Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
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:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
- 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);
- (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.)
- 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);
- 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);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed); or
- for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- 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.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
1. |
Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |reason= }} ~~~~ Copy this template skeleton for files: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |article= |reason= }} ~~~~ |
2. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~ |
3. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
4. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
5. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express his or her opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
- Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted |
*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~ |
*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~ |
*'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~ |
*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~ |
*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~ |
*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~ |
*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~ |
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}}
template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.
If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Speedy closes
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
- Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
Active discussions
8 June 2021
Marek Kukula
- Marek Kukula (talk||history|logs|links|watch) ([[1]]|restore)
Had I thought for a second that Wikipedia editors would subsequently be so determined to hold to their prejudices regarding tabloid reports, even in a case like this, where there is literally no reason why anyone would ever suspect these reports to be false (bar their deeply held prejudice), then I most definitely would have said the better outcome was for Wikipedia to choose not to be the official host of a ridiculously incomplete alleged biography. I suspect others would have too. This man's career is over. He was convicted of a serious crime. A crime that was majorly pertinent to his career. Pretending it never happened, is unconscionable, especially if the outcome is ironically to ensure that reading tabloid reports with loaded terms like vile and disturbing, now becomes necessary companion reading alongside this Wikipedia page. It didn't need to be that way, there is a low risk, high reward way forward, but to a man, Wikipedia editors refused to see reason. So be it. Their actions must have consequences. Wikipedia does not get to pretend here, that their supposed act of responsibility, hasn't led to a hugely irresponsible outcome. They have made a choice, on the presumption the original decision to keep it, was correct. There is a less damaging choice, once the presumption that the original decision was wrong, due to a lack of foresight, is seen. Simply delete it. I must share blame, I did not foresee this intransigence. I assumed Wikipedia editors were rational, and well able to deal with complicated scenarios where issues must be carefully balanced, with prejudices left at the door. Evidently they are not. There is a serious child safety issue here with regard to Wikipedia hosting an incomplete biography, one that I suspect was not properly foreseen in the debate. I hesitate to specifically lay it out, because it would rather unfairly suggest things about this man, who by those tabloid accounts, may well now be completely contrite and a model prisoner and indeed citizen, going forward. But to those with sufficient life experience, who read all the available material, the reliable Wikipedia biography and its unreliable companion reading, you should be able to see what the risk is, going forward. It might seem small, almost inconceivable, but do you want to take that chance? I don't. Deal me out. I officially disavow any part I might have had in any such future tragedy. I am not buying the claims that this risk is adequately covered by the disclaimer either, and I suspect others won't be too, especially when the overall reason given for this ridiculous prejudice holding sway here, is making people think Wikipedia really is all about being responsible. Children are certainly ill equipped to appreciate what most adults probably don't even realise is the horrific reality of that disclaimer, in scenarios like this. Which may well even be unique. Who knows. I doubt Wikipedia is keeping score. To sum up, it is the height of irresponsibility, to put a prejudice against tabloids, above the interests of child safety. If this page is deleted, who is harmed? Nobody that I can see. Do no harm. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
7 June 2021
Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis
- Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This deletion discussion for Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis was roughly concurrent with some edit warring at COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, which ultimately was redirected to COVID-19 misinformation#Lab accident. The deletion discussion of the the draft looked to me to be a pretty clear no-consensus, but it was closed with what I would characterize as a supervote that left much to be desired in the way of explanation, particularly given the importance of the topic and the volume of participation in the discussion: "The result of the discussion was: delete. The arguments for delete outweigh the keep.". I had considered initiating a deletion review back in February on the weight of mainstream, reliable coverage of the lab leak hypothesis presented not as misinformation that existed at the time (e.g. [2] and [3]). Now, given a slew of additional mainstream coverage (e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]), I think we're compelled to review this matter. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate a temp-undelete. I'm also a bit curious as to why this is worth fighting over. Is there genuinely something in these pages that you want back, or is this simply a proxy for the broader debate over the lab-leak theory? If it's the latter, it would seem that your time would be better spent arguing over mainspace content (e.g. by participating in the pending talkpage discussions, RfCs, and ArbCom case) than relitigating the debate over these user- and draft-space pages. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Extraordinary Writ, The point of this review is that COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis should be its own article that presents the subject in a neutral fashion, rather than a redirect to COVID-19 misinformation. A starting point for this article would be either 1) a restoration of this version of COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis or a similar version, 2) a restoration and publishing to the mainspace of the draft in question here, or some 3) some hybridization of the two. Rather than simply continuing the edit war in February, isn't the proper course of action to acknowledge the concurrent and related discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and reverse the decision that was made there? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- But even if we give you everything you want here (by overturning the MfD to keep), you won't be any closer to getting that. All you'll have is a draft in draft-space; getting that draft into article-space would still require all sorts of additional discussions, probably including an RfC. My point is that you might as well go straight to the RfC, since this DRV won't make a difference one way or another. In other words, there's really nothing that we can do for you here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, it will restore the draft if this review concludes in an overturn. At that point, it would make sense to review the draft and this version of "COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis" and see about pushing some combination of the two to the main space. If there's pushback on that, we then could do an RFC. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- But even if we give you everything you want here (by overturning the MfD to keep), you won't be any closer to getting that. All you'll have is a draft in draft-space; getting that draft into article-space would still require all sorts of additional discussions, probably including an RfC. My point is that you might as well go straight to the RfC, since this DRV won't make a difference one way or another. In other words, there's really nothing that we can do for you here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Extraordinary Writ, The point of this review is that COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis should be its own article that presents the subject in a neutral fashion, rather than a redirect to COVID-19 misinformation. A starting point for this article would be either 1) a restoration of this version of COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis or a similar version, 2) a restoration and publishing to the mainspace of the draft in question here, or some 3) some hybridization of the two. Rather than simply continuing the edit war in February, isn't the proper course of action to acknowledge the concurrent and related discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and reverse the decision that was made there? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- DRV colleagues analyzing this request may wish to refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Origins_of_COVID-19 (permalink) for some context and background.—S Marshall T/C 23:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- As the deleting admin I really don't care if it's revived or not. The comment was not a "supervote" but an evaluation of what people had said in the discussion. The explanation of closing isn't mandatory, just customary. Nor is a longer explanation required just because the discussion is long. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse. While the participants were evenly divided numerically, a proper closure must discount !votes made by sockpuppets, canvassed users, SPAs, and those whose arguments are not policy-based. There are by my count at least a half-dozen keep !votes that fall into one or more of those categories, while the delete !votes do not appear to be similarly afflicted. While there were obviously plenty of reasonable, well-argued keep !votes, they seem to have been exceeded (both numerically and by weight of argument) by the number of reasonable, well-argued delete !votes. Additionally, the delete side's TNT argument – that this draft as written was useless for mainspace purposes regardless of the topic's merits more generally – seems to have never been rebutted at all. In light of these facts, as well as my careful review of the discussion, I believe the closer interpreted the consensus reasonably. (A more detailed closing statement, while not required, would have made everyone's job here a lot easier.) That being said, this MfD was obviously not a total or eternal prohibition against lab-leak-related drafts. Things have (to put it mildly) changed a lot since February, and I find it improbable that a well-written, well-sourced draft written today would be referred to MfD at all. I, of course, express no opinion on the merits of the content dispute here. But if a solution to that dispute exists, it won't be found by relitigating a months-old closure of a months-old discussion of months-old drafts written with months-old sources. It will be found by more talk-page discussions (perhaps in the form of an an RfC) about how we ought to cover this complex, multifaceted, controversial, and difficult topic. But we needn't resolve all that today. As explained above, this closure was the scope of the closer's discretion, and so it ought to be sustained. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Allow recreation in draft of an article epitomizing the best of core Wikipedia policies. Draftspace is indeed the most proper place to deal with highly controversial political topics when there's no clear consensus to present them as standalone articles or not. Personally, as someone who had spent a career investigating people doing stupid things, the idea that the idea that "someone screwed up" would itself be labeled a conspiracy theory seems farcical. (shrug) But it is what it is. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Draftspace is far from a good place for challenging topics, because in draftspace individual editors work in isolation. Wikipedia's success on controversial topics depends on many editors, even readers, watching, and stepping in when it goes bad. I believe that FORKing to draftspace should be forbidden, unless done with consensus at the talk page of the article currently covering the topic. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- temp undeleted for this discussion' WilyD 10:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse. Draftspace is not for POVFORKing. The topic is already covered in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse for a start many of the Keep comments came from SPAs and the closer would have been entitled to downweight or disregard these. But even apart from that the strength of argument was on the side of those arguing for deletion. The justifications for keeping were largely based on the existence of sources about the topic, the topic passing notability guidelines, and the general topic being encyclopedic. None of that rebuts the arguments for deletion - that the draft was a POV fork and that it gives undue credibility to a fringe theory. Even if it is possible to write an appropriate article about the topic, that doesn't mean these particular drafts are worth keeping. Hut 8.5 11:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Allow recreation per JClemens. Also, given the fundamental change in circumstances, WP:IAR. The whole Wikipedia project looks ridiculous not giving this matter the substantive coverage that is widely available today on reliable sources. Loksmythe (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Is WP:POVFORK even a reason to delete a draft? The arguments for deletion were largely applicable to articles, not to draft space. And given that there is a large contengent of serious scientists in the area who think this is worth looking into, I don't see how we can justify not having an article actually on this topic in mainspace. Overturn.Hobit (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
6 June 2021
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
