Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Formal review processes |
---|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
Administrators' noticeboard |
In bot-related matters: |
|
Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
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 Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion 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 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.
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
19 June 2022
Hablemos de Salud
- Hablemos de Salud (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Another involved non-admin closure by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) I discovered while collecting evidence for an Arbcom case. The article was unilaterally redirected by TPH. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see anything wrong with this particular case, except perhaps the original deletion nomination. The nominator simply withdrew the nomination with no outstanding delete opinions, per WP:SK#1(a), and if anyone disagrees with redirection they can revert it, which means that a talk page discussion will be needed to reinstate it per WP:BRD. What outcome are you looking for? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. Seems a reasonable procedural close per WP:SK#1(a).4meter4 (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Jeannie Pwerle
- Jeannie Pwerle (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I only just saw this page was deleted recently. I would have contributed to the discussion or strengthened the case for notability if I had known the page was being considered for deletion. This page was part of an Australian women artists project and may have been started by a trainee editor who may not have been aware of all the policies re notability for artists and may not have access to the same sources I do. There were mistakes made in using a commercial gallery as a reference for the non-commercial and important Holmes a Court collection, which is an early and ongoing non-commercial collection of Indigenous art. So there are two non-commercial galleries for Jeannie Pwerle and I might be able to find more given time for more research. I also find that the notability standard for female Indigenous artists is very difficult as it generally requires references to reviews or articles written by white Australians. The work of Indigenous artists can be notable amongst curators and the collectors of Indigenous art without being written about. However as Jeannie Pwerle was an early Utopian artist and paints her personal yam dreaming stories, it may be possible to show notability as an artist who has contributed to a significant new art movement which is one of the criteria for notability for artists. I have looked at the site for the admin user:Stifle who closed the delete discussion and he seems to have waived his right to be consulted first. So I am asking here for two things before I do any more research and draft a new article on Jeannie Pwerle 1. Is it worth me doing some more research to see if there are more references for her notability and more examples of her paintings in collections or will it be a hopeless waste of time if a new article is going to be deleted again or if no-one is willing to re-open her page for me to work on? 2. Is it possible for me to find or be sent the draft of her page that was deleted so I can see what needs to be changed or where mistakes were made? And apologies for this long comment. I have not tried to object to a deletion before. LPascal (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)LPascal
18 June 2022
The Lottery Corporation
- The Lottery Corporation (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I agree there was not sufficient notability to keep the article, but the proposal to redirect to Tabcorp rather than delete was a valid alternative to deletion that should have been considered prior to deletion being approved as the consensus. Redirection was raised by a number of users as an alternative outcome. The only comment against redirection was made by a user who was investigated for sockpuppetry during the process, and the fact that it was a demerged entity from Tabcorp does not make Tabcorp an inappropriate redirection. Deus et lex (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment.@ Deus et lex, I don't think we need a formal deletion review here. Creating a reasonable redirect to Tabcorp can be done now by anyone outside of the AFD process. I also don't think we should preserve the article history because of it's likely re-creation by the Puppetmaster Custodi2 who created the article with one of his numerous socks and has successfully evaded IP blocks numerous times. As such I am going to be WP:BOLD and just create the redirect now. Tabcorp is the parent company of The Lottery Corporation, and the article does address the topic so it is a perfectly reasonable redirect target. 4meter4 (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do not see a consensus to redirect instead of deleting the article. Only the OP !voted to redirect; everyone else was split between delete and redirect. I have no objection to a redirect as a normal editorial action under policy --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, a redirect is a perfectly suitable alternative to deletion, and a redirect exists. Happy days! Nothing left to be done.—S Marshall T/C 15:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. Given the evident shenanigans at play a delete-and-redirect seems like it was a more appropriate solution than the more usual merge-and-redirect. -- Visviva (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Moot. A redirect exists. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
16 June 2022
Self-replicating machines in fiction
- Self-replicating machines in fiction (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
First, the last comment was from a day ago, so as the discussion is not stale, it should be relisted. Second, per WP:AFDNOTAVOTE, strenght of the arguments should be considered. The closer says " those arguing for keep are fairly convincing", but does not explain why. The first keep vote did not provide any rationale ("Keep, but weed out uncited material"). IMHO neither did the second keep vote, which also suggested a rename (but never explained how to rename this), and later agreed that a merge to Self-replicating machine is possible. The third keep argument presented decent sources for rewriting this from an unreferneced list of trivia into a stand-alone article, but did not present arguments for why we should keep this article that, in the list format (in all but a name), fails WP:LISTN (I don't believe anyone even quoted a single sentence from the article that is worth preserving). The fourth keep comment is a simple WP:KEEPER/WP:ITSNOTABLE. The last, fifth one, is subjective, arguably again confusing the fact that the topic is notable, from the fact that the execution (list of trivia) fails WP:IPC. I'll also add that a ton of identical articles have been recently deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smuggling in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIA in fiction, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles in popular culture (2nd nomination), etc. (see here for dozens of other examples of nearly identical lists of trivia, most ending in delete). I do not believe the closer is familiar with those cases, and it's a jarring inconsistency. Lastly, oh yeah, while NOTAVOTE, let's look at a tally: there were a total of 5 keep votes, and 9 delete ones (not counting my nomination, which would make 10). With 5 keeps (out of which, IMHO, three fail Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions), 10 deletes, closing this as no consensus a day after the last vote is IMHO not a best practice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. Relisting is only appropriate when there has been very low quantity or quality of contributions. It is not a substitute for closing as no-consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- endorse though I don't like it. There is enough input here, the problem is there is no consensus. I don't feel we're in a good place with this and I'm not sure what way forward would be ideal. But this isn't a great article and it seems unlikely to be a great article. I could imagine it being a true-and-solid breakout article of its parent. I just don't know if it can reasonably get there. Hobit (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to delete The keep argument boiled down to "self-replicating machines" meeting GNG, not "self-replicating machines in fiction" meeting NLIST. The arguments for deletion (especially WP:IINFO and WP:CFORK) were barely addressed at all, and the notability of a different article should've had no bearing on it. It seems like someone decided to dump several possibly non-relevant sources just for the sake of winning the argument, failed to check if they really required this separate page (a serious editor would've tried to improve "self-replicating machines" and split it if necessary), and the usual bandwagon of people who vote keep over the slightest mention of a source showed up. Avilich (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to have misrepresented my comments from the deletion discussion in the above statement. I'd like to invite you to reconsider them. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can't see you arguing that the list is suitable. Avilich (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- See [1] SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- You called for improvement through normal editing but didn't indicate how it should be done in order to maintain it as a list. Your mention of POPCULT addresses nothing, which leaves as your best rebuttal to the other side's arguments an essay called "TNTTNT". Also, your best source, Taylor & Dorin, is about self-replicating machines, not the machines "in fiction" as you understood it. Avilich (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- In the diff I just quoted I said “the article would be better written in prose”, so again you are misrepresenting my comments. Your source assessment is also incorrect. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- You called for improvement through normal editing but didn't indicate how it should be done in order to maintain it as a list. Your mention of POPCULT addresses nothing, which leaves as your best rebuttal to the other side's arguments an essay called "TNTTNT". Also, your best source, Taylor & Dorin, is about self-replicating machines, not the machines "in fiction" as you understood it. Avilich (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- See [1] SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can't see you arguing that the list is suitable. Avilich (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to have misrepresented my comments from the deletion discussion in the above statement. I'd like to invite you to reconsider them. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse - It looks like No Consensus to me; the closer was right. If the purpose of a Relist is to get consensus one way or the other, when do you stop? Does the AFD eventually become a self-replicating machine? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
