palaeontology. That is not how things work here.
    And please move your "Overturn" !vote to the nomination, where it belongs, or else it comes across as a duplicate. Owen× 14:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is this ok? I am not used to closing deletion request... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're arguing for an overturn in your nomination, and then you have a separate bolded "overturn" below. If you need help combining the two, I'll be happy to do it for you. Owen× 23:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is this ok now? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @OwenX What I tried to do was to withdraw this deletion request and keep the page again. Probably I did it wrong sorry... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


13 February 2024

Maria Monteiro Jardim

Maria Monteiro Jardim (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted at AfD due to lack of inherent notability of ambassadors. However, it is the same person as Maria Monteiro Jardin (the incorrect spelling comes from the source used in the page). Confirmation of the wrong spelling can be found in official documents. As a former minister of Angola, the subject meets WP:NPOL; the previously deleted content should be restored and the two pages merged. Courtesy ping to the users involved in the AfD LibStar and IgnatiusofLondon. Broc (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I can't see the deleted page, and am fine merging any information as a result since I don't know what's there to merge, but there's a possible contradiction between the WP:NPOL assumption and what is currently written in the Maria Monteiro Jardin page, which is just one line sourced to a yearbook, meaning that article is also potentially deletable. SportingFlyer T·C 12:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SportingFlyer why do you think a minister does not qualify for WP:NPOL? If expanded with the content of the previous article (which listed Jardim's positions as ambassadors to Malta and Italy, if I remember correctly) the page would not be a one-liner directory listing and become a nice looking stub. Broc (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Simply that NPOL gives a presumption of notability. If the only thing we can say about this person is that they were a minister once, it's better off mentioning in a list than as a stand-alone article, even though it is likely there is more information out there. SportingFlyer T·C 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Understood. I tried digging a bit deeper, I found [12] her speech at the signature of the Paris Agreement as Minister of the Environment and [13] her full biography until 2017. IMHO notability is shown and there is enough material, including her posts as ambassador covered by the deleted sources mentioned elsewhere here. Broc (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    After looking at your rewrite, I agree. Would concur with moving the current article to the old title. SportingFlyer T·C 22:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm hesitant to just restore this because it turns out also to have been a G5, but its sources were [14] [15] [16]. —Cryptic 12:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and recreate as a redir to Maria Monteiro Jardin over the deleted history move Maria Monteiro Jardin to Maria Monteiro Jardim. While this was a soft deletion, the G5 history and the non-notable content makes REFUND a poor choice here. But if anyone wishes to add a sentence about the ambassadorship to the target, Cryptic listed the sources above. Owen× 13:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If I've understood the sources correctly, the point is that Jardin is a misspelling, so the redirect should be from Jardin to Jardim, not the other way round, and incorporate also the document that Broc has found. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are right. Either way, the deletion should stand, and the history should be the one of the moved Jardin page. Owen× 15:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I've never participated in a deletion review and I'm consequently reluctant to provide a definitive recommendation. But OwenX's suggestion strikes me as a straightforward solution that circumvents the G5 concern (and makes this deletion review moot?). WP:NPOL is met through the ministerial position, and it seems likely that more sources can be found to avoid a permastub. That being said, the Portuguese-language Wikipedia has the same coverage as us (same sentence on the misspelled Jardin, no article on Jardim), so we might not expect a more satisfying coverage anytime soon. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is a rather odd deletion review, but as a participant in the AfD endorsing the deletion but also the subsequent move back to the deleted page does hold some weight. SportingFlyer T·C 16:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment If there is a time for WP:IAR, this is the moment. What we have is a deletion of a page that was a duplicate of another page. That original page had a misspelling in the title, the page deleted had the correct title. Our job is to get this right for our readers. My thought is that we unwind everything to before the AfD, merge the content from the page with the incorrect title to the correct title, and then (if necessary) open a new AfD on the merged title. --Enos733 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd be fully in support of your proposal if it weren't for the G5 aspect. Regardless, nothing of value was lost in this deletion, and I doubt we owe the blocked sock an attribution. Owen× 20:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Was the deleted article substantially edited by others? But, either way, I think we need to get this correctly sorted before we address the AfD close (which to be clear was not in error based on the information provided in the discussion, but other factors should be addressed first). - Enos733 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd love to be corrected, but as far as I remember, the deleted article was a few sentences at most, so it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to write it from scratch using the sources shared here. I suspect that this is one of those discussions where, between AfD and DRV, we might be expending more time talking about the content than there is actual content to discuss :)) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The deleted article was exactly two sentences, 47 words in total, with her name alone - Maria De Fátima Domingas Monteiro Jardim - making up 15% of the entire article text by character count. And yes, as you correctly point out, in the time we've spent discussing this here, we could have rewritten this several times over. But it looks like Broc already did the necessary work. Owen× 22:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I wasn't expecting to initiate such a large discussion! Following the general consensus, I expanded the page at Maria Monteiro Jardin including the sources previously used in the deleted page, as mentioned by Cryptic, as well as newly found ones. As it seems admins are reluctant to recover the previous page because of G5 concerns, if no additional significant edit history is to be recovered, I would suggest closing the discussion and redirecting Maria Monteiro Jardin to Maria Monteiro Jardim or, even better, Maria de Fátima Monteiro Jardim. As the creator of this DRV, I will let someone else wrap this up. Broc (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you! I agree. Owen× 22:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Broc: wait a second, what's the WP:COMMONNAME here for the title move? SportingFlyer T·C 22:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm seeing Fátima, perhaps even over Monteiro. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree. It seems the "shorter version" is Fàtima Jardim, although most sources go with the full name (see Portuguese name). Broc (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - I think that I agree with User:Enos733, and in any case we should ignore any rules that interfere with the proper outcome (that is, the good of the encyclopedia). The proper outcome is one article with the most common correct form of the subject's name, and redirects from all shortened or lengthened forms of her name and all misspelled forms of her name that have been seen. The blocked sock is a distraction, not a real issue. The subject was a minister in a cabinet and passes notability. Create the best possible article and put it where it belongs. I am not saying to Endorse or Overturn because that is less important than the final result. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify undeleting the deleted page, but sources were copied from the deleted page and some or all have already been reused, so there is no need to undelete. Since the (other) biography of this person sat at the wrong name, which simply isn't something that can be tolerated for multiple days after being discovered, I moved that article to Maria de Fátima Monteiro Jardim as a temporary name which is not concise but at least isn't incorrect.—Alalch E. 02:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