how can this be deleted? it is a major service, at one of the most active websites in the world. -Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 13:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
4 June 2021
List of elections in 2021 (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
To Aréat, why do you delete this substantial amount of information that shows elections around the world? To Geshtaldt, why do you support Aréat ? Evidence : (Undid revision 1027239597 by 95.249.239.231 (talk) Previous editing was a mistake.) If yall have good faith and reasoning, i have no further doubts and clarification more. If i accused wrongly, please forgive me, i am truly sorry and that i did not know whats going on and why must these people delete this page for. |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
3 June 2021
Draft:South Ossetia–United States relations
- Draft:South Ossetia–United States relations (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I'm requesting this review of my draft on the relations between South Ossetia and the United States for the reason that from the recent AfD, it seemed there wasn't a discussion regarding the article I created, and aside from the one delete vote, redirecting to the International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia was the most overwhelming choice and final decision. I don't understand why as to despite the fact the United States remains a global power, an article about the relations or the lack of in this case with South Ossetia doesn't meet the notability requirements. Whether or not there are formal relations between the two states, there is significant information regarding it. An article I created that was accepted about Abkhazia–United States relations and a large chunk of this article contains the same information in the Abkhazia article because both de-facto states relations with the U.S. intersect. In both articles, it's stated the ban on U.S. aid to both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I don't see why that part in this article is considered not notable, and yet in the Abkhazia article, it is. There are credible sources used here. Notability in my view is established, but for some reason not in the view of other editors. In the AfD, the nominator stated this was a recreation, it wasn't. I changed the original redirect to the international relations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia article to my draft version which I decided to no longer wait on the review process before I added this version to the original redirect. The original creation looked like this. That version had no sources or any real encyclopedic value. I would like to add the article isn't about something which it denies, which does exist for other articles about two countries with no relations whatsoever. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - The background is that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are two regions that have had very limited recognition as nations following the invasion of Georgia (country) by Russia in 2008. The United States, and the vast majority of other countries, view them as de jure still part of Georgia. The question is whether there should be articles on the relations or non-relations between the United States and these two political entities, on Abkhazia–United States relations and South Ossetia–United States relations. Articles on both of them were deleted in January 2014. The 2014 deletion discussions are not the subject. South Ossetia–United States relations was then recreated, and was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2021 in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Ossetia–United States relations (2nd nomination) , which was closed as Redirect. The appellant then submitted Draft: South Ossetia–United States relations, and I rejected it as not notable, having very recently been the subject of a deletion discussion. The appellant argued (civilly, persistently) with me, and I said that Deletion Review was the recourse. The appellant said that we had an article on Abkhazia–United States relations. That is true. The appellant had submitted a draft on it, which was accepted by a different reviewer. I nominated it for deletion on 3 June 2021 as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abkhazia–United States relations (2nd nomination).
- My opinion is that what is important is that Wikipedia should be consistent with regard to these two limited-recognition states. Either both should have articles on their non-relations with the United States, or both should be redirects. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - There was no error by the closer concerning South Ossetia. However, can we Relist the discussion of South Ossetia and Bundle it with Abkhazia, to have one discussion to establish consensus on whether articles on both are in order, or whether both should be redirected? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- How about merging the two articles since both articles contain a vast majority of the same information? Both pages can be titled say United States relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse just to be clear this is a request to overturn the result of this very recent AfD. The version in draft space is essentially identical to this version, the only difference is the removal of one paragraph. That AfD seems to be validly closed and the argument for redirection seems reasonable - the draft does consist entirely of statements by US figures saying that the US doesn't/won't recognise South Ossetia and condemning countries which do. It's a reasonable editorial decision to decide that this should be covered as part of a wider article rather than a standalone one. Abkhazia is a different place, the circumstances may well be different, and that article has never survived an AfD. Hut 8.5 09:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse per Hut 8.5. I can't see the deleted version, but if we're in G4 territory, that AfD had sufficient participation and a clear result this article should not be on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 11:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is no deleted version. —Cryptic 02:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ah yes, because of the redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 14:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is no deleted version. —Cryptic 02:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse the AfD and decision to redirect. Out of scope for DRV because no deletion has occurred, not even a pseudo deletion. This is a merge and structure question, and the place to discuss the content, including the possibility of a WP:SPINOUT, is not at DRV but at Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse/no action, consensus is clear. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
2 June 2021
Sacred Microdistillery
- Sacred Microdistillery (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
- Sacred microdistillery (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
- Sacred Gin (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
I am also requesting restoration of these three talk pages and history merging with Talk:Sacred Gin if any of them contain substantive discussion:
- Talk:Sacred Microdistillery (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
- Talk:Sacred microdistillery (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
- Talk:Sacred Gin (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
The related discussion is at User talk:Deb and User talk:Cunard.
Deb speedy deleted Sacred Microdistillery as "Unambiguous advertising". I wrote, "Based on the references' access dates from the Google cache of the article, I did work in the article around 2010. I think there is a non-promotional version in the article's history that can be reverted to, so {{db-spam}} does not apply. Would you restore the article?" Deb restored the single revision I worked on.
I added four book sources to the draft, which addressed the A7 part of Deb's statement when Deb restored the 2010 version: "restored version, not G11 but possibly A7 - for Cunard". I moved the draft back to mainspace at Sacred Microdistillery since there is no speedy deletion reason to keep this version of the article from mainspace since A7 now clearly does not apply. I moved the article from Sacred Microdistillery to Sacred Spirits because the company changed its name.
I asked Deb to restore all revisions of Sacred Microdistillery to Sacred Spirits. The earlier versions are needed to comply with Wikipedia:Copyright policy and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia since I did not write all of the content in the single restored revision of the article. The later versions are needed because I oppose deleting 11 years of an article's history when the only concern is that some editors introduced promotionalism. I would prefer to be working on the latest version of the article (which has no reference errors, additional content, categories, and a photo) as opposed to a 11-year-old version of the article where the references have errors. I said that I expected Wikipedia:Deletion review would support restoration since the deleted revisions did not have copyright violations or BLP violations. I also requested that Talk:Sacred Microdistillery is restored and moved to Talk:Sacred Spirits.
In response, Deb wrote, "Okay, do that. There are other admins who are willing to restore promotional content." I am therefore posting a deletion review to request restoration of the deleted revisions.
Deb also wrote:
The history is a bit mysterious because the article was created by User:Accounting4Taste, who is no longer with us, in January 2021, with the summary "creating a sandbox page with deleted material", and it took me a while to figure out that it was created as "Sacred microdistillery" and before that as "Sacred Gin". There were two deletion discussions: here and here and then it was redirected. Do you feel that these old versions are of any value?
To comply with the copyright policy, the content from Sacred microdistillery and Sacred Gin may also need to be restored. I am therefore requesting restoration of those revisions too. I am also requesting restoration of the associated talk pages if any of them contain substantive discussion. Cunard (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- This whole thing looks like a complete mess. From what I can tell, this article was deleted twice twelve years ago, someone sandboxed the deleted material, restored it, which that was the basis for a G11 deletion? And now you want to restore the history of the deleted versions because you've incorporated some deleted content into the latest version? Is this correct? Is there any reason why a dummy edit wouldn't suffice here? (Also, I'm not convinced the article as written passes WP:NORG, but that's a different, albeit not irrelevant, tangent.) SportingFlyer T·C 12:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have addressing your notability concern here and am addressing the other points you raise below. The subject was substantially discussed in these three books:
- Grossman, Eric (2016). Craft Spirits: Know the Makers, Infuse Your Own, Create New Cocktails. New York: Penguin Random House. pp. 70–71. ISBN 978-1-4654-4384-7. Retrieved 2021-06-01.
The book provides two pages of coverage (including some photos) of Sacred Microdistillery.
- Brown, Tina (2018). Gin: An Illustrated History. Stroud: Amberley Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4456-8006-4. Retrieved 2021-06-01.
The book provides 2.5 pages of text and four pages of photos about Sacred Gin.
- Stephenson, Tristan (2016). The Curious Bartender's Gin Palace. London: Ryland Peters & Small. ISBN 978-1-84975-701-0. Retrieved 2021-06-01.
The book proves two pages of text and several pages of photos about Sacred Gin.
- Grossman, Eric (2016). Craft Spirits: Know the Makers, Infuse Your Own, Create New Cocktails. New York: Penguin Random House. pp. 70–71. ISBN 978-1-4654-4384-7. Retrieved 2021-06-01.
- Why would it be OK use G11 on an article where there was a non-promotional version in the history? Why not just revert to the non-promotional version? That decision to G11 seems wrong to me, in which case DRV would surely remedy that by restoring the other revisions. To perform a complex history merge involving several pages may be disproportionate, in which case we might want to consider the alternatives.—S Marshall T/C 15:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't necessarily agree that the version I restored was entirely non-promotional, just that it wasn't unsalvageable. But you can see it in the history; judge for yourself. Deb (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- If there was a version that in your judgment was ok to restore, why not just revert to that? I'm really struggling to make sense of the G11 here.—S Marshall T/C 16:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- If I've given the idea that I was happy about restoring it, I wasn't. I agreed to restore it to draft primarily so that Cunard could see what his version looked like. I hoped that he would use it to create a fresh article without any promotional content. In retrospect, I don't think I should have restored it at all. Deb (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- If there was a version that in your judgment was ok to restore, why not just revert to that? I'm really struggling to make sense of the G11 here.—S Marshall T/C 16:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't necessarily agree that the version I restored was entirely non-promotional, just that it wasn't unsalvageable. But you can see it in the history; judge for yourself. Deb (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be okay to G11 an entire article, in fact I think G11 itself requires restoration:
If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.
However, there's a couple ways this could go depending on what the history looks like given the two AfDs, and an admin's going to have to dig into the history to figure out exactly what's going on here. I still have concerns about the article as it's currently written too - it looks like it has been discussed in some books so I may be wrong about the NORG, but it doesn't feel like an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be okay to G11 an entire article, in fact I think G11 itself requires restoration:
- Comment about incorrect speedy deletion and the copyright policy: In 2010, Sacred Microdistillery was restored at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 20#Sacred microdistillery. Since deletion review concluded that a previous version of the article did not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, Deb's 2021 speedy deletion under WP:G11 was incorrect. The history of Sacred Spirits makes it look like I wrote the entire article, which is incorrect. This is because Deb restored to draft my single edit to the article. Other editors started and contributed to the article before I made my edit, so why not restore their edits too? This violates Wikipedia:Copyright violations. I am requesting that all revisions of Sacred Microdistillery be restored and history merged with Sacred Spirits.
Based on Deb's comment here that a previous deleting admin restored content with the edit summary "creating a sandbox page with deleted material", there could be other violations of the Wikipedia:Copyright violations policy if previously deleted content from Sacred microdistillery and Sacred Gin were used in the article. I do not have access to the history so I don't know. I am requesting restoration of those pages' history to comply with the copyright policy if any of those pages' content was used. If those pages' content was not used, then I am fine with those pages remaining deleted.
S Marshall makes a good point about a history merge possibly being too complex. If a history merge would be too complex because of Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves#Parallel versions, the history should still be restored but the {{Copied}} template should be used as recommended in the guide.
- I am pinging C.Fred (talk · contribs), who commented in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 20#Sacred microdistillery that "I've been coaching Beefeaterdrinker on what the article needs to make it notable—and to get it improved enough that it's no longer a substantial copy of the article deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Sacred Gin (2nd nomination)."
The uninvolved participants in this discussion are not admins. As an admin, would you (or any other admin) review the deletion revisions of Sacred Microdistillery, Sacred microdistillery, and Sacred Gin and confirm for each article whether or not any of the content was used in Sacred Gin so would require attribution? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
1 June 2021
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I would ask that the Hungarian Testing Board (HTB) page is undeleted for 2 reasons: 1) If the HTB's parent organisation International Software Testing Qualifications Board is considered a notable organisation, it seems logical that affiliated national organisations such as the Hungarian Testing Board--like the neighbouring Austrian Testing Board--should also be considered notable. 2) The Hungarian Testing Board is a notable organization in its own right. Let me expand on these 2 reasons: Evidence for 1):
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=istqb
Stanford: https://www.stanford.edu/search/?q=istqb&search_type=web&submit= MIT: https://web.mit.edu/search/?q=istqb#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=istqb&gsc.page=1 Evidence for 2):
https://www.sed.inf.u-szeged.hu/ISTQB_ATFL
https://hustef.hu/speakers2020/ To conclude, I think the Hungarian Testing Board page should be undeleted because it is a notable organization both within Hungary and--through its work with the HUSTEF conference--around the World. Sldn37 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Both the AFD nominator and the only contributor to this AFD are sockpuppets
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Recent discussions
31 May 2021
Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame)
- Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I believe the closure was incorrect. By agreeing very briefly with one Redirect statement, the closer essentially disregarded all of the Keep statements without addressing them adequately, which amounted to a supervote. The closer did not take in consideration nor address WP:BUILD nor any of the arguments but forth by those voting keep (which were the majority, with 8/11 participants voting keep and agreeing it met GNG). Finally, I tried to contact the closer to challenge/dicuss their deletion, but my post on their talk page was deleted and no reasons were given, not did they defend their closure.Eccekevin (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Spartaz didn't delete your talk page enquiry, Eccekevin, but he archived it without reply, which was rude of him. The rule that says sysops need to explain their deletion decisions is set out at WP:ADMINACCT. Spartaz broke it. He shouldn't do any admin actions that he's not willing to explain. But it wouldn't be fair of me to raise false hopes, so I should say now that, while DRV might give you a better explanation and a fairer process, it's not very likely to change the outcome because I think we'll find that Spartaz' close was right on policy.—S Marshall T/C 03:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- He deleted it days after I posted it, without addressing it. He did not address any of the arguments brought by the keep voters, as outlined above, and the majority of participants agreed that it met GNG. Regardless, I'm not here to discuss the mertis but rather the way that the discussion was closed, which I beleive was wrong and should be relisted. Eccekevin (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I suspect that the reason Spartaz did not reply was that that editor considered that the close already explained things properly, and anyway the question seemed to coincide with a decision to leave Wikipedia. Statements that look like votes in AfD discussions should be disregarded if they don't explain how Wikipedia policies/guidelines come into effect, and here it was mostly the "keep" opiners who made such comments. I wish that plain "deletes" with no evidence were treated in the same way, but that seems unlikely to happen given the unwillingness of many prolific editors at AfD to lift a finger to actually look for sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The nominator's post[12] actually referred to Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) where Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame) (2nd nomination) was closed as keep by a different admin. Since there was no reply this may not make much difference to a process that is essentially arbitrary anyway. Thincat (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- overturn to no consensus or keep. If I were king this would probably be a redirect. Buildings on a campus are generally not notable and I don't think this one is so far over the bar that we should have a full article on it. But A) there is a reasonable argument (using local, though independent, sources) that the GNG is met and B) that's not where the discussion got to. I think "no consensus" is about as far as this can be stretched to. From an organizational viewpoint, I'd rather see a paragraph or 2 for each of these in a single article...Hobit (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion wasn't showing on the main DRV page because AnomieBot kept removing it -- see this. Apparently the problem was caused by formatting issues. It's incredibly rare to relist deletion reviews, and I'm not sure what the process would be for it, but in this case I wonder if that might not be appropriate, so as to ensure that the community remains free to consider the matter for the requisite 168 hours.—S Marshall T/C 09:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Overturn to keep per the Badin Hall revised outcome, WP:ADMINACCT, the fact that what was asserted to be canvassing and accepted by the closing admin as such was at worst marginal in that it sought sources to substantiate a keep outcome but otherwise met all expectations, and that the closing admin improperly discounted a number of "sources look good" !votes after, wait for it, numerous sources had been posted in the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Involved so not bolding any vote here but happy with the close - just because sources exist doesn't mean they demonstrate notability or even pass WP:GNG. Redirect is a good outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 12:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, it's a reasonable outcome... it's just not supported at all by the AfD in question, which is the real issue here. And I don't know that there's a rule against an XfD participant having a !vote at DRV, so feel free to do so if so inclined. Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree, and I think it is supported - the keep votes aren't very good, as the closer noted, and properly disregarded. There isn't a hard and firm rule, but I've long held a view AfD participants should make clear they participated in the AfD, especially if their DRV outlook matches the AfD, as mine does (if you participate at DRV and that doesn't match your opinion at the AfD, I'd consider that a strong DRV !vote, but endorsing an outcome you advocated for at AfD really doesn't mean much in my mind, so I don't specifically vote.) I'm participating here only to point out the existence of sources doesn't necessarily equal notability, and this shouldn't be overturned on those grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 16:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Go back, if you would, and read the discussion from top to bottom, ignoring the assertions of canvassing. At the top, there's a few redirects, but they peter out as more and more sources are added to the discussion, and it then becomes overwhelmingly keep, ending with an unbroken line of five keeps. Now, you can look at that two ways: 1) either the sources swayed people and the final !votes took those sources into account even if only one of them explicitly used the right words, or 2) ABF'ing that all the keeps were canvassed. Extending AGF is an expectation, but was not followed particularly well by one of the other participants nor was it followed by the closer, who appears to have been swayed by that one accusation, and hence assumed less good (at a minimum) faith about those who said "I wasn't canvassed." That's why I can't see any way that 'redirect' would win the day in an impartial closing. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- None of those later keep !votes you were referring to address the problem with the sources, though - they're all essentially "it's notable" without diving into any of the issues with the sources. I don't think it would be incorrect for a closer to discount them. SportingFlyer T·C 18:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think that what is needed is much more general than just one AfD discussion. There needs to be a change of culture whereby anyone commenting in an AfD should address the sources that are in the article, provided in the discussion, or, most importantly, that they can find themselves. A first step along this way would be for anyone who is not absolutely certain about the outcome to not put the words keep or delete in front of their comments, but that would be very difficult as most editors who take part in such discussions seem to be absolutely sure of their snap decisions arrived at in a few seconds. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Isn't that exactly why we have WP:NOTAVOTE, though? Some AfDs are simple and don't require much discussion. Others, like this one, have more nuance, and require engagement to make a good contribution. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, we have WP:NOTAVOTE, but the vast majority of editors at AfD ignore it and vote without doing anything to look for sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Isn't that exactly why we have WP:NOTAVOTE, though? Some AfDs are simple and don't require much discussion. Others, like this one, have more nuance, and require engagement to make a good contribution. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think that what is needed is much more general than just one AfD discussion. There needs to be a change of culture whereby anyone commenting in an AfD should address the sources that are in the article, provided in the discussion, or, most importantly, that they can find themselves. A first step along this way would be for anyone who is not absolutely certain about the outcome to not put the words keep or delete in front of their comments, but that would be very difficult as most editors who take part in such discussions seem to be absolutely sure of their snap decisions arrived at in a few seconds. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- None of those later keep !votes you were referring to address the problem with the sources, though - they're all essentially "it's notable" without diving into any of the issues with the sources. I don't think it would be incorrect for a closer to discount them. SportingFlyer T·C 18:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Go back, if you would, and read the discussion from top to bottom, ignoring the assertions of canvassing. At the top, there's a few redirects, but they peter out as more and more sources are added to the discussion, and it then becomes overwhelmingly keep, ending with an unbroken line of five keeps. Now, you can look at that two ways: 1) either the sources swayed people and the final !votes took those sources into account even if only one of them explicitly used the right words, or 2) ABF'ing that all the keeps were canvassed. Extending AGF is an expectation, but was not followed particularly well by one of the other participants nor was it followed by the closer, who appears to have been swayed by that one accusation, and hence assumed less good (at a minimum) faith about those who said "I wasn't canvassed." That's why I can't see any way that 'redirect' would win the day in an impartial closing. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree, and I think it is supported - the keep votes aren't very good, as the closer noted, and properly disregarded. There isn't a hard and firm rule, but I've long held a view AfD participants should make clear they participated in the AfD, especially if their DRV outlook matches the AfD, as mine does (if you participate at DRV and that doesn't match your opinion at the AfD, I'd consider that a strong DRV !vote, but endorsing an outcome you advocated for at AfD really doesn't mean much in my mind, so I don't specifically vote.) I'm participating here only to point out the existence of sources doesn't necessarily equal notability, and this shouldn't be overturned on those grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 16:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, it's a reasonable outcome... it's just not supported at all by the AfD in question, which is the real issue here. And I don't know that there's a rule against an XfD participant having a !vote at DRV, so feel free to do so if so inclined. Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Overturn due to the closer going inactive means a WP:ADMINACCT failure. Let another reclose. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus'. I generally have a good deal ofskepticism about articles on university residence halls; this article, and the other similar ones for Notre Dame, are better than most, which usually focus of trivial student experiences. One argument for keep which is just plain wrongis the argument that it's a historic building. It is not, its just in an historic district. If we accepted articles on buildings just because they were located in an historic district, my absolutely undistinguished house and tens of thousands of equally undistinguished houses in the dozen or so historic districts in Brooklyn alone would be notable--what's notable is the concentration of century-old building which makes the districts distinctive, plus the 10 or 20 actually notable separately listed buildings in each district. For this article, I'm not sure how I would have !voted. I don't know if there was consensus to keep, but there was clearly not consensus to delete, and the obvious close is non-consensus. We can then discuss how to handle the other very similar articles in a consistent manner. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I love that in the US, a "century-old" building is "historic". That's awesome.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I have often noticed the difference in perspective. By this definition my house, one of the newest in the neighbourhood, would be historic. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I love that in the US, a "century-old" building is "historic". That's awesome.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
26 May 2021
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I think the people who said to delete it were... missing the point of what I was trying to do. I was trying to tabulate information on the *plants* used as herbs and/or spices (not just culinary ones), rather than simply listing them in another format. Tamtrible (talk)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
21 May 2021
File:Goines_HSC_Poster_255x396.jpg (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The file was deleted despite the only commenter recommending a keep. I was the uploader, the rights are unequivocally mine, as it was a work-for-hire under contract to me. The date of the commission was February, 2006. Bill Woodcock (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Srini Kumar
- Srini Kumar (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
At least five references for this bio were found in the course of the AfD that I considered to be of WP:BASIC quality. The closer seems to have doubts about this, expressed in the course of the AfD, but gave no justification of any kind for this, either in the comment asking for further participation or the plain close statement. In my opinion, on the merits of the arguments, keep was stronger than close; on participation, for closers who attach weight to number of !votes cast, I can see a case for closing as no consensus. The closer made no case for closing as delete. — Charles Stewart (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ah yes, the link rot AfD. I commented, so I guess I'm technically involved, but this was a terribly written article with a poor discussion and a marginal potential notability argument. I'm not sure it's been incorrectly deleted, but most of the delete !votes occurred earlier on in the discussion and were probably assessing the state of the article as opposed to how the article could potentially be sourced. However, I think delete was a viable option for the closer to close this discussion. This is kind of an IAR suggestion, but I'd support keeping the article deleted but immediately allowing creation of a new draft/mainspace article based on the new sources as long as it's clearly different from what we had before. SportingFlyer T·C 11:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse while permitting recreation as a draft. The bolded comments were 4 deletes and 2 keeps and some of the delete votes occurred after sources were found. With multiple relists, the discussion was ready to close and the close as delete (even without commentary) was clearly within the closer's discretion. --Enos733 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- WP:CLOSEAFD clearly says Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. Number of bolded comments is completely irrelevant and invalid for determining consensus for AFD closure. It's literally in the policy. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 03:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse: There was no error by the closer:
- The closer is not required to make a statement in support of her close.
- Multiple editors said to delete, and only one editor said to keep.
- The link rot was discussed, and there were statements that the sources whose links had rotted were of poor quality before the links rotted.
- The appellant may be saying that the closer should have overridden the numerical result. Such situations are rare, and this is not one of them.
- As SportingFlyer says, this can be changed to a Soft Delete to allow the submission of a substantially better draft.
- What WP policy endorses TNT over SOFIXIT? I'm not aware of one. Nor did the page meet the level of irreparability that TNT suggests as a basis. On top of all that, WP:TNT is not a policy.
- Additionally, numerical result is not the standard for AFD. That is simply fallacious. The standard is: "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." This is specifically stated in WP:CLOSEAFD. If numerical was the criteria, sockpuppetry would decide AFDs. It's clear that positive policy arguments were not considered appropriate weight to, frankly, mostly non-policy-based arguments. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 03:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- weak overturn to no consensus The keep !voters provided sources and the delete !voters didn't really address them. Sounds like WP:TNT may have been a reason to delete, but I think it's stretching things to say that that discussion generated consensus to delete unless you just count heads. Hobit (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 22:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak overturn to no consensus The keep arguments had detailed rationales, especially Charles Stewart's, which refuted the delete rationale and makes it very hard to justify delete.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Overturn to keep The entire basis is ridiculous. The submitter's deletion argument was ultimately that the nominator had never heard of the person. That is a shamefully invalid deletion reason. Notability is not lost due to age. If this were 2001, the idea that Srini Kumar -- or his projects Unamerican.com or Sticker Nation -- is not notable would be laughed out of the encyclopedia. But because new editors weren't around then, a subject can become non-notable? That's not a thing. Nor is it lost due to the online status of sources. In point of fact, sourcing on Wikipedia does not require links. If it did, WP wouldn't be able to ever use a book as a citation unless it was in the public domain and was transcribed somewhere online. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 03:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus as there was none. Each side made reasonable arguments and the sources were not especially strongly refuted. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Overturn to keep. Charles Stewart and Keith D. Tyler provided multiple sources and substantial analysis of those sources. The editors who supported deletion did not explain why these sources were insufficient. The editors who supported retention provided much stronger policy-based reasons. Both a "no consensus" close and a "keep" close are defensible but a "delete" close is not.
- Endorse while permitting recreation as a draft. User:SportingFlyer has summed it up well. Deb (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Overturn to No Consensus as is reasonable when one side has the voting majority, and the other side has the better policy-based argument. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Draftify. In one word, weak. Needs better sources. “BASIC” is weak for better sources. Linkrot means sources need to be recovered. Do this in draft. Very possibly, the subject is not notable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Archive
Year | 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 |