15 June 2022
List of people on the postage stamps of Romania
- List of people on the postage stamps of Romania (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Evidently a supervote ("potentially a notable topic"). Closer seems to not understand how NLIST works: the entries need to be discussed as a group, it's not about the verifiability of individual entries. He also ignored the argument that the article fails WP:NOTCATALOG. The best of the keep votes merely said that the content is verifiable. Avilich (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm happy for this to be reviewed, but I suspect that the more important question is whether all of the articles listed at Lists of people on postage stamps meet WP:GNG and WP:NLIST and are sufficiently encyclopedic. My closure is in light of several "list of people on stamps" articles that were up for deletion and were closing around the same time: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of China, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Sweden, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Republic of China. In addition to the one I closed, there is at least Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands (2nd nomination) which was closed as "no consensus". Across all of these discussions, there seems to be consensus that most of these lists are in poor shape, tend to be fancruft, and are prone to be indiscriminate lists of information, but to the extent that sources were included to establish notability, that these are potentially encyclopedic lists. This is what guided my decision to delete the unsourced and underdeveloped lists and keep those such as List of people on the postage stamps of Romania where WP:NLIST is met (there is a book describing the subject of Romanian stamps that is referenced in the article). Perhaps in this case, I should have also closed this discussion as "no consensus," but my broader reading after multiple closures was that there was emerging consensus about these lists and that the List of people on the postage stamps of Romania was in good shape and established notability as a whole. Finally, I can assure you that I did not ignore WP:NOTCATALOG and did not ignore WP:NLIST. Malinaccier (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see also that there is a deletion review of a similar closure by another administrator of an AFD discussion of List of people on the postage stamps of Iceland that is drawing substantial controversy. I think again that a more broad discussion about Lists of people on postage stamps is clearly warranted. Malinaccier (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
(there is a book describing the subject of Romanian stamps that is referenced in the article)
- Which reference describing people on Romanian stamps was invoked in the AfD? A book discussing one person being on a stamp, or one discussing
a small subset of Romanians whogeneral topics from one county that are on stamps, is clearly not what NLIST licenses. JoelleJay (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)- The Spineanu books. You can also look at the first three references in the article. Malinaccier (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- You mean the stamp catalogs from a non-independent source? Which even if they could contribute to GNG (they do not, as they are not independent), no one has shown they directly address specifically the subject of people on Romanian stamps with any significant coverage? Which were thoroughly dismissed by later delete !votes for these reasons without rebuttal? JoelleJay (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I addressed the first two sources in my comment in the discussion (I also addressed a third one, a random blog which thankfully it seems someone removed). Of those two, one is a reliable and independent source, but is about how stamps have represented Alba County, and while this includes some local people (as well as buildings, etc.), it is not about how Romanian people are put on stamps broadly speaking. The relevant topic would be Alba County representation on Romanian stamps. The second is a press release from the Romanian postage service (thus not independent) about a single postage issue covering three people. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Spineanu books. You can also look at the first three references in the article. Malinaccier (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
keep those ... where WP:NLIST is met
How do you determine that NLIST is met?emerging consensus about these lists and that the List of people on the postage stamps of Romania was in good shape
I cannot understand how you reached this conclusion since the overwhelming majority of such lists are being deleted, and in the Romania AfD all of the newcomers after the relist were for deleting. Avilich (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)- Thanks for linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people/archive, I was unaware of these other AFD discussions and I was basing my decision on the four discussions I saw today (including this one). I see a lot of deleted lists of stamp articles, but few of those articles had the same support for keeping them that List of people on the postage stamps of Romania. And again, WP:NLIST says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." There are a book and several sources in the article that discuss the subjects of Romanian stamps. Malinaccier (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- No need to quote NLIST back at me, I just want to know how you concluded that a stamp catalog discusses the subject of Romanians in postage stamps in a way that allows for an encyclopedic article to be written, and why you felt that the editors who disagreed with this were deserving of having their votes ignored. Avilich (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people/archive, I was unaware of these other AFD discussions and I was basing my decision on the four discussions I saw today (including this one). I see a lot of deleted lists of stamp articles, but few of those articles had the same support for keeping them that List of people on the postage stamps of Romania. And again, WP:NLIST says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." There are a book and several sources in the article that discuss the subjects of Romanian stamps. Malinaccier (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- (Involved) Overturn to delete or relist for someone else to close. This 7d-5k discussion, with all four !votes after the last relist being unrebutted paragraph-long delete arguments, was closed as keep based on, apparently, some other such lists being kept and the mysterious claim that a sufficient reference on the subject exists in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to delete- The discussion was relisted because the keep !votes, though numerous, were of low quality. The subsequent discussion consisted of in-depth and thoroughly thought out delete opinions. What is the point of relisting an AfD if no amount of discussion, no matter how substantial and unanimous, can affect the outcome? It is not the closer's responsibility to make a supervote, nor to scrape and scramble here there and everywhere for reasons to veto a clear consensus. Reyk YO! 03:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to delete <uninvolved>. "Keep" is a rather odd closure here: given the !vote tally, it suggests that the delete !votes are substantially weaker than the keep !votes, which is particularly difficult to swallow. Many of the keep !votes lacked any real grounding in our policies and guidelines and instead use reasoning that we've long understood to be fallacious, for instance arguing that other stuff exists or expressing the unsupported personal opinion that the list is "intrinsically noteworthy". The delete !voters, by contrast, address the sources and cite applicable policies (WP:NOTCATALOG) and guidelines (WP:NLIST) in support of their conclusions. Perhaps there are reasonable arguments for keeping this list (or not–I don't know), but we can only close based on the cards we're dealt, and the keep !votes here should have been discounted substantially. In the Iceland DRV, I supported a relist, but this AfD received high enough participation that I don't think further discussion is necessary: considering both the !vote count and the strength of argument, there's a rough consensus to delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment (disclosure, I voted to delete) First I am making this closure based on a synthesis of the discussion here and in several other AFD discussions about similar articles - I thought an AfD was to be decided by the discussions which take place at that AfD, not other AfDs? Second While some make arguments that the list still fails WP:LISTN even with sources for individual entries, the existence of books of lists of stamps seems to contradict this argument. That completely disregards some of the comments made by those who voted delete (like myself), who argued that mere indiscriminate catalogues of all Romanian postage stamps (published by the government, no less) don't mean specific subgroups are magically notable under NLIST because SIGCOV to the phenomenon of Romanian people being on stamps is not being addressed. Third, The argument that these lists are inherently more notable than a more general List of Romanians is also convincing Huh? Is this a strawman? This was a supervote. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to delete or relist. The closer's comment " the existence of books of lists of stamps seems to contradict this argument" is invalid, as we are not talking about a List of Romanian stamps. Unless we can find a source that discusses the topic of "people on Romanian stamps", and contain a list of such individuals, this fails WP:NLIST. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- NLIST makes it clear such a source would be helpful, but not that such a source is required One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.... And There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists.... Hobit (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- We really need to figure out what are other accepted reasons. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- NLIST makes it clear such a source would be helpful, but not that such a source is required One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.... And There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists.... Hobit (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to NC There is no consensus to delete or keep. I understand where the closer was coming from. And I very much believe that these articles should be part of an RfC rather than an AfD. But NC summarizes where we are in this discussion and about the topic overall. NLIST doesn't have the requirements many of the delete !voters claim it does. Hobit (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to No Consensus as per Hobit. There was no consensus. It is true that an overturn to no consensus has the same effect in the short run as a Keep. In the long run, there should be an RFC on a mini-notability guideline. When multiple related closures come to DRV, maybe the guidelines are vague. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn - to no consensus, seems like a reasonable middle ground. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist. Yes, there is no consensus on other reasons to keep. The WP:NOTDIRECTORY argument coming in very late is a good reason to delete, but because it came so late I prefer relist over delete.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. The closer reasonably discounted arguments that are not based in policy, since NLIST does not provide a basis for deletion. -- Visviva (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not passing WP:GNG is a widely accepted basis for deletion. Not passing WP:NLIST is obviously, too. Not passing the obvious criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NLIST switches onus for keeping the article to the "keep" side. And it has been established that the "keep" side didn't give policy- or guideline based reasons. Lurking shadow (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please quote the text of WP:NLIST that provides a criterion for deletion that could ever "not be passed". The fact that many AFDers have developed a practice of ignoring policy does not mean that this practice has any sort of community support or consensus behind it. -- Visviva (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. Referring to WP:NLIST is just telling others that there is no obvious reason for inclusion. That's all you need to prove.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please quote the text of WP:NLIST that provides a criterion for deletion that could ever "not be passed". The fact that many AFDers have developed a practice of ignoring policy does not mean that this practice has any sort of community support or consensus behind it. -- Visviva (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not passing WP:GNG is a widely accepted basis for deletion. Not passing WP:NLIST is obviously, too. Not passing the obvious criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NLIST switches onus for keeping the article to the "keep" side. And it has been established that the "keep" side didn't give policy- or guideline based reasons. Lurking shadow (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see a consensus in that discussion, and I don't see a policy basis for giving one side a whole lot more weight than the other. Overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 11:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Like Lurking shadow said above, LISTN is an inclusion criterion, and failing it means the accepted reasons for inclusion have not been demonstrated. The topic strictly fails the first paragraph of LISTN, with there being no SIGCOV of the group in general, and there is no consensus on whether there even are other criteria for cross-categorizations like this that don't fulfill an obvious navigational need. Arguments vaguely along the lines of it "being useful" did not receive substantial support, especially when any utility of the information being in this format is better supplied by the catalogs from which it was derived. Lists still need to be notable, and with no basis in our notability guidelines and no other valid rationale for keeping advanced, a delete outcome would have been completely appropriate. JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd agree with that if LISTN was the only inclusion criterion for lists. But we also have CLN. Generally the rule is that if you could have a category for it, you can also have a navigational list. In fact, lists are better than categories for this because you can embed sources into a list, which you can't do for a category.—S Marshall T/C 08:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP:CLN is inapplicable. It does not spell out notability criteria and says "Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems." One of the guidelines for lists is WP:LISTN, which says "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables."
- WP:CLN does not offer notability criteria for lists. Lurking shadow (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, absolutely -- because there are no notability criteria for navigational lists. The correlation with categories is exact, and categories don't require notability criteria either.—S Marshall T/C 11:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd agree with that if LISTN was the only inclusion criterion for lists. But we also have CLN. Generally the rule is that if you could have a category for it, you can also have a navigational list. In fact, lists are better than categories for this because you can embed sources into a list, which you can't do for a category.—S Marshall T/C 08:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus. Given the lack of consensus in the AFD and at this deletion review of that AFD, I think this is the only option. 4meter4 (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
13 June 2022
Croatian redirects (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Specific examples, these were neither recently-created nor implausible. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Fact Monster
- Fact Monster (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
we have 2 relists, it was nominated for deletion and Fact Monster is not notable and should be deleted. But, the keep votes decided to notable and relist it, then relist on May 2022 and wrong, then try again to relisting, but closed as no consensus after 2 relists. 2001:448A:6000:482D:4C4F:3C22:D3F5:FB75 (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse You're missing a step here, which is why something wrong happened here. You've merely provided a correct summary of the discussion. And "no consensus" looks like a reasonable evaluation of the discussion to me. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse; couldn't have been closed any other way given the lack of participation. You're free to renominate the article if you'd like, but you'll need a better reason than a mere WP:NOTNOTABLE, particularly since StrayBolt has pointed to a number of sources that, from a cursory look, do appear to show notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse an AfD with two participants who didn't agree with each other can't really be closed any other way. Hut 8.5 18:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse Per Hut 8.5. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse - As stated by other participants, no error by closer noted, and it looks like No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
12 June 2022
Davide Locatelli
- Davide Locatelli (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Davide Locatelli's page was in draft for two months and was subsequently approved for publication. After a while it was questioned and a debate with conflicting opinions opened up. I believe that the cancellation of the page is not justifiable, as it has come to a unanimous opinion. I also reiterate my opinion: in Italy Davide Locatelli is an established pianist, with the Sony label. Searching on Google (especially in the Italian results), the main Italian newspapers have written and are writing about him. He is doing a lot of things in America too. I, being the author of the page, am fully available to edit the content, add other sources that make the element more relevant, but I would like the deletion of the page to be restored. Thank you - Diegoferralis (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- We'll not going to undelete it so that you can then maybe add more sources. Present your sources first - bearing in mind the advice at WP:THREE - and we'll consider it. —Cryptic 10:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer @Cryptic. Should I attach the sources here, in this discussion? Diegoferralis (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, please, or ideally in a draft.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, can you confirm that I can recreate the page: "Draft: Davide Locatelli", so I can directly update the page with the new sources? Thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's in order.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- In the meantime, I am attaching here the latest articles, from the most important newspapers, concerning the artist, so as to be able to discuss his possible presence on Wikipedia.
- https://www.ilgiorno.it/spettacoli/davide-locatelli-1.6679710
- https://themillennial.it/cultura/musica/davide-locatelli-imagine-pianoforte-consolato-ucraina/
- https://tg24.sky.it/spettacolo/musica/2022/03/02/pianista-davide-locatelli-imagine-consolato-ucraina-milano-video
- https://www.allmusicitalia.it/news/inno-milan-davide-locatelli-pioli-is-on-fire.html Diegoferralis (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Cryptic Can I have an opinion on these sources that I have attached? Thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's in order.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, can you confirm that I can recreate the page: "Draft: Davide Locatelli", so I can directly update the page with the new sources? Thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, please, or ideally in a draft.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer @Cryptic. Should I attach the sources here, in this discussion? Diegoferralis (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Deleting admin comment: courtesy ping @Liz @Praxidicae @Numberguy6 who were involved in the discussion on User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Page:_Davide_Locatelli. As nominator was more interested in aspersions rather than understanding consensus, we're here. I believe then and now that my close reflected consensus but am not formally standing in the way of any decision here. Star Mississippi 14:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Procedural Close - The statement by the appellant is in Italian rather than in English. Please either translate it or close the appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Diegoferralis (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I would say the sources look acceptable and I'm tentatively minded to permit a brief, neutrally worded article about Mr Locatelli. I'm not sure why it was deleted from it.wiki and I would just like to understand that.—S Marshall T/C 20:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @S Marshall Thanks for your reply. I would like to understand it too :) I believe that on wikipedia Italy the page has been created and deleted several times over the years by different users, and this has probably affected. He is an artist who has published several discs, has made multiple appearances on TV in important programs, is quoted on many sources in important newspapers, collaborates with equally important artists. I just can't understand what doesn't allow the artist to stay on wikipedia. Diegoferralis (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi Could I have your other opinion regarding the sources I have attached and the opinion of @S Marshall? Beyond the dispute over the closed page, can it change your opinion on whether this page can be on Wikipedia? Thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I prefer to remain neutral on any restoration since I closed the AfD. I will say that this appears to be a very good source. My Italian isn't great so it's based on an assist from google translate. Creating a draft might be the easiest solution here, which I believe was what @S Marshall was also suggesting. Star Mississippi 19:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi Could I have your other opinion regarding the sources I have attached and the opinion of @S Marshall? Beyond the dispute over the closed page, can it change your opinion on whether this page can be on Wikipedia? Thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @S Marshall Thanks for your reply. I would like to understand it too :) I believe that on wikipedia Italy the page has been created and deleted several times over the years by different users, and this has probably affected. He is an artist who has published several discs, has made multiple appearances on TV in important programs, is quoted on many sources in important newspapers, collaborates with equally important artists. I just can't understand what doesn't allow the artist to stay on wikipedia. Diegoferralis (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
PanaBIOS (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Editor IAmChaos deletes any PanaBIOS articles within seconds of posting. The article is about a seriously notable African COVID-Tech project/platform that is extensively researched and referenced. I have reviewed in great detail Wikipedia's policies and believe that IAmChaos has absolutely no grounds for these speedy deletions when he could not possibly have read the article within the timeframe that he/she has been deleting the articles. IAmChaos appears to be motivated by some perverse political or personal agenda against African-related subject matters that have absolutely no place on Wikipedia. The editorial decisions are rushed, reckless, and suspicious. They are clearly disruptive. We totally believe that PanaBIOS is an important project that deserves documentation on Wikipedia, having been covered extensively and connected with very notable actors in Africa and beyond. Quodprod (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Recent discussions
10 June 2022
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Added independent reliable sources directly relevant to article topics for satisfying WP:GNG WarpingSpacetime (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
7 June 2022
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Inappropriate close per WP:EARLY due to only being open for just over 24 hours, and per WP:BADNAC as a non-admin close where the result will require action by an administrator. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Wrong close. The consensus was weak delete and result would have been delete if a relist was made (second relist is mostly done in such cases). It is a biased and wrong move from admin to cause aspersions. If they think someone is a sock then surely file a SPI, but don't judge if something is not proven. I would like a relist so I can share my findings. 2A02:8108:4CBF:AE80:F875:1E6D:E013:D624 (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
5 June 2022
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Involved NAC, discussion only open for 16 hours. Withdrawing an AfD and redirecting would have been acceptable and within process, but presuming that this action gives redirection the imprimatur of AfD is not. Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
DonaldD23 talk to me 03:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| ||
---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
Subject: Request for review of the deletion decision dated 26 April 2022 of Mr Sandstein- Case of Purshottam Lal Dear Reviewing Authority, (1) The Article on me - Purshottam Lal- created by Ms Sneha and approved by Wikipedia for publication on 27 January 2022 was deleted under the orders of Mr Sandstein ( herein after referred to as the deleting administrator , or DA in short) dated 26 April 2022 following a deletion discussion lasting 2 weeks. The final order said that there was lack of notability and not enough secondary sources. (2) Normally, the creator of the page-Ms Sneha-should have made the review petition. However, since she is blocked for reasons presumably nothing to do with the Article on me, she cannot communicate , and hence this review request by me. (3) As per advice on Wikipedia site , I first took up the matter with the DA and sent him a note on 20th May 2022 on his Talk Page. He very kindly responded and wrote : "Mr. Lal, consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purshottam Lal was that there is not enough significant coverage about you in reliable secondary sources that are independent of you. That is needed for an article about you. Could you please read our guideline page WP:BIO and then tell me what the three best pieces of such coverage about you are? Sandstein 17:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)" (4) Thus, in his response, he did not mention the " notability " aspect which was the main reason for deletion. (5) Since three independent References had been asked for and since most of my work as a writer and as a police officer had taken place in pre-internet era, I searched for feedback and comments of READERS of my articles in the print media since 1992 ( the year I started my writing endeavour ; more than 115 articles have since appeared in important newspapers, and four books published , all released by two different Governors of Punjab state ), and also newspaper reports of my work as a senior police officer , and after scanning them , sent the same to the DA on 25 May 2022 in PDF format, uploaded on Wikimedia. It , inter-alia, contained 31 feedbacks in respect of 20 articles of mine.( The link to these additiinal scanned References uploaded on Wikimedia is as follows: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ADDITIONAL_LINKS_DGPIPSLAL.pdf).
I had the impression that the Wikipedia's first efforts are to retain the Article by making improvement etc if possible. However, the DA finally replied on 26 May 2022 vide which he did not touch upon this aspect at all, and commented that the three most important References mentioned by me in the deleted Article were not sufficient to justify an Article on me. (6) I understand AfD (Article for Deletion )is concerned with the substance of the Article whereas DR ( Deletion Review ) is concerned with the process by which the decision was reached. (7) The following breaches of due process took place in my case which deserve consideration .
(B) Mr Bonadea started the deletion discussion on 11 April 2022. He later blocked IPA address of Ms Sneha, creator of the Article, for the so-called sock-puppeting . When she put her viewpoints - twice- during the discussion through her mobile data, Mr Bonadea blocked her mobile data connectivity, too. He also struck off posts so put by Ms Sneha. Thus, in this case an inevitable clash of interest took place leading to denial of the opportunity of being heard , by virtue of both actions - deletion discussion and blocking- having been initiated /ordered by the same party i.e. Mr Bonadea. This is against the principles of natural justice in any society/country governed by the rule of law. The blocking decision should not have been taken by Mr Bonadea as he knew that he had already initiated the deletion discussion. He ought to have referred the blocking decision to some other Administrator. Thus, due process of fairness and unprejudiced discussion have been violated in this case. (C ) At least two members who participated in the discussion majorly misread the Article. They presumed that I had been the Head of the Punjab Police Force. No such claim was made in the Article. It rather said in the Introduction : " ....retired from the rank of Director General of Police". Thus, it was the rank which was mentioned, and not the actual post. There are a few posts in the Punjab Police , all manned by DG rank officers. Though the two gentlemen spoke in my favour, yet their impression was wrong , and I pointed it out at the very first instance to Mr Geoffrey Lane of the Wikipedia in an email dated 28 April 2022 ) . Such a misreading by not only these two esteemed members of the WP community but by some other participants also- like the one inquiring about the President's Police Medal for Distinguished Service in respect of which clarification was provided by the creator of the Article ,the same , however,having been being struck off- shows lack of proper understanding and appreciation of the contents of the Article by some of the esteemed participants. The number of participants , most of them not well-informed about the Indian system of policing except two, was also too less, about 5 or 6. This type of discussion amounted to a process not germane to a meaningful discussion , laying too much stress on the so-called independent References which , though present among the list of References, were not found adequate by the participants and ultimately by the DA. Instead of looking at the totality of the material available , they rather looked only at a part of it resulting in miscarriage of justice. (D ) The DA's final note dated 26 May 2022 on his Talk Page says that the first two References mentioned speak of my book , and not of me. This is, to say the least, not a very correct interpretation. When somebody is talking about my book , he is naturally talking about me also as the book is my creation. About the third Reference, he mentioned it was by an organisation to which I belong and hence was not independent. First of all, he could not appreciate that the Reference was picked up by the creator by the internet search and mentioned as such just to show my qualities as a senior police officer , and referred to my past association with the organisation , and not the present one as I am no longer a member of it. Secondly, I was associated with it but had no control over it. The Reference also mentions the names of the former Governor Punjab and former Chief Secretary Punjab just to show that I was, at one time in the past, in the category of highly notable persons in the administration of the Punjab government , thereby supplementing my notability. (E ) The DA's final note dated 26 May 2022 is silent on the suggestion to allow, for improving the Article, the use of 31 feedbacks provided in respect of 20 articles of mine in PDF format uploaded on Wikimedia , as independent secondary sources for my writing work, which PDF file contained some References for my police work also ( all relating to pre-internet era). Perhaps these or some of them could have been considered for addition so that the Article could have been improved and saved , as I understand that the first endeavour of the Wikipedia , as a positive step, is to retain the Article by improving it. Pre-internet References would naturally be in paper format, and only their scanned copies can be attached. Some 58 References ( out of which some might be common to the list already in the deleted Article) also sent for my articles and TV discusdions for possible use in improving the Article were also not touched upon by the DA in his final note of 26 May 2022. ( Please see the link and list of scanned References and other 58 in paragraph (5) above). (F ) The Article was approved on 27 January 2022 by Wikipedia ( Mr John B 123- more than 1,89,000 edits and more than 248 active Articles to his credit) after satisfying about notability and References. No new facts came to light after that. No falsity of any information was ever alleged. Hence, in the absence of any fresh material, it is not fair to declare the same Article as ineligble on grounds of lack of notability and inadequacy of References, though later the DA in his note of 20 May 2022 on his Talk Page did not raise the issue of notability , and only of secondary independent References. Thus , there has been an apparent lack of consistency . I think an Article duly approved by an esteemed and experienced Wikipedian-Administrator should not be put up for deletion discussion unless fresh damaging material became available. (G ) I have suffered loss of face by the deletion effected 3 months after its publication after due approval . I am now more than 75 years of age. My endeavour to write the fifth book- Origin of the Aryans- which was half-way through, is stalled due to this upsetting development. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, it is requested that the Article may kindly be restored. It can, however, be improved by adding more References or even amending it.
Yours sincerely, Purshottam Lal Sukhmanik95 (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
| ||
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
3 June 2022
List of people on the postage stamps of Iceland
- List of people on the postage stamps of Iceland (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The keep arguments are remarkably weak and sheer numbers don't make up for that. They sum up to claim that this is inherently notable ("a list of ... is notable") or that notability of the people in it is sufficient (it is not, per both WP:LISTN and WP:NINHERITED) or that it is useful... In contrast, the delete side correctly argued that no source discussing this as a group exists - and even the sources presented in the AfD do not deal at all with the group of "people on the postage stamps of Iceland" but are merely general philatelical works about the postage stamps. In the face of the lack of policy-compliant reasons to keep (and the fact this does fail WP:NOT, as I have argued for similar lists elsewhere); this should be overturned to delete. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to No Consensus - The number of !votes for and against are similar, and the Delete reasoning is stronger but not overwhelming. It looks like No Consensus (which of course keeps the article for a little while). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think this topic is cut-and-dried enough to be able to clearly say if LISTN is met or not. I think NC is a better reading of the discussion, but I have to endorse a keep closure as being within discretion--the numbers are toward keep, the strength of arguments, IMO, toward deletion. How to weigh those is tough, but given how strong the numbers are, I think keep is fine. That said, I'd say the best way forward is some kind of an RfC on the general topic of these "people on stamp" lists and see if we can't agree on if (and when) we should have them or if we should never have them, or what. Hobit (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the numbers are towards keep but the strength of argument is towards delete; then the proper outcome is either "delete" or "no consensus" (depending on how strong the arguments are); but certainly not "keep". Discussions are not votes, and half a dozen people repeating the same fallacy or reasoning which is at odds with wider policy does not make that reasoning suddenly be stronger. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- A) of course discussions aren't votes, but numbers do matter. WP:IAR is policy. If 99 people say "keep, Wikipedia should have this" and 1 person says "but per <guideline> we should not", we keep. There are policies like BLP and copyright that are non-negotiable. This isn't that. See [6] for a great example of something that met every inclusion guideline but got deleted due to numbers. B) This case isn't cut-and-dried. It's quite unclear if LISTN requires this to be deleted. As I said, I think NC would have been a better close. But keep is well within discretion IMO. The closer isn't clearly wrong to think the delete arguments are weak. Hobit (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, let's look at the "strength" of the keep arguments, in order:
I feel the list is useful, [...] as a useful indicator of possible wp:notables with redlinks needing pages
the people listed here, seem to be important people in Icelandic history and arts
A list of historically significant people who have appeared on the postage stamps of a country is notable
per discussion, would be surely kept if it was a larger nation
the rationale is basically the same as for List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands
- No. 2 and 3 entirely miss the point because notability is not inherited and the subject under discussion was not the notability of the people listed, but that of the group. They should have been dismissed as fallacies of relevance. No. 4 and 5 are a WP:WHATABOUTX argument which don't even attempt to address the specifics. They should similarly have been dismissed out of hand. That leaves 1, which at least provides a plausible claim why it could be useful.
- The delete arguments, on the other hand, are that:
- (nom)
Fails LISTN. [...] Sourced to a general catalogue and the homepage of a stamp dealer for some reason.
(i.e. sources available don't qualify as SIGCOV) the sourcing is not enough to show this topic has been covered adequately as a whole to justify a list
(i.e. another editor agreeing with the LISTN assessment)very little sourcing or verifiability
(so fails both LISTN and WP:V)
- (nom)
- I don't know in which world a 5-3 split (more like 1-3 once arguments which are not relevant are dismissed) with arguments so clearly stronger on the delete side can be closed as "keep". If you are saying that sufficient numbers can always outweigh policy, then we might as well get rid of NOTAVOTE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- One mistake I made is that I counted it as 6-2 somehow. I have no idea how (2 I assume because I dropped the nom, 6 I've no clue on). So yeah, keep is more of a stretch. An I do think you are underplaying the NPOV argument that was made explicitly by one person and implicitly by the rest. We do try to include places where sourcing can be harder to find on a given topic if places where sourcing in English is plentiful on the theory that the sourcing does likely exist, we just can't find it. So the numbers are closer than I thought, but the arguments are nowhere near as far apart IMO as you have them. But at the end of the day this feels like a reasonable topic for us to have and the !voters (and the closer?) reached that conclusion. This isn't promotional or anything else problematic, and it does seem like a notable (using the dictionary definition, not Wikipedia's) topic. I feel it's a topic our guidelines don't address well. YMMV (and clearly does). Hobit (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, let's look at the "strength" of the keep arguments, in order:
- A) of course discussions aren't votes, but numbers do matter. WP:IAR is policy. If 99 people say "keep, Wikipedia should have this" and 1 person says "but per <guideline> we should not", we keep. There are policies like BLP and copyright that are non-negotiable. This isn't that. See [6] for a great example of something that met every inclusion guideline but got deleted due to numbers. B) This case isn't cut-and-dried. It's quite unclear if LISTN requires this to be deleted. As I said, I think NC would have been a better close. But keep is well within discretion IMO. The closer isn't clearly wrong to think the delete arguments are weak. Hobit (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- In fact I did post an RfC [7] to the philately portal several weeks ago, and the first response is only dated today. So we're not getting much guidance from that quarter so far. In looking at other lists of people, I found List of people on banknotes and even the FL(!) List of people on United States banknotes, which are very nicely done but also raises a question as to why banknote appearances are intrinsically notable but postage stamp appearances are not? They are sibling categories of paper ephemera after all. (If this observation starts a new flurry of deletions, uh, sorry numismatists :-) ) Stan (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the numbers are towards keep but the strength of argument is towards delete; then the proper outcome is either "delete" or "no consensus" (depending on how strong the arguments are); but certainly not "keep". Discussions are not votes, and half a dozen people repeating the same fallacy or reasoning which is at odds with wider policy does not make that reasoning suddenly be stronger. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist. P&G-backed arguments should always outweigh arguments that are explicitly rejected by P&Gs. Not a single source was produced to support the repeated claim that the topic was GNG-notable as a topic -- keep !voters didn't even attempt to rebut the correct assessment that the list failed LISTN and NOT. Closers should not be afraid to close against a numerical majority if that majority is clearly completely unfamiliar with our guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Relist to consider merge or redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE. This failure invalidates any consensus to delete, and usually makes for a messy discussion for “keep” !voters who recognise encyclopedic information but find themselves unable to articulate why. The page is presented unsuitably, and a good answer is Merge and Redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland.
The List of People is properly part of Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland, possibly with a rename, and then, it could be a suitable spinout. However, the current page is not couched as a spinout of Icelandic stamps. There are many possible fixes that don’t involve deletion, and the poor BEFORE-failing nomination domed the discussion to a messy failure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
for “keep” !voters who recognise encyclopedic information
- whether something is encyclopedic or not is not generally based on whether individual Wikipedia editors think so, but what wider guidelines and policy (WP:NOT, in this case) say and how reliable sources have covered the subject.There are many possible fixes that don’t involve deletion
No such fix was presented at the discussion; nor do I personally see any such fix for something that fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTN so obviously. There are some things which just don't go on Wikipedia. The rest of your argument seems to be relitigating of the discussion and is off-topic here RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- The failure to properly consider BEFORE options is a critical failure in the AfD and is a reason it can’t be overturned to delete, and should be more widely considered a reason for a speedy close. The merge and redirect option is on the table and until removed, talk of deletion is premature. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, this is a difference of judgement (which is why we have AfDs so people can argue these), not a "failure to properly consider BEFORE options". I do not share your opinion that this kind of content belongs on any Wikipedia page, per the WP:NOT arguments I have made elsewhere. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- You should read WP:ATD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not going to continue this line of argument; as it has no bearing on whether the close was correct in light of the discussion which actually happened at the AfD. This is something which could (should?) have been discussed at the AfD. DRV is not AfD-relitigation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- You keep repeating WP:NOT as if it is a reason for deletion. It often doesn’t. Also, I am not finding WP:NOT arguments in the AfD. “Not” is not a good search term, it has 56 matches.
- In contrast, ATD is policy directly speaking to, and limiting deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP:DEL#REASON
14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia
. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)- Notable people featured on historical stamps is suitable content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is WP:Clearly notable, which is not a suitable argument at AfD, much less at DRV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Notable people featured on historical stamps is suitable content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP:DEL#REASON
- I'm not going to continue this line of argument; as it has no bearing on whether the close was correct in light of the discussion which actually happened at the AfD. This is something which could (should?) have been discussed at the AfD. DRV is not AfD-relitigation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- You should read WP:ATD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, this is a difference of judgement (which is why we have AfDs so people can argue these), not a "failure to properly consider BEFORE options". I do not share your opinion that this kind of content belongs on any Wikipedia page, per the WP:NOT arguments I have made elsewhere. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- The failure to properly consider BEFORE options is a critical failure in the AfD and is a reason it can’t be overturned to delete, and should be more widely considered a reason for a speedy close. The merge and redirect option is on the table and until removed, talk of deletion is premature. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn None of the keep voters made any policy-based arguments. The complaint that the nomiator failed BEFORE is nonsense, since not only is there no evidence that this is true, but also BEFORE doesn't require that ATDs be stated out loud, only that the nominator give serious thought to it. In any case, a reason for deleting is itself a reason for not ATDing, and no convincing case for the latter was made. If keep voters "find themselves unable to articulate why" the article is encyclopedic, that tells everything. Avilich (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- The ATD was mentioned by John Pack Lambert, 15:58, 25 May 2022. It obviously needed consideration. Your concept of nonsense is nonsense. You want to pretend that the nominator did BEFORE, satisfied BEFORE, but then kept it silent? That would not be acceptable, that means the nominator deliberately misled the AfD. That invalidates the AfD, and the nominator requires a TROUT. The ATD was obvious, but the flawed nomination undermined a fair discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Being of the opinion that a merge is not appropriate (for example, in this instance, because the content fails WP:NOT) is not "failure to properly consider BEFORE or ATD". Nominators are in no way required to argue for options they personally disagree with.
That invalidates the AfD, and the nominator requires a TROUT.
- utter nonsense. Even if you were right about your bureaucratic instruction creep, WP:NOTBURO is rather darn clear thatA procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.
RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Being of the opinion that a merge is not appropriate (for example, in this instance, because the content fails WP:NOT) is not "failure to properly consider BEFORE or ATD". Nominators are in no way required to argue for options they personally disagree with.
- The ATD was mentioned by John Pack Lambert, 15:58, 25 May 2022. It obviously needed consideration. Your concept of nonsense is nonsense. You want to pretend that the nominator did BEFORE, satisfied BEFORE, but then kept it silent? That would not be acceptable, that means the nominator deliberately misled the AfD. That invalidates the AfD, and the nominator requires a TROUT. The ATD was obvious, but the flawed nomination undermined a fair discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty much what you said: nobody likes thought policing, most people don't feel the need to question whether a nominator has done BEFORE unless sources are easily and obviously available, and most nominations don't give explicit, detailed BEFORE reports anyway. The fact that the nominator has a good record, that similar lists have been deleted in the past couple of days, and that none of the keep votes were well-articulated (by your own admission), suggest that the nomination is as good as if a BEFORE had been done (and I'm happy to pretend it has). You're right that more 'consideration' was needed, but for the discussion as a whole rather than just for John Pack Lambert's afterthought of a redirect. Avilich (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Where do our P&Gs require a nominator explicitly describe their BEFORE search? None of the keep !votes demonstrated the topic had received SIGCOV -- they just kept claiming a list containing notable subjects is inherently notable as a group -- so there's no evidence that aspect of BEFORE wasn't performed. And it's not like there's much that could be merged into postage stamps and postal history of Iceland, we would basically be copy-pasting an incomplete, undersourced collection of names and partial sentences into the article without any context. JoelleJay (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Evidence of BEFORE failure is the non mention of the obvious WP:ATD-M possibility.
- The nominator, User:Fram is a well-known respected experienced editor, and this makes the BEFORE failure much worse. Even you invent against evidence that Fram actually did a silent BEFORE. This is a very good example of how a nominators BEFORE failure poisons the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the merge may well discard some of the content, but not all. People featured on historical stamps looks like missing content at the merge target. You say unsourced, but it is also unlikely to be challenged. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are attempting to relitigate the AfD by suggesting a merge. I do not think it is an obvious (or even a reasonable) possibility in this case, but DRV is not the proper forum for that. Stop with all of this BEFORE nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- You call an expectation to follow AfD instructions to be nonsense? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- The nonsense is you trying to impose your opinion that this should be merged as a BEFORE failure, when it very much isn't. There are valid reasons for deletion (ones which IMHO mean this content is not suitable for Wikipedia, anywhere); you disagreeing with them does not make them invalid or mean that the nom failed to do BEFORE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- You call an expectation to follow AfD instructions to be nonsense? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are attempting to relitigate the AfD by suggesting a merge. I do not think it is an obvious (or even a reasonable) possibility in this case, but DRV is not the proper forum for that. Stop with all of this BEFORE nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do think the closer gave a bit too much weight to the keep !votes here: RandomCanadian does a pretty good job of explaining why several of them are fallacious or at odds with policy. I think the best option here would be to relist in the hope of getting some more policy-based input, as well as to allow for further discussion of the ATD that was suggested (a merge/redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse Keep closure. Postage Stamps are works of art, instruments of currency, and government publications all rolled into one. To delete, rather than redirect, requires a lot more cogent arguments than what were presented in the discussion. No objection to a merge discussion on the talk pages, or a BOLD merge, but to pretend that a delete outcome is justified by the discussion here is unreasonable, and there's no particular benefit to overturning a reasonable keep closure into a borderline no consensus. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Postage Stamps are works of art, instruments of currency, and government publications all rolled into one." is A) not an argument for DRV but for AfD; B) would be a bad argument even at AfD; as the page under discussion was not "Postage stamps of Iceland" but specifically "List of people on the postage stamps of Iceland". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't consider the content worth merging, and it wouldn´t make a good redirect, so my preference was and is for deletion, just like happened with dozens of the other country lists already. No idea why people who disagree need to see the nom trouted as if I made some terrible faux-pas here, or why this would be important for a DRV. If the merge was such an obvious ATD, one would imagine that it would have rapidly gained strenght at the Afd. Fram (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Did you follow WP:BEFORE? Do you not believe in it? Do you not believe in naming the best merge target and explaining, or even just asserting, that none of the content is suitable there? You may have solid reasons, but by mentioning it you entice others to check, and explicitly agree. It’s not “terrible”, but I have seen a lot of AfDs brought here, where I deduce that a (not “the”) root cause was a WP:BEFORE failure. Following WP:BEFORE, naming then dismissing at least one merge target, correlates to more successful discussion. I am sure that had you named and rejected the merge target, the discussion would have found a clearer consensus more quickly. I think a little more time reporting on your BEFORE process would mean saving a lot of other editors time at AfD and DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- For what it’s worth, I think the article falls way short of being worth a standalone article, but I do believe the content is worth using at the target, although a substantial amount of work is needed, and it would need someone seriously interested in Icelandic stamps. Mostly, it contains seed information, and sources, to get started. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't usually discuss all things which don't apply, I think about things like redirecting but I try to keep the nom reasonably concise. Not mentioning that you thought about but rejected merging, redirecting, ... is hardly a Before failure, never mind troutworthy or a reason to dismiss an Afd. Let's not add even more burocracy to our processes. Fram (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think your view is a mistake. Notability (including LISTN) is only a deletion reason if there is no merge target. WP:ATD-M is deletion policy. WP:BEFORE is a very clear instruction. Did you do WP:BEFORE, consider, and reject, the merge target raised in the discussion? The bureaucracy is already written into the process, and it is good policy. List of people on the postage stamps of the United States seems ok, but for Iceland, they are not even worth a mention on any page? Is the US special. To resist bias, things should be done properly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- List of people on the postage stamps of the United States could just as well be nominated for deletion, like all the others. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't remember ever seeing a nomination statement include the nom's rejected considerations for merge targets. Merging is actually an extremely rare deletion outcome overall in the areas I participate in -- in my last 500 AfDs only two resulted in a merge. Just because you believe noms should explicitly outline their BEFORE procedure (which I agree would be ideal) doesn't mean it's required or even common enough to be expected. JoelleJay (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think your view is a mistake. Notability (including LISTN) is only a deletion reason if there is no merge target. WP:ATD-M is deletion policy. WP:BEFORE is a very clear instruction. Did you do WP:BEFORE, consider, and reject, the merge target raised in the discussion? The bureaucracy is already written into the process, and it is good policy. List of people on the postage stamps of the United States seems ok, but for Iceland, they are not even worth a mention on any page? Is the US special. To resist bias, things should be done properly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't usually discuss all things which don't apply, I think about things like redirecting but I try to keep the nom reasonably concise. Not mentioning that you thought about but rejected merging, redirecting, ... is hardly a Before failure, never mind troutworthy or a reason to dismiss an Afd. Let's not add even more burocracy to our processes. Fram (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- For what it’s worth, I think the article falls way short of being worth a standalone article, but I do believe the content is worth using at the target, although a substantial amount of work is needed, and it would need someone seriously interested in Icelandic stamps. Mostly, it contains seed information, and sources, to get started. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Did you follow WP:BEFORE? Do you not believe in it? Do you not believe in naming the best merge target and explaining, or even just asserting, that none of the content is suitable there? You may have solid reasons, but by mentioning it you entice others to check, and explicitly agree. It’s not “terrible”, but I have seen a lot of AfDs brought here, where I deduce that a (not “the”) root cause was a WP:BEFORE failure. Following WP:BEFORE, naming then dismissing at least one merge target, correlates to more successful discussion. I am sure that had you named and rejected the merge target, the discussion would have found a clearer consensus more quickly. I think a little more time reporting on your BEFORE process would mean saving a lot of other editors time at AfD and DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse "keep" though I might have preferred "no consensus". Too often our P&Gs don't quite say what they are assumed to say. Although WP:LISTN is part of Wikipedia:Notability which says article topics should be, as a whole, "notable", WP:LISTN seems to relax this a bit by saying "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ...". What are the other reasons? In the present case the cross classification criterion comes into consideration where the guideline says there is no present consensus. However the present list topic could reasonably be considered as an intersection of just two notable topics: (1) Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland and (2) Portrait. Such a simple cross classification by notable criteria is least likely to offend WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The AFD closer was correct not to discount the opinions of those !voting "keep". Thincat (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
a simple cross classification by notable criteria
- The criteria being individually notable does not mean a cross-categorisation is acceptable (WP:NINHERITED). Something is not notable if it hasn't been discussed in sources. Individual Wikipedians thinking something is notable has never been a suitable reason to keep anything at AfD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)- Sure, I didn't expect you to voice your agreement. WP:LISTN is simply a guideline and you are not required to support the way it is worded or what it implies. Also, by the way, no one at AFD or here has argued in favour of WP:NINHERITED so it should not be necessary to keep saying it is an argument to avoid. Thincat (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- You literally just made the argument that this is "an intersection of just two notable topics"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, I didn't expect you to voice your agreement. WP:LISTN is simply a guideline and you are not required to support the way it is worded or what it implies. Also, by the way, no one at AFD or here has argued in favour of WP:NINHERITED so it should not be necessary to keep saying it is an argument to avoid. Thincat (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would have closed no consensus, but overturning from keep to no consensus is process wonkery. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Here are the rationales from all the keep votes:
- "I feel the list is useful as an end in itself" - WP:ITSUSEFUL is at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Not a policy/guidance based reason.
- "the people listed here, seem to be important people in Icelandic history and arts." - A list of notable people is not the same as the list itself representing a notable collective gorup.
- "A list of historically significant people who have appeared on the postage stamps of a country is notable" - According to what policy?
- "per discussion, would be surely kept if it was a larger nation" - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
- "the rationale is basically the same as for List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands, which recently survived AfD" - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
- There is zero policy-based reasoning behind the keep votes. When did AfD closers decide that policy-based reasoning doesn't matter at all? They've turned WP:NOTVOTE into a lie. If this is going to be the norm, could we please just turn WP:ILIKEIT into a valid criteria notability and go ahead and destroy the encyclopedia? That seems to be all that matters these days, because of the refusal to actually read and consider discussion votes by the closers. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn and
deleterelist. Zero policy(or guideline)- based keep reasons, policy-based deletion reasons. That's a textbook example of WP:DISCARD.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)- WP:ATD is a deletion policy to not delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- No one even invoked WP:ATD. If you ARE invoking ATD then the fate of the article, unless the matter is improvement, and improvement was not a keep reason, should NOT be "keep". Lurking shadow (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- The invocation of ATD-M is mandated by WP:BEFORE instructions and explicitly by deletion policy. The obvious merge target is there. The failure to consider was a process failure. You are !voting to perpetuate the failure by going for “delete” with no evidence you have considered ATD.