9 February 2024

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

I am bringing up for review a close of a discussion about REVDEL-ing the diffs of two redirect pages. I think that there was consensus to revdel the diffs here, for the following reasons:

  • One keep !vote argued that one of the children was notable and so the diffs for that page should not be revdel-ed, whereas three editors (myself and two others) explained why the sourcing that was provided was trivial tabloid coverage.
  • One keep !vote argued that These are great-grandchildren of a sovereign, members of the most famous family in the world, in line to the throne and easily meet WP:GNG. This is clearly incorrect per WP:INVALIDBIO,[a] which I cited in the discussion, a well as WP:NRVE and WP:NOTINHERITED.
  • Another keep !vote argued that the diffs don't look that bad to me compared to examples from REVDEL categories 1-4; this argument was contested with policy-based reasons by myself and another editor, who argued that it's "bad" per WP:NPF and that Trivial and tabloid coverage are not acceptable for biographies, and the fact that these keep getting recreated suggests the potential for BLP harm from their existence in redirect history.

In sum, two of the keep !votes were based on misapprehensions of relevant guidelines (SIGCOV and GNG) and one was a gut check based on a misreading of an informational page. By contrast, the three delete !votes were all rooted in policy (WP:NPF) and a proper understanding of what constitutes SIGCOV. Thus, there was a rough consensus rooted in P&Gs and the keep !votes that ignored the P&Gs or misinterpreted them should have been discounted.

Notes

  1. ^ "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability."
voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse and permit recreation of full articles if sourcing is found to be arguably sufficient. Pretty much all celebrity coverage is non-encyclopedic, UK Royals are no exception, and redirection with history intact is appropriate. We don't REVDEL redirect revisions that could be part of a future encyclopedic article. If there's some argument that the revisions per se are harmful, it hasn't been made compellingly there nor here. Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Savannah Phillips was deleted at AFD five years ago (discussion), so in hindsight you might have had better luck asking for revdeletion on that basis. The bundled afd at /Isla Phillips supersedes it now, though. —Cryptic 23:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is just a WP:DROPTHESTICK instance. Both articles have already been redirected. There's no need to delete the page history. Let's just move on. There wasn't a clear consensus to delete the revisions. Sionk (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse the No Consensus if I understand correctly. This is not really a deletion review but an argument about redacting history and therefore hiding deleted articles from view. I am involved in the history of a previous article on Savannah Phillips which is currently hidden from view. As a reviewer, I accepted a draft five years ago, promoting it to article space, but it was then nominated for deletion, and I !voted to Keep, but it was deleted. However, this doesn't appear to be about whether to create articles on these girls, who may or may not be royalty. They will always be subject to argument over whether they are or are not princesses, because they really are and are not princesses.
    • The real issue seems to be that two articles were created without consensus, and were then cut down to redirects, and an editor wants to redact the articles from the history. There is no compelling need to hide these redirected articles, which have been blanked for lack of notability and not for biographies of living persons violations.
    • I don't think that DRV is meant to be a forum to discuss revision deletion of articles that were cut down to redirects, but there may not be a forum for the purpose, and here we are. There is no need to redact the redirected articles.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse redaction is a strong tool, and in order to get to an overturn I think those opposing have to be shown to be clearly wrong on policy, and I don't think that was the case here. I think it's a pretty simple no consensus that the diffs were not bad enough to redact, albeit maybe another support would have tipped the scales. I also think the article that was deleted could probably have been redacted on its own before the AfD discussion was made, in line with Cryptic above. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse "no consensus" result generally per Jclemens and Robert McClenon. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 February 2024

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

Four people wanted this gone from the mainspace: myself as nominator, a delete voter and two redirect voters. Only one wanted it kept, plus a PERNOM voter. Yet that is, in effect, what happened.

This outcome is even more odd given this very similar discussion. There, the participants’ alignment was the same, except there was one redirect voter, not two. And yet the outcome was a redirect. Why the discrepancy? — Biruitorul Talk 23:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse, but allow early renomination. Even if we ignore the PERX, there are still three on that AfD who didn't want the history deleted, versus two who did. Personally, I would have closed this as a redirect. But with a 2-2 split between the Delete and the Redirect views, and at least one well-reasoned Keep view, a No consensus is well within the discretion of the closing admin. Owen× 00:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse (or overturn to keep). The discussion should have ended as "keep" at the time of the first relist. Pilaz demonstrated notability and this was not substantively contradicted. The two last editors recommending redirection argued that the content is non-topical, i.e. that there is a mismatch between the subject as denoted by the title of the article and the actual content, but that wasn't entirely true because there were at least two sentences talking about the embassy, and that is enough for a stub (The Embassy of the United States in Asunción is the diplomatic mission of the United States in Paraguay. ... On June 29, 2023, a new embassy was opened on the same 14-acre site as the previous building). Offending content could have been cleaned up by anyone by simply removing it, as an editorial action, which doesn't require an AfD redirect. Topical content could have been written by anyone to expand the article from a stub, using the sources identified in the AfD, which doesn't require for the article to have been redirected first.—Alalch E. 03:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - If there isn't a consensus on what to do, sometimes No Consensus really is a valid close, and this is such a case. A closer needs courage to take on an AFD that has a scattering of !votes. If they tease a close out of the scattering, someone is likely to disagree, and ask DRV to overturn to No Consensus. If they close it as No Consensus, because there was no consensus, someone is likely to ask DRV to overturn, and say that the closer should have reasoned a closure. I will seldom !vote in DRV to overturn a close of No Consensus, which is almost always a valid close when there is a scattering, and is sometimes the best close. There really was No Consensus in this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment — I wouldn’t have opened this discussion had there not been a different result in a similar discussion just a couple of days later; I assumed the inconsistency was a problem. But seeing how my proposal is headed nowhere, I would like to withdraw it, if that’s possible at DRV, rather than prolong the inevitable. — Biruitorul Talk 13:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, you can absolutely withdraw your nomination. I commend you for doing the right thing. An uninvolved admin will soon close this DRV. Owen× 13:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec