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
27 June 2022
Bhumika Gurung
- Bhumika Gurung (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The afd is rejected simply everytime without any logical reasoning. The actress has clearly passed WP:NACTOR with her multiple lead roles in the shows Nimki Mukhiya, Nimki Vidhayak and Mann Kee Awaaz Pratigya 2. She is currently playing the lead in the show Hara Sindoor. So she is eligible to have a Wikipedia article with the four lead roles she has played. I don't understand what is wrong with afc reviewers that they are constantly rejecting this draft without any logical reasons when Gurung has everything required for an article. Commonedits (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I request a proper review of the draft by a good capable reviewer unlike the ones who have reviewed till now because the xfd: [1] is no more valid. The xfd [2] happened in 2018 when Gurung had got her first lead role in Nimki Mukhiya. Now Gurung has four lead roles, so she has fully passed WP:NACTOR so why are the reviewers not allowing the creation of her article?Commonedits (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just here to note Draft:Bhumika Gurung, and that the nominator just got blocked for a month (for something entirely unrelated, to all appearances). —Cryptic 17:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Procedural Close because the appellant is blocked for 30 days for personal attacks. But this is an "interesting" case. The title is create-protected, admin-only, due to a history of sockpuppetry in 2018 and 2019, and the protecting admin said that any request to unprotect should only come via Deletion Review, so here we are. The appellant has created a draft, Draft:Bhumika Gurung, and is requesting that it be reviewed, and so has come here. Another reviewer declined the draft two weeks ago, and then I Rejected the draft, largely because the submitter was being disruptive by accusing everyone else of being disruptive. What the blocked appellant mostly does is to insult other editors and accuse them of stalking. (This is not a block review, but I concur with User:KrakatoaKatie in blocking the appellant.) However, the draft as written does not support acting notability, but the subject does now appear to satisfy the conditions for notability. I was hasty in Rejecting the draft, and a draft submitted by a reasonable editor may be reviewed at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment to User:Cryptic - The block is only mostly unrelated. The block is for having a modus operandi of insulting other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning players
- List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning players (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The list was deleted under WP:LISTCRUFT, however there was nothing indiscriminate about the list. It was a straight up factual list of players who had won this specific cup. The information was straight forward and clear. Some argument was that the list violated WP:SYNTH, which is bizarre, as lists can't be a conclusion of information. Lists are a collection of information. From List of Star Wars books or List of PlayStation games (A–L) or List of James Bond films. This list just needed work to bring it up to standard, which no one had done. I suggest over-turn to draft space for improvement and put a hold on this AfD. Govvy (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Closing admin I do not have time at this moment to re-evaluate my close so no comment on that until I can. However, if @Govvy or another editor would like it for draft space, I'm happy to provide. Star Mississippi 16:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse if this is an appeal of the close. The close is a valid conclusion from the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Allow Re-Creation of Draft if that is what is being requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - There is no need to overturn the close to create a copy in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
26 June 2022
Alberger process
- Alberger process (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I disagree with the closing admin that the nominator failed to advance a valid deletion rationale. I think they were attempting to express a concern about notability. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- And in fact, I'm not sure from WP:BEFORE that this topic is notable. Most results are mirrors of Wikipedia, primary, or non-RS, except for Encyclopedia Britannica. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The rationale presented there "Page does not seem to justify a stand alone page" is entirely ambiguous. Is it due to notability concerns, promotional/advertising concerns, copyvio concerns, WP:NOT concerns, which one is it? The way the deletion rationale is worded, anything fits. A specific guideline- or policy-based rationale was not advanced. If we're going to base assessments of nominations that lack any said rationales here at DRV with guesses such as "think they were attempting", based upon subjective probability assessments of what the nominator was getting at, then why bother having any nomination rationales at all? My close was entirely valid per WP:SKCRIT #1. That all said, feel free to renominate the article for deletion with a valid rationale relative to Wikipedia's deletion policy. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid deletion rationales. North America1000 09:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- My reasoning for nominating (that I admit that I did not articulate well) was based around not meeting WP:GNG. I tried to phrase it in a way designed to start a discussion (i.e. is this page something that should be deleted / merged?) rather than a firm perspective (i.e. please nuke this page!). I do not plan on renominating it for a couple of weeks but would support someone else doing so. Gusfriend (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. The text reads like a merge proposal and not a deletion argument. As such, it was a proper speedy close. The nominator can always re-file with a properly formed deletion proposal if desired. That said, if the nominator truly believes a merge is a good outcome, perhaps filing a WP:Merge proposal in the proper forum might be a better option. AFD should really only be used for deletion arguments, not merge discussions (at least from a nomination standpoint). We only merge as an alternative outcome to a deletion proposal per WP:ATD and are not a proxy for WP:MERGE.4meter4 (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse, with no prejudice to a speedy renomination with better rationale, as the nominator does not say that the page should be deleted or the specific reason why. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse "Page does not seem to justify a stand alone page" is not a deletion rationale, instead it's basically just saying "I think this page should be deleted, redirected or merged". Which is obviously true, since the page was nominated for deletion. If the rationale for deletion was notability-based then it should have mentioned notability somewhere. This isn't asking for much. Hut 8.5 14:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Endorse - The closer, and the above editors, are correct that a valid deletion argument was not provided; but it would have been better to !vote Keep and ask the nominator to clarify their reasoning. Closing an AFD seven minutes after it was entered looks like the closer is watching the AFD log or a deletion sorting list, which is permitted but has a meh quality to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse no prejudice against speedy renom with better rationale, although if a merge is desired... why bother going through the AfD process until a merger is contested? Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
25 June 2022
List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle
- List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The Afd was wrongly closed by the nom with rage statement. I am not challenging the outcome, but for future reference, it is requested to redo the close by an uninvolved user. Consensus discussion about the bad close at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Afd short circuited with inflammatory and accusatory statements. Venkat TL (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let's cut out the heat and the bureaucracy here. Is there anyone other than the AFD nominator who currently wants the article deleted (or some other ATD)? Iffy★Chat -- 15:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- No one that I am aware of. Venkat TL (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse per WP:NOTBURO then. If that changes, anyone can open a new AFD. Iffy★Chat -- 15:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- There were a couple admins in the VP discussion who seemed to think it should be deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @JoelleJay FWIW, 4 admins commented in that thread and no one said so. Dear admins @Lee Vilenski @Black Kite @Visviva @Redrose64 speak up and clear your position, lest you risk being misrepresented. Venkat TL (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Frankly, I would re-open that AfD, because as a closer I would ignore every single one of those Keep rationales. There isn't a decent source which actually discusses the subject in that article - every single one is a database listing, from a website where it isn't clear if it's even reliable. Obviously, there may be good sourcing for such as list, but it doesn't exist at the moment.
This is a pretty strong indictment of the article and its keep rationales. Not necessarily advocating to delete, but I think it's clearly not pro-keep either. JoelleJay (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)- You are quoting Black Kite, I cant speak for him but FWIW I note in his second comment there he said "
I'd actually close it as No Consensus [...], or more likely I'd re-list it,"
. Venkat TL (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are quoting Black Kite, I cant speak for him but FWIW I note in his second comment there he said "
- @JoelleJay FWIW, 4 admins commented in that thread and no one said so. Dear admins @Lee Vilenski @Black Kite @Visviva @Redrose64 speak up and clear your position, lest you risk being misrepresented. Venkat TL (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- No one that I am aware of. Venkat TL (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse the outcome but not the closing statement. Does it need to be reclosed? no. Would it benefit the project if the closing statement was replaced with something reasonable? Maybe. Would I reclose it if this comment didn't make me arguably invovled? No, I don't think it's that important. Will I object to anyone else doing so? Also no - if someone else feels that it is worth the time then as far as I'm concerned they should feel free to do it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just popping in to say that adminship status should be of no relevance in determining consensus (or the lack thereof) on AFD. (That's not exactly what anyone was saying above, but I think it's a necessary point.) Apart from that I guess I'm with Thryduulf. -- Visviva (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist, per WP:WITHDRAWN as it seems that the early closure is an attempt to force the discussion to close, and that the closing statement does not show that the nominator has genuinely changed their mind. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well the closure is fine, per WP:SK the discussion can be closed as speedy keep if the nominator withdraws the nomination and nobody else supported deletion, which is the case here. I do think the closing statement should be removed though as it gratuitously insults the Keep participants and accuses them of acting in bad faith. Hut 8.5 14:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. I have re-closed the AfD with the same result but a neutral statement, as suggested above. Hopefully that resolves this DRV. Another AfD can be filed in due course if desired, though I am not suggesting it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- With Newyorkbrad's closure, this DRV has served its purpose. This DRV can also be closed now. Venkat TL (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse with {{diet trout}} to the nominator and to the rage-quitter. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse per above.4meter4 (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
22 June 2022
Nishan Velupillay
- Nishan Velupillay (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This was closed as keep at 5k to 3d/r with zero given close rationale and apparently without weighing !votes. Talk page discussion suggests the closer simply agreed with the keep !voters that someone playing at the top level of football in their country "is notable". Since that argument is invalid, due to NSPORT being subordinate to GNG and NFOOTY being deprecated, and since the only GNG-based reasons put forth by keeps rested on unreliable sources and passing mentions in routine match reports, the close should be overturned and the AfD relisted. JoelleJay (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Copying my talk page comment with examples of similar AfDs being closed as delete or relisted:
- [3], [4] (relisting comment, at 7k 3d:
Clearly some significant coverage, but no overriding consensus. The keep view wins the voting but doesn't really create a strong enough consensus right now with just the single source of significance presented.
), [5], [6], [7] (including three !votes calling The Football Sack unreliable), [8], [9]The "keep" arguments consist only of references to WP:NFOOTY, which presumes notability for high-level players. But this presumption is rebuttable, and it has been rebutted here: the "delete" side argues that the subject fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources, and that argument has not been refuted (or mostly even addressed) by the "keep" side. Based on the strength of the arguments presented, in the light of applicable guidelines, we therefore have rough consensus for deletion.
[10], [11], [12]...The first keep vote rests solely on the premise that paying in the Egyptian Premier League is sufficient for notability when no league carries that presumption...
, [13], [14]Although opinions are divided, the "delete" arguments are significantly more convincing in the light of applicable guidelines. These guidelines have recently been revised to make it clearer that mere participation in high-level sporting events is not a guarantee for inclusion at the article level if a search for sources does not establish notability to WP:GNG standards.
[15], [16]. Note that some of these were from before NFOOTY was deprecated; those same keep arguments weren't even persuasive then. JoelleJay (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- endorse at the very very best this could have been no consensus. Folks have argued the sources aren't good enough but there wasn't anything close to consensus on that point. Hobit (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse Whether it is Keep or no consensus is up for debate (given that it is 5/3 I'm leaning towards the latter), but the end result is the same. 12.148.188.220 (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. No realistic chance that a relist could turn the discussion to “delete”. See advice at WP:RENOM, especially the part about a better nomination. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. I personally would have read it as no consensus. Relisting is not mandatory and I don't think it's necessary here given the participation (though I would say it's also within discretion, not that we usually get relists at DRV). Keep a reasonable margin within discretion, considering the distinction is not that substantial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- The closer actually tried to close it at 4k 3d but then accidentally relisted, leading to another (substanceless) keep !vote, so the discussion was certainly not dead. A relist would've at least allowed more editors to contribute valid !votes; we cannot achieve consensus from arguments explicitly rejected by our guidelines (presuming notability from his playing pro football, assertions of GNG being met from sources that are unreliable/not independent). The remaining GNG claims rest on articles specifically excluded from NSPORT due to being ROUTINE match reports and bare mentions. JoelleJay (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear: the sum total of info referencing Velupillay from the RS brought up in the AfD (aside from the Daily Telegraph tabloid piece that is paywalled) is 8 sentences at best, 6 of them strictly from routine recaps. The other two sentences are only found in a drop-down box after clicking his name in a list, and are far from SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I admit I may have been intending to comment on that AfD between the relist and the close, and based on the discussion at that point and the assumption I'm not substantially better at finding sources than existing participants (a fairly safe assumption, I think) I likely would have !voted delete, but (maybe I'm too cynical) I doubt a couple of delete !votes would have made much of a difference. Especially with the keep !votes also continuing to come in, whether or not they post their own independent reasoning. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Alpha3031 A couple of delete !votes, even if they contained just the bare minimum argument, would absolutely have warranted at least a relist. The issue with most of the keep !votes is that they do not actually have any guideline backing (which, per the examples I linked above, means they should be given very little weight), and, importantly, do not bring the subject into compliance with NSPORT (as the IP said below, SPORTSBASIC now requires all athlete articles have at least one piece of SIGCOV in IRS in the article). The closer should have been familiar with at least the revised NSPORT consensuses and therefore should have weighed arguments with those in mind. JoelleJay (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I admit I may have been intending to comment on that AfD between the relist and the close, and based on the discussion at that point and the assumption I'm not substantially better at finding sources than existing participants (a fairly safe assumption, I think) I likely would have !voted delete, but (maybe I'm too cynical) I doubt a couple of delete !votes would have made much of a difference. Especially with the keep !votes also continuing to come in, whether or not they post their own independent reasoning. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse as per above editors. Keep was a valid conclusion, and No Consensus also would have been (and that is a distinction without much difference). It is true that the Keep statements did not say much and that the close did not provide analysis, but that wouldn't have changed the outcome or made it a bad close. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. I might have closed no-consensus but that wouldn't change anything. Relisting would not have achieved anything meaningful. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist. The close-comment in the AfD includes nothing beyond the decision to keep, and in particular did not address how, or even whether, the arguments were assessed for weight. Only two keep !votes were even close to having substance, in so much as they produced the two articles of dubious significance expanded on below, and these two also mix in clearly insufficient arguments such as "has Google autocomplete suggestions" and "is on a notable team". Two other keep !votes only produce routine match reports and the last provides no further argument.
- There is no evidence of SIGCOV; certainly not in the article, and not in the AfD discussion either. Sportscrit #5 requires all articles to have at least one piece of significant coverage. Only one keep !vote even explicitly asserts SIGCOV, but provides only routine match reports to support it. As explicitly said in WP:NSPORT, routine match reports don't count as SIGCOV. That leaves The Football Sack article (an article on a "volunteer-based website" written by an undergraduate) and the ABC News article (two sentences in a listicle attached to the end of an article).
- Again, the closer gave no indication of having considered the content of the votes, rather than just counting them up. 46.235.225.42 (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn and delete. The keep voters and the closer all supported a non-policy based rationale that contradicts the policy at WP:NSPORT per the RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. At some point we have to start enforcing the new updated policies. This is one of those times.4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn or relist Not seeing a consensus that the sources constituted significant coverage: some keep voters asserted it, the delete voters all denied it, the latter more convincingly in my view. A relist for more policy-based input would have helped, but a forceful delete would not have been inappropriate either, considering the need to enforce the updated guidelines. Avilich (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse no consensus would also have been a reasonable closure, but there wasn't a consensus to delete there. I don't think a relist would be appropriate, since there was plenty of participation and there weren't any substantial changes during the discussion. The fact an AfD didn't come to the "right" outcome is not grounds for a relist. Hut 8.5 11:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
20 June 2022
List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila
- List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
A non-admin closure is not appropriate unless everyone agrees. Two said to keep it, one said to redirect, the nominator and two others said to delete it. An administrator should close this. Dream Focus 19:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is nothing in NAC that says "everyone must agree" for a NAC- it's about consensus and consensus doesn't require total agreement. It requires majority agreement and pertinent arguments. So Endorse. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's an essay. Is there any guideline or policy page about this? Dream Focus 20:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- You literally implied that WP:NAC doesn't allow for a closure, yet you're asking for guidance on what policy does while declaring that it doesn't allow for this at the same time? PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's an essay. Is there any guideline or policy page about this? Dream Focus 20:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse: Closer is experienced and the decision was not a close call or controversial. Dreamfocus only mentioned the !votes, and of course it is not a vote. ––FormalDude talk 20:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Per Praxidicae, I am not aware nor can I find any evidence that there is a policy or guideline that states
A non-admin closure is not appropriate unless everyone agrees
, and there are as far as I'm aware hundreds if not thousands of NAC's where not everybody agreed. So Endorse -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 20:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn. The guideline for non-admin closers (it's at WP:NACD, for the nominator here who doesn't seem to know how to follow a hatnote) states that close calls should be left to an admin. Deletion discussions that could have more than one outcome, like this one, are close calls by definition. While the closer was right to discard both keep votes, an administrator correctly closing this would also downweight the minority, barely-explained redirect !vote since the redirect target contains zero mention of any songs recorded by this person. Yes, we could just take it to RFD, but there isn't reason to when this has already been discussed and incorrectly closed. —Cryptic 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment (involved somehow) Please also read the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Afd short circuited with inflammatory and accusatory statements - related to the nominations by the nominator on all similar lists — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was the nominator and I don't see any discussion with regard to my behavior nor was I notified of any such discussion. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn per policy at WP:NACD. There was clearly not a consensus to redirect (or keep or delete for that matter), and with very little participation, this probably should have been re-listed to give time for further comment in order to build a consensus.4meter4 (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to Relist - With opinions all over after one week, a Relist is the right action, and any other close by an admin would have been appealable also. A Trout to the appellant for one of the more wrong reasons to appeal, but both the closer and the appellant made mistakes here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn: re-close by admin or relist, not obvious enough to qualify for WP:NACD (guideline). Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn – non-admin closures are reserved for straightforward cases, and this was not a straightforward case, as explained above. On the merits, the closure isn't too far off the mark, but a relist – to obtain further participation and to discuss the proposed alternative to deletion – would perhaps have been a better option. (I don't quite agree that NACs are only acceptable when "everyone agrees", though: there are plenty of non-unanimous AfDs that are still straightforward enough for a non-admin closure. The real question non-admins should ask themselves is "could anyone disagree with this closure in good faith?", and if the answer is yes, the AfD should be left for a sysop.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to Relist followed by an admin closure after more discussion. Same reason as last 3 above me. Venkat TL (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to Relist: While "
non-admin closure is not appropriate unless everyone agrees
" is absolute bullshit, looking at the arguments, both keep arguments are very weak on their own, and have already been countered with a much stronger argument. However there is no clear consensus among participants if this should be deleted or redirected, which is why I wouldn't want this to be closed the same way by an admin as well. ~StyyxTalk? 15:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC) - Overturn to Relist: This is a clear relist candidate. Extremely weak keep arguments, no real arguments for and against redirect, redirects are cheap but there should be discussion about it.Lurking shadow (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. Obvious WP:ATD-R. The nominator should take WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD more seriously. The merge or redirect target was obvious, and the nominator made no effort to explain why it shouldn’t be done, and this failure regularly leads to undisciplined deletion discussions. Do not relist because the nomination was faulty. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse I was at first torn between endorsing the closure and going for a relist after a similar AfD was reopened after it was closed as delete. The rationale of the ones who !voted keep are very weak as they mentioned other stuff exists instead of list-related policies, compared to the rationale of the ones in the AfD I mentioned. As the one who !voted redirect in the AfD because I believe that it's a valid ATD-R, along with the reasons above, I'll endorse the closure. The nom's reasoning is vague. SBKSPP (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse- Given that the only other possible outcome would be to delete, which I assume is not what the appellant wants, I'm not sure what the point of this DRV is. Reyk YO! 01:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Matthew Tye
- Matthew Tye (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I created Draft:Matthew Tye. Two sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are:
- Mo, Yu 莫雨 (2021-07-30). ""在中國,自由都是表面的":一位逃離牆國的美國網紅" ["In China, freedom is superficial": An American Internet celebrity who fled the wall country] (in Chinese). Voice of America. Archived from the original on 2022-06-19. Retrieved 2022-06-19.
- Liu, Youwei 劉又瑋 (2021-08-26). "賺的錢比中國多7倍!台灣擁2戰略關鍵 老外讚:一直想搬回去" [Earn 7 times more money than China! Taiwan has 2 strategic keys. Foreigner praises: I always want to move back] (in Chinese). FTV News. Archived from the original on 2022-06-19. Retrieved 2022-06-19.
Numerous other sources provide less substantial coverage about the subject. The subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
The article was deleted in two AfDs: 17 May 2017 and 2 July 2018 (an 8 August 2009 AfD was about a different person). I supported deletion in both AfDs. A deletion review was closed as "Decision endorsed" on 30 October 2021. As noted in the DRV, the DRV was started shortly after this 16 September 2021 Reddit thread where the subject asked his followers to recreate the Wikipedia article. This led to a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#Off-wiki nonsense and a series of unfortunate coincidences.... Owing to the significant controversy surrounding the article and the full protection of the title, I am bringing this article to DRV for community review. Since the two AfDs closed as "delete", Matthew Tye has received significant coverage in reliable sources. After I rewrote the article at Draft:Matthew Tye, "G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" does not apply.
Restore the article by moving Draft:Matthew Tye to Matthew Tye. Cunard (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- As the most recent deleting admin, I've been notified about this request, but I have no opinion about it. I don't have the time to re-read all these discussions and form one, and I don't read Chinese. So I'm neutral here. Sandstein 13:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Downgrade Protection to ECP to Allow Review of Draft including acceptance of draft if reviewer accepts draft. The draft is currently admin-protected, which was appropriate until a neutral editor had a draft for review. Lower the protection to ECP so that a reviewer can accept. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Restore the article by moving Draft:Matthew Tye to Matthew Tye. and downgrade protection as needed. I can't verify the sources due to language issues, but the draft looks fine. Hobit (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Unsalt. I don't have a strong opinion about whether the sources are enough to establish notability, but since it's been nearly four years since the last AfD, this attempt by an experienced editor to recreate the article based mostly on post-2018 sources seems fine. If anyone feels that the sources are inadequate, they are of course free to start another AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Allow recreation. No issue with the AfDs at the time they ran, but circumstances have changed and experienced editor has provided a solid draft. No reason not to allow Star Mississippi 13:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Recent 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)
- This was essentially withdrawn after Matt91486 merged the page's content. Treat the closure as such and let's not get caught up in semantics. ✗plicit 13:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, AfD nominators are allowed to speedily close their own discussions as "keep" where there are no !votes to delete. They can then subsequently redirect the article as a normal editorial action. That redirection can be reverted by any editor. TPH has compressed those two separate decisions into a single outcome.—S Marshall T/C 13:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is a withdrawal which is permissible as long as there's not been any votes to delete. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ignore - I won't say Endorse because the nominator-closer made an error in combining the roles of nominator and closer, but it was an error without effect, as it would be silly now to overturn it and have someone else take the same action. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon, withdrawals are often closed by the nominator who is withdrawing and there is nothing in our procedures and policies which forbid this as long as there were no delete votes.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to go with overturn to withdraw which is probably a largely irrelevant difference here, but I think more accurate. Some people take an AfD closure to merge as carrying some weight and I think "withdraw" is just more descriptive of what happened. But eh. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to withdraw (change the close from "merge" to "nomination withdrawn") per Hobit. This is similar to the case at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 5#Darkover (TV series), where TenPoundHammer's close as "redirect" was overturned. TenPoundHammer was banned on 20 June 2022 from closing XfD discussions.
A nominator should be closing their own deletion nomination only when the page has been speedy deleted or the nominator is doing a Wikipedia:Speedy keep withdrawal close. A close as "merge" is not a Wikipedia:Speedy keep. A "merge" close means there is a consensus after a WP:SNOW or full AfD discussion to require a merge. That was not the case here as the AfD was closed after having been open for a little over an hour. A "merge" close would make it harder for a standalone article to be restored as an editor would have to contest the close or substantially improve the article. It is fine to impose such requirements after a seven-day discussion but not after a one-hour one. A "withdraw" close would not impose such requirements.
I am fine with the subsequent action of editorially redirecting the page to Élmer Huerta as a good alternative to deletion after the merge given the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that were found. So I support an "overturn to withdraw, keep the redirect in place but allow any editor to reverse the redirect without having to gain consensus to reverse it".
- Endorse simple procedural close/merge with no dissenting opinions on the AFD. The closure was technically in violation of WP:NACD but was done in good faith and and this DRV violates the spirit of WP:NOTBURO. Frank Anchor 18:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Weak overturn to withdraw per Hobit and Cunard. This probably didn't need to be brought to DRV, but since we're here "withdrawn" does seem a better summary of what took place, and it also prevents any possible issues if someone wants to recreate the article somewhere down the road. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 26 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
- Endorse and allow recreation. This was a difficult close, as the commenters pointed to one work in a national collection and a 32-word entry in Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies. Other comments suggested that WP:NARTIST 4(d) usually means at least three prominent exhibitions and the bibliography entry does not meet WP:GNG. While a no consensus close may also be appropriate, the close,
"The keep !votes based on WP:ARTIST part 4 and WP:ANYBIO have been adequately refuted,"
is based on policy. --Enos733 (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC) - Overturn, pretty clear case of a supervote. If "consensus" means "I agree with the policy arguments on this side and disagree with the policy arguments on the other side", we might as well give up on having these discussions at all. I understand the OP to alternatively be requesting that the article be restored as a draft, which can't be done until this case is resolved. If someone can ping me at that point, I will happily undelete it and userfy it to LPascal's userspace. -- Visviva (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse but draftify per request. There was nothing wrong with the close, but LPascal makes a good case for more time to work on this article to make notability clear. This is why draft space exists. Star Mississippi 01:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse but draftify per Star Mississippi.4meter4 (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to No Consensus - The close was a supervote. There was strength of arguments on both sides. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do think no consensus was probably the better close. But delete may have been within discretion. That said, I don't see the need for this to go to draft--if better sources (or evidence that an SNG is met) is found, just recreate it. allow recreation with no prejudice to a new AfD. Hobit (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse own deletion as within reasonable range of outcomes. No objection to draftifying. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know the policy or etiquette for my making this comment so apologies if I'm not following policy. I am satisfied with the suggestion that I write a new article for Jeannie Pwerle with the aim of finding better sources to support her as a notable artist. I would only write the article and post it to Wikipedia if I could find supporting references. I would do this slowly in my sandbox as I have other articles in the pipeline first and it would take some time to research. I don't expect the deletion to be overturned and the original article to go live again on wikipedia. But I would like to get a draft of the original article if possible and I would dump it into my sandbox to look at. I don't really know the technicalities of how this can happen and what it means to draftify or recreate an article, so if the decision ends up being to allow me to work on a new article, please notify me of how I can get a copy of the original deleted article.LPascal (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)LPascal
- Endorse This is not a supervote, but appropriate weighing of the argument, regardless of the number. When looking at the discussion, I can see that neither the NARTIST #4, nor the ANYBIO #3 criteria are met. The former because the galleries aren't museum collections, the latter because Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies isn't a national dictionary as required. Everyone simply saying "
Keep NARTIST 4(d)
" has their argument refuted, and, again, regardless of how many people !vote keep based on them, the arguments are weak, and outweighed by delete !votes. ~StyyxTalk? 13:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
- Keep deleted. UPE spam. Redirect is fine. MER-C 04:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Question - Is there an issue any more? There is a redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- (assuming this review is still active), Reverse deletion. The AFD seems to have been muddied by sockpuppetry, and the main argument for deletion is a generic-sounding name alleged to fail WP:NCORP. I'm not convinced it failed. I got here because I noticed the edit to remove it from the ASX200 template. My quick checks:
- It is a member of the S&P/ASX 200 - [17] (click "See all")
- Story, Mark (20 May 2022). "Lottery Corp (ASX:TLC) leaps into ASX 200 24 May". Market Index.
- Darmawan, Melissa (17 May 2022). "The Lottery Corporation (ASX:TLC) joins the ASX 200 as of 24 May". Finance News Network.
- Chanticleer (24 May 2022). "The ASX's new 'infrastructure' giant is also a takeover target". Australian Financial Review.
- Lawler, Mitchell (25 May 2022). "Could Tabcorp's newly demerged Lottery Corporation become a takeover target?". The Motley Fool.
- "Is The Lottery Corp (ASX: TLC) the best ASX dividend share?". The Inside Investor. 3 June 2022.
- That seems like a set of articles about this company, which has only existed for a bit over a month. It looks like the original article was OK, just short and poorly referenced. There should be a bit more to add from these, ping me if I should help to make sure I notice. --Scott Davis Talk 12:14, 27 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 [18] 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 [18] 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)
- Endorse the Delete arguments were that the topic is unencyclopedic (WP:NOT#IINFO) and that the content is so poor quality that we should delete it (WP:TNT). These are both very subjective arguments which are largely down to editorial judgement, and the barrier to a TNT deletion in particular is quite high because we expect that articles shouldn't be deleted because of fixable problems. The fact that discussion was ongoing isn't a reason to relist it, we usually only relist AfDs if there hasn't been enough participation to produce a consensus or something has been missed in the previous discussion. Neither was the case here. It's a very poor article and I would have supported deleting it, but I can't fault the close. Hut 8.5 13:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn - to re-list. Similar to what I wrote earlier, this feels like a fair compromise. Second preference - overturn to delete given the delete to keep votes ratio. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to delete or relist. I do not see how
Whether a list of self-replicating machines in fiction is separately notable and encyclopedic is still up for debate, and those arguing for keep are fairly convincing on this point
is a remotely acceptable rationale to give 2x weight to all keep !votes. The closer did not explain how keep arguments successfully rebutted the delete side's policy- and guideline-based justifications (NOT, OR, and LISTN), and did not address the very reasonable observation that the topic is redundant with the article from which it was forked, with zero reliably-sourced content added since the split. To restate: it appears the only salvageable material from the list was already word-for-word present in the self-replicating machines article history. Therefore, any new prose or examples from the sources identified in the AfD, which would be required to rewrite and proseify the current list, could just as reasonably be turned into a section of the original article instead. JoelleJay (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC) - Overturn and relist Per JoelleJay, the reason for giving delete votes extra weight seems faulty.Lurking shadow (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to keep Sources were provided, most of the previous deletes did not return to comment on them, and those who commented afterwards made inappropriate arguments such as that the sources pertained to a different article--no policy suggests that a source cannot be used for two similar articles, and this is especially true when one of them is a list. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- What? It is not inappropiate to say that - these sources are about non-fiction.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
15 June 2022
List of people on the postage stamps of Romania (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
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)
I rather agree with that last point and personally I find it persuasive. If I had been an AfD !voter I would have said "delete". But with my DRV reviewer hat on, I would contend that this view was not the consensus.—S Marshall T/C 12:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
13 June 2022
|
---|
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. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
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)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
12 June 2022
Davide Locatelli (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
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)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
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. |
3 June 2022
List of people on the postage stamps of Iceland (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
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)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
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 |