- I am not arguing for “keep”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Once again, your thought policing has no basis in policy. ATD does not force anybody to talk about a merger if they disagree with it. You can't force participants to discuss something they don't find worth discussing: if nobody found about your 'obvious' merge target worthy of attention, then there is simply no support or consensus for it. Avilich (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is probably why SmokeyJoe wants to overturn and relist instead of overturn and merge. A good idea.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine, but the argument that the nom failed BEFORE cannot be used to support it. Avilich (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I support a relist, especially if anyone disputes the redirect option, or if anyone really believes that all of the content is unsuitable of inclusion anywhere. I don’t support the closing statement. Alternatively, an editor could boldly redirect. It would be nice if someone would start adding notable people featured on stamps at the redirect target. This is then no longer a deletion matter.
- I asked the nom if they did BEFORE and they didn’t answer, and so I presume the answer is “no”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Smokeyjoe, you have long gone from raising an objection into the territory of bludgeoning personal attacks. I have answered multiple time already, e.g. "No, I don't usually discuss all things which don't apply, I think about things like redirecting but I try to keep the nom reasonably concise. Not mentioning that you thought about but rejected merging, redirecting, ... is hardly a Before failure, never mind troutworthy or a reason to dismiss an Afd. " Please stop. Fram (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine, but the argument that the nom failed BEFORE cannot be used to support it. Avilich (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is probably why SmokeyJoe wants to overturn and relist instead of overturn and merge. A good idea.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Where is ATD "explicitly" mandated by policy? WP:DELETION policy just lists alternatives, it most certainly doesn't demand an AfD nom consider and reject each one. The WP:deletion process guideline also makes no mention of ensuring ATD has been considered. WP:N only "strongly encourages" noms do a BEFORE. In fact, I don't see a single policy or guideline that requires any of what you're claiming @Fram "failed" to do. JoelleJay (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- “If editing can be done to improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page”. Converting the page to a suitable redirect is an edit that improves the page.
- I think some of the material can be merged, although some work will be needed at the target page.
- WP:BEFORE #C4 instructs the nominator to consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. Did they do this?
- The usual practice is to ignore ATD when there is no suitable redirect target. This is the problem. AfD participants can read the nomination as implying no suitable redirect target, and yet there is one.
- WP:N is only a deletion reason when there is no suitable merge target, or redirect target.
- Fram did not mention the suitable merge target. Fram failed to do this. Fram didn’t do this. Maybe one wording is better than another. The discussion would have been better if the “keep” voters addressed the possibility of merging instead of asserting notability. Notability doesn’t mean that the topic must have a standalone article.
- Has Fram, or anyone else, argued that the material is entirely unsuitable at the proposed target? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't believe the material is suitable at the proposed target either, or else you would need to include a list of all topics ever shown on the stamps of Iceland, not just people (as there is no reason to single out people over buildings, events, plants, ...). The list would be undue at the merge target, would add no understanding of the topic, basically just isn't suited for it. I don't think the material belongs on enwiki, not as a standalone article and not as part of another article. Can you please stop with the "nom failed this" and "nom failed that" nonsense when you try to fnd excuses for the poor "keep" votes? I answered you before, but you simply ignore the answers because it is much more fun to blame the nom for the failure of the keeps somehow. Fram (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Have you, or anyone else, argued at the afd that editing could have been done to improve the page? —Cryptic 06:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve made a few failed starts to assess the quality of sourced material, but refs #1&3 are newspaper images in Icelandic. Reference #2 directly discusses a President featured on a stamp, and so I think it worthy of mention at the parent article. Ref 4 is an image of an Icelandic book. There is stuff here worth merging. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Reusing references doesn't require a merge, merging is for content. Perhaps this is useful for the supposed merge target, perhaps not, but it doesn't require a merge or redirect, it doesn't require keeping the attribution. If you or anyone wants to get the references used in a deleted article, you can ask any admin (or at refund) and they will normally provide these. But we don't keep articles because the references may be useful for another article. Fram (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- In the AfD, User:Stan Shebs and User:Orland gave weak comments against merging. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve made a few failed starts to assess the quality of sourced material, but refs #1&3 are newspaper images in Icelandic. Reference #2 directly discusses a President featured on a stamp, and so I think it worthy of mention at the parent article. Ref 4 is an image of an Icelandic book. There is stuff here worth merging. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Those are all recommendations on the AfD info page, though, not from any policy or guideline. So the claim that doing BEFORE or considering ATD is "mandated" by policy is false, and therefore Fram's nomination was not out-of-process whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Once again, your thought policing has no basis in policy. ATD does not force anybody to talk about a merger if they disagree with it. You can't force participants to discuss something they don't find worth discussing: if nobody found about your 'obvious' merge target worthy of attention, then there is simply no support or consensus for it. Avilich (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- No one even invoked WP:ATD. If you ARE invoking ATD then the fate of the article, unless the matter is improvement, and improvement was not a keep reason, should NOT be "keep". Lurking shadow (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP:ATD is a deletion policy to not delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- No policy-compliant arguments to keep this material were raised at the afd. The bludgeoning above that those advocating for deletion of the article should have proactively argued better against positions nobody held is ludicrous. Overturn to delete. —Cryptic 08:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to delete. The rationale for the AFD was that the list fails WP:LISTN. No counterargument was made to that whatsoever, and the "keep" votes can basically be boiled down to either WP:ILIKEIT, or a misunderstanding of what makes a list notable. To be clear it is not the individual notability of the individuals listed which is relevant, but the concept of listing these people in the first place. When viewed through the lens of our policies and guidelines, this discussion shows a very clear consensus to delete and that's the way the closer should have closed it, irrespective of the repetition of arguments we see above in this DRV. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. The discussion contains literally no policy-based rationale for deletion. Even the nom only gestures vaguely in the direction of WP:LISTN, which simply describes "[o]ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable", and thus does not provide a basis for deletion. The guideline is written that way because there is no consensus that it should be stronger. If the proponents of deletion wanted to argue that we should ignore the plain lack of policy authority for deletion and nonetheless delete a cromulent list because doing so would serve the broader interests of the encyclopedia, they needed to use their words and actually make that argument. They didn't, and the closer properly discounted their unreasoned !votes to delete. (That may not be the exact process the closer followed, but since they reached the correct result in any case, it doesn't matter). -- Visviva (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think you are misapplying WP:LISTN. "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines." It is correct that it doesn't say that it is the only way for a list topic to be considered notable, but... if you want to keep an article you have to prove notability. If you have an alternate reason for notability you need to make a case for notability. And one that fits our policies. However, the arguments here boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSNOTABLE or original research not backed up by sources. If I'd have seen credible arguments for meeting WP:GNG, that'd be different. Lurking shadow (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. I'm not convinced that a good faith attempt at sourcing this list or finding RS relevant to this list per WP:BEFORE was attempted by the nominator and the delete voters. No one mentioned searching for sources and coming up empty. They only commented on the current state of the article, which to my mind is not convincing enough of an argument. As such, I'm not inclined to overturn this AFD.4meter4 (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- In the discussion, User:Fram says: "Because there are no sources that treat the topic as a group?" This indicates a WP:BEFORE search. Lurking shadow (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- It’s too vague of a comment to assume that was what was meant. It could have easily been limited to an evaluation of the sources in the article, which is how I initially read it. I still think that the comment was evaluation of the cited references extent in the article, and no more than that even after re-reading. It’s up to the delete voters to make it clear that they looked for sources and followed due diligence. I am still not seeing that in evidence anywhere.4meter4 (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Archive
Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2022 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2021 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2020 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2019 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2018 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2017 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2016 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2015 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2014 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2013 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2012 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2011 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2010 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2009 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2008 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2007 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
2006 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |