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".
Recent discussions
24 July 2022
Tender Claws
- Tender Claws (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This is a significant game design company that has won multiple awards, and the article had many citations. I unfortunately did not see the deletion discussion until yesterday, or I would have argued against deletion/redirect. If anything, it would make more sense to delete the separate article for The Under Presents, and redirect that to Tender Claws, because the game company has made MANY significant works apart from The Under Presents.
The reason for deletion given by User:Alexandermcnabb includes the statement "When you're presenting a gaming company as interesting because one of its games is unplayable, you're in the weeds, folks..." I completely agree that if that game is unplayable (I haven't tried) it probably shouldn't be included in the Wikipedia article, but that's easily fixable by deleting that line, which was added by an anonymous user on March 8, adding "VVR2 got released, should probably add that. (And the part about how terrible the game is)". This unsourced statement surely shouldn't lead to deleting the whole article. User:Alexandermcnabb states that the article fails WP:GNG but this is a game development studio, not an actor. He also states that it fails WP:CORP but I don't see how this can be the case, given that Tender Claws has extensive media coverage (the deleted article included references to a long article in the New York Times, a review in the Theatre Journal and several others, and several of their games have won awards - and the article that was deleted has citations for many of these awards.
I think both Samantha Gorman and the studio Tender Claws clearly deserve their own articles, and ask that the community reconsiders their deletion. I am also happy to help revise both articles to improve them. Lijil (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse the redirect consensus was unanimous meaning there was no way this could have been closed.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse redirect the redirect consensus was, indeed, unanimous (6 editors voting) which is why this close was appropriate. The company Tender Claws does, indeed, fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP. There seems to be some confusion here about actors and WP:GNG - there was no mention of actors in the nomination or debate. The New York Times article is 1) not readily verifiable as it's behind a paywall 2) about a product, not the company. In fact sourcing is problematic in this article, failing to show a clear pass of WP:GNG let alone the more rigorous standard of WP:CORP - the company is simply not notable and it is NOT the subject of "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The sources presented are ALL about the company's apps, not the company. The first source is the company's website, the second is a Polish research paper which mentions the app Pry in a secondary mention in a footnote - and the other 11 sources are all reviews or apps featuring in listicles, or incidental mentions of apps (the Sundance source is a broken link, but searching Sundance's website shows that the Associate programmer and Festival coordinator likes Virtual Virtual Reality, a Tender Claws app - this is pretty typical of the standard of sourcing presented here). There simply isn't any evidence that the company is notable. The redirect to its most successful/well known application is therefore entirely appropriate and should stand. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with almost everything said though the bit about paywalled sources not being verifiable is wrong per WP:PAYWALL. That being said the New York Times article still isn’t useable since the article isn’t about the company itself.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- To be fair I merely noted its not readily verifiable and did confirm that it is not about the company but an app, but yes policy is indeed that the source shouldn't be discounted just because it's paywalled. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are you saying that if media coverage is about specific games rather than about the game developer overall, there could be articles for each of the games but not for the developer? Lijil (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Does that mean news coverage about Tender Claws unionising is the sort of thing that could support notability for this game development studio, but articles about the games they make cannot? Lijil (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Read WP:INHERIT. -- ferret (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are you saying that if media coverage is about specific games rather than about the game developer overall, there could be articles for each of the games but not for the developer? Lijil (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- To be fair I merely noted its not readily verifiable and did confirm that it is not about the company but an app, but yes policy is indeed that the source shouldn't be discounted just because it's paywalled. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with almost everything said though the bit about paywalled sources not being verifiable is wrong per WP:PAYWALL. That being said the New York Times article still isn’t useable since the article isn’t about the company itself.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse redirect There's no other way this AFD would have been closed, and the close is proper. Note that the OP has approached WT:VG about this review, perhaps unaware that most of the !voters at the AFD are from WP:VG in the first place. -- ferret (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm glad to hear that the voters are from WP:VG! I am trying to understand the system here and have not been able to find clear guidelines for notability for game developers, which especially in the case of indie studios surely have more in common with authors or artists than corporations in general. I'm a professor of digital culture trying to contribute to Wikipedia, so I have a lot of content knowledge but clearly have a lot to learn about the editing system. If the correct way to do this is to make an article for each of the studio's works and not have an article for the studio that's fine with me, but it does seem strange!! Lijil (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The redirect preference was clear, but I question whether it was correct. Looking at the redirected text--and thank you to the closing admin for NOT deleting it before redirection--the software Pry (or PRY?) appears to be itself notable based on the references included in the now-redirected Tender Claws article. One good reason to cover this non-notable company is that it has two separate notable products. This isn't invoked in NCORP, but is really an application of WP:BAND criterion 6. Our current iteration of NCORP is written terribly exclusionary, and I get that it's designed to keep corporate spam off of Wikipepdia. Still, there's a reason N is a guideline rather than a policy, and this is one instance of it. Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that Pry is notable itself. I just revised the article on Samantha Gorman (co-founder of Tender Claws) to provide more reliable sources for this. Lijil (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse as a valid close and the only appropriate close. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse, couldn't have been closed any other way. User:Lijil, the standard for reversing a consensus, for convincing everyone that everyone was wrong, is WP:THREE. Provide three quality sources. As the result was a redirect, the place to make the case is at the talk page of the redirect target. However, don't waste others' time making arguments without the WP:THREE sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse It was a valid close given the lack of evidence of notability that was ever provided in the AfD discussion. See WP:GNG which is a general guideline across all of Wikipedia, not just WikiProject Video Games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Patrick Lancaster
- Patrick Lancaster (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Request overturning or relisting of this deletion discussion. Closer did not take into account a lengthy article by Zaborona covering the subject very significantly and a discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 379#Zaborona where most editors said Zaborona is reliable. The Zaborona article was removed as an administrative action which I challenged on User talk:EvergreenFir#Your administrator actions on Patrick_Lancaster and the administrator subsequently changed their position in the aforementioned Reliable sources noticeboard discussion. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Overturn to No Consensus - I count 8 Keep !votes, and 8 Delete !votes plus the nom for 9, and guideline-based reasons for both, so that the closer's disregard of the Keeps was a supervote. That is enough participation that a Relist is not required or appropriate. The appeal would be stronger if the appellant hadn't bludgeoned the AFD. The bludgeoning may have, almost reasonably, made the closer think that the appellant was shouting because they didn't have a case. Usually shouting and bludgeoning is the sign of a lost cause, and the closer may have thought so. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus Solid policy-based arguments were made on both sides, and the closing admin incorrectly dismisses the NBC and Vice sources while also failing to acknowledge a few other reliable sources that came up in the discussion. Frank Anchor 17:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to NC the Task and Purpose profile, linked in the AfD, was sufficiently compelling to 'win' the GNG argument, but seemed to be lost in the back-and forth and accusations of sockpuppetry and bad faith. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. Within admin discretion, "no consensus" and "delete" both defensible. Many "keep" !votes were not solid. Potentially this should be considered WP:TNT, it sounds like the article was littered by low quality source; consider trying again in draft with WP:THREE quality sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- The article already was rewritten through the AfD process. See latest version of deleted text here. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t approve. This shows disrespect for Wikipedia and the deletion process and attribution good practice. Please have it deleted and wait for this DRV discussion to finish.
- If the outcome is to consider the deletion WP:TNT and allow a re-start, the only thing that can be re-used is the reference list, and even then the point is the discarding of all low quality sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- If any other user had requested a temp undeletion, it would have been granted. Rather than griping at this editor, how about we do that instead, so all of us can see what the text was when it was deleted? Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the gripe is about. Sometimes the Wikipedia deletion process goes astray, as was the case here. The only reason this article was deleted was because I was accused of being pro-Russian and a stock of another editor. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- If any other user had requested a temp undeletion, it would have been granted. Rather than griping at this editor, how about we do that instead, so all of us can see what the text was when it was deleted? Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- The article already was rewritten through the AfD process. See latest version of deleted text here. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
20 July 2022
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Same situation as CNBC programme Market Watch, which is another significant weekday programme on CNBC in early 2000s and it is divided into different versions in CNBC Europe and CNBC Asia. I cannot see there have any discussion to request delete in hereWpcpey (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
18 July 2022
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Marketwatch is one of the most top-rated TV weekday prgramme on CNBC and it is divided into different versions in CNBC Europe and CNBC Asia etc. I have added some videos as references in 2002 and internet sources from the different regions CNBC website in the past (most of the references which is more than 15-20 years ago). I think it has sufficient evidence to keep it and should not delete. The previous delete makes most of the old TV news programmes have a very high chance to delete and it is very difficult to find the sources. The current article is without any information, just only "Market Watch" two words, which is unacceptable for this result. Reference: CNBC Market Watch programme intro in 2000, Market Watch intro from CNBC Asia in 2001, [1], [2], from CNBC Europe in April 2003 and this is from CNBC Asia official website in 2007 Wpcpey (talk) 18:27, 18 July 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. |
Found sources (better than nothing). The film is actually titled just Khanjar. Full review here. Production source here. Other source here. Please restore the old page as a draft. DareshMohan (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
15 July 2022
Chronovisor (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This was closed as:
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Authoritarian enclave (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Although closer has waiver at their talk page directing AfD discussion to DRV, some discussion occurred with closer reiterating their close that WP:NOT trumps any other argument. Numerically !votes were 6:5 (including nomination) keep/deletion, with one of the latter a delete/draftify. Nomination's claim that concept could be covered elsewhere was refuted in the discussion (and not counter-refuted). Discussion hinged on whether or not WP:NOTDICT applied. Close appears as a supervote, drawing no analysis from the discussion for why the article's three-week status as a stub falls foul of WP:NOTDICT: "Both dictionary entries at Wiktionary and encyclopedia articles at Wikipedia may start out as stubs, but they are works in progress, to be expanded. " (emphasis added). No indication that this is not a work in progress (especially given the article creator), keep contributions all indicated adequate referencing available to allow expansion, which was not refuted. There was no discussion or reference to any policy that stub status alone requires deletion. Overturn to keep. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
14 July 2022
Mamata Kanojia (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The closer did not explain their reasoning, but it would appear that they simply counted votes instead of discarding ones that do not comply with our notability guidelines. All of the Keep !votes are based on either the article meeting NCRIC (which isn't sufficient to establish notability) or the likelihood that SIGCOV sources exist, even though none have been found. This violates WP:SPORTCRIT #5 (which requires at least one SIGCOV source to actually be cited in the article) and WP:NRV which requires "objective, verifiable evidence" that sourcing exists. –dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Shabana Kausar (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The closer did not explain their reasoning, but it would appear that they simply counted votes instead of discarding ones that do not comply with our notability guidelines. All of the Keep !votes are based on either the article meeting NCRIC (which isn't sufficient to establish notability) or the likelihood that SIGCOV sources exist, even though none have been found. This violates WP:SPORTCRIT #5 (which requires at least one SIGCOV source to actually be cited in the article) and WP:NRV which requires "objective, verifiable evidence" that sourcing exists. –dlthewave ☎ 03:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Subroto Das (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The closer did not explain their reasoning, but it would appear that they simply counted votes instead of discarding ones that do not comply with our notability guidelines. All of the Keep !votes are based on either the article meeting NCRIC (which isn't sufficient to establish notability) or the likelihood that SIGCOV sources exist, even though none have been found. This violates WP:SPORTCRIT #5 (which requires at least one SIGCOV source to actually be cited in the article) and WP:NRV which requires "objective, verifiable evidence" that sourcing exists. –dlthewave ☎ 03:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Overturn. Per my argument at the Mamota Kanojia DRV. Just because the same bloc of editors who vehemently opposed the successful NSPORT2022 proposals and obstructed their implementation happens to have high participation at AfDs and DRVs (including this one) where they continue to make guideline-rejected/non-compliant !votes, doesn't mean global consensus can just be overturned. This is especially true when none of the keep !voters even address the overarching requirement for SIGCOV cited in the article that is literally stated unambiguously in the very guideline they invoke. JoelleJay (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
12 July 2022
Marie Rose Abad
- Marie Rose Abad (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Last month, I created this redirect, among similar others. Some people took issue with it, some took it with the target itself, and some took it with how I created them, so on 27 Jun Graeme deleted them. I couldn't find the rationale for the deletion under WP:RFD#DELETE, and found at least one reason for keeping it—(3) They aid searches on certain terms
—not to mention that, if I created them, naturally I'm (5) Someone
who finds them useful.
I would thus like to better understand why these redirects, and other similar ones, need to be deleted on their own merit, now that the consensus for keeping the target has been established. I understand one of the issues some people took with the redirects themselves was that the people they named are not notable, but WP:N explicitly states that:
when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see also Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap).
— Guarapiranga ☎ 02:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The deletion happened as a result of the WP:AN/I discussion. The problem was the sheer scale of creation by an unapproved automated process of over 1000 redirects. It was the R part of WP:BRD. I think Guarapiranga needs to have a reason for creating each individual redirect so that thought is given to each one. Guarapiranga has also failed to listen to the community discussion on WP:AN/I where no one supported creation of redirects for the name of very person that died in the 9/11 attacks. Sure if someone is notable, create an article on the person, or if there is some real information on the target, then make a redirect. I will see if I can find the ANI discussion in the archive. Out of the deleted set I have already restored one: Christine Egan as it was converted to an article which at least has a claim of importance.
- See all the logged deletions at this URL on 27th June: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=&limit=5000&type=delete&user=Graeme_Bartlett&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters[0]=newusers
- Discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1102#WP:MEATBOT and Guarapiranga Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Graeme; I had linked the discussion at AN/I in my intro (as well as that at the AfD, and at the redirects' target talk page). I did
listen to the community discussion on WP:AN/I
, and accepted your bulk deletion of the redirects; as I said, I'd just like tobetter understand why these redirects, and other similar ones, need to be deleted on their own merit
. It's not true, however, thatno one supported creation of redirects for the name of
every person that died in the 9/11 attacks
:- BilledMammal said
current policy tolerates these redirects
; - While some editors argued the redirects were a problem bc they taxed the NPP backlog, Hey man im josh, who reviewed them, said he didn't whink
we should take the NPP backlog into consideration when deciding whether articles or redirects are valid or appropriate to create
; - While some expressed
fear that any living person who shares a name with any of those victims will instantly become known for sharing a name with a victim, if these redirects hit google
, HumanxAnthro argued thathow accurately non-notable individuals are presented on Google searches is
Google's problem, not Wikipedia's
; - Regarding
the sheer scale of creation by an unapproved automated process of over 1000 redirects
, Qwerfjkl said mass creating redirects shouldn't be considered a problem, as he's also done it in the past.
- BilledMammal said
- Finally, the core of that discussion at AN/I was WP:MEATBOT, as indicated by the incident heading, not the redirects in their own right (even the editor who reported the incident said that
the merits of the redirects at
thatpoint
werethe least of
herconcern
). That's why I raised the question here, so we can discuss the redirects in their own right, whether they can be created, even if by non-automated means, and, again, tobetter understand why
theyneed to be deleted on their own merit
, if that's the case. — Guarapiranga ☎ 07:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)- I would note that my full comment was
On one hand, this is clearly a WP:MEATBOT and WP:FAIT issue. On the other hand, my experience at AfD and RfD regarding non-notable early Olympians suggests that current policy tolerates these redirects, to the point of sometimes creating disambiguation pages when there are multiple articles mentioning different non-notable individuals by the same name.
- I would also note that I wasn't entirely correct; such disambiguation pages are forbidden by WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
- Moving forward, I would suggest that if you wish to recreate these redirects you seek consensus to do so by submitting a bot approval request. Before doing so, I would also suggest you work out which redirects would be inappropriate due to multiple non-notable people with the same name being mentioned in Wikipedia, and excluding them from your creation processes.
- This doesn't guarantee that you will get consensus for their creation, but it does make it possible. BilledMammal (talk)
I would suggest that if you wish to recreate these redirects you seek consensus to do so by submitting a bot approval request.
I'd first like to understand what exactly is the policy in this regard, independently of them being created semi-automatically or not (and whether WP:POLICY requires that manually created redirects to non-notable people in lists and articles—e.g. Mary McKinney, Grace Nelsen Jones, Mary Margaret Smith, Margaret Skeete, etc—also be deleted).Before doing so, I would also suggest you work out which redirects would be inappropriate due to multiple non-notable people with the same name being mentioned in Wikipedia, and excluding them from your creation processes.
The notable people on that list don't need redirects; by definition, they have articles of their own (or should have). The issue is precisely with the redirects to non-notable people names in the article. Why do you say that would beinappropriate
? Doesn't WP:N establish thatwhen notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them
? — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)- For example, Robert Chin. A man by that name was one of the victims in 9/11, but a different man by the same name was a candidate in the 2020 Jamaican general election. A redirect should not go to the list of 9/11 victims, because it will confuse and surprise readers looking for the election candidate. BilledMammal (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't that what dab pages are for? — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- No - see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. However, even if it was, you would need to make sure you create dab pages there rather than redirects. BilledMammal (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- What I see in WP:NOTDIRECTORY regarding dab pages is that
Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith
, which is not the case here (of listing every person named Robert Chin in his dab page, to take your example),just the notable ones
, but that this is [under discussion], and clearly contradicts the very WP:N policy it links to:
— Guarapiranga ☎ 02:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them (see also Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap).
- What I see in WP:NOTDIRECTORY regarding dab pages is that
- No - see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. However, even if it was, you would need to make sure you create dab pages there rather than redirects. BilledMammal (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't that what dab pages are for? — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- For example, Robert Chin. A man by that name was one of the victims in 9/11, but a different man by the same name was a candidate in the 2020 Jamaican general election. A redirect should not go to the list of 9/11 victims, because it will confuse and surprise readers looking for the election candidate. BilledMammal (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would note that my full comment was
Out of the deleted set I have already restored one: Christine Egan as it was converted to an article which at least has a claim of importance.
There we are; that was precisely one of my aims: for the redirect pages to work as placeholders, and be progressively replaced by articles as WP acknowledges people's notability. — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Graeme; I had linked the discussion at AN/I in my intro (as well as that at the AfD, and at the redirects' target talk page). I did
- I agree that, given the controversy around this situation, it needs a BRFA or at least some sort of clear consensus, even if it's not explicitly disallowed by policy. Also, re 4. above, mass-creating redirects still needs consensus. See Novem Linguae and Rosguil's comments in the linked discussion. ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse After reading the ANI (not formally closed), there appeared to be consensus to delete the mass creation of redirects. From a process standpoint, the redirect target, List of victims of the September 11 attacks was created by the nominator on May 28. By June 21 several thousand redirects were created. The creation of the redirects were brought to ANI on June 27. By June 28, all of the redirects were deleted by Graeme Bartlett. On July 12, Guarapiranga brought the redirect up for discussion, where it was closed a couple hours later. --Enos733 (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Overturn I'm not sure what I would think on the merits, but there should have been an RfD rather than deleting thousands of pages out of process due to a discussion at a conduct venue. The RfD brought up by Enos733 would have been the right process, but the deletion being reviewed here unduly short-circuited it This, incidentally, is another instance of the "strict CSD regulars like me say that a certain type of deletion is disallowed, admins in other parts of the community carry it out anyway" give-take that I mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Adding to Non-criteria list section. I was hoping that the list would be deleted and this would become moot, but the AfD was closed as keep in a closure that IMO doesn't reflect the consensus but I couldn't be bothered to bring it to DRV, so here we are .... * Pppery * it has begun... 16:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Considering WP:FAIT, WP:ONUS, and WP:MEATBOT, I don't think the onus should be on editors to get consensus for their deletion; instead, it should be on editors to get consensus for their creation. BilledMammal (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:ONUS is a section of Wikipedia:Verifiability, and there is no dispute that all of these names are verifiable, so is inapplicable here. WP:MEATBOT as written, is inapplicable here since it only requires that
human editors [...] pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity
, and there's no evidence Guarapiranga didn't do so. The WP:FAIT argument is a reassertion of Hut 8.5's claim about the feasibility of a mass RfD, which I've already responded to below. Anyway, as I see it the only thing relevant to determining whether a speedy deletion is valid is Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and mass creations shouldn't be special enough to ignore the standard way deletion on Wikipedia works, which places the onus on deleters. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)there's no evidence Guarapiranga didn't do so.
Thanks, Pppery; indeed I tried my best at ensuring I was expanding WP in a positive direction, while fully complying with policy (particularly WP:N and WP:MASSCREATE). Unfortunately, it wasn't well received. — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)- WP:ONUS talks about the fact that verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion; the names are verifiable, but that doesn't guarantee inclusion, and the onus is on Guarapiranga to get a consensus for that. As for WP:MEATBOT, the issue is that these are large scale and high speed edits that are potentially contrary to consensus; consensus should be demonstrated first. BilledMammal (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- What I read at WP:ONUS is that:
- It's talking about
information
for inclusion in an article
, which is not the case here; and The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content
, thus placing the requirement of consensus after dispute, as usual, not before it.
- It's talking about
- — Guarapiranga ☎ 01:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes; ONUS doesn't suggest that your bold creation was wrong, but as the creation has since been disputed it tells us that:
- It was correct to revert the creation
- To restore the content, the editors seeking to include it need to get a consensus.
- BilledMammal (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, and here we are. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes; ONUS doesn't suggest that your bold creation was wrong, but as the creation has since been disputed it tells us that:
- What I read at WP:ONUS is that:
- WP:ONUS is a section of Wikipedia:Verifiability, and there is no dispute that all of these names are verifiable, so is inapplicable here. WP:MEATBOT as written, is inapplicable here since it only requires that
- Considering WP:FAIT, WP:ONUS, and WP:MEATBOT, I don't think the onus should be on editors to get consensus for their deletion; instead, it should be on editors to get consensus for their creation. BilledMammal (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse while ANI definitely isn't a usual venue for deletion discussions, it is occasionally used for bulk deletion in cases where one person creates a lot of problematic pages. I remember a case a few years ago where one user created a few hundred articles with serious original research problems, and it was eventually decided that they should all be deleted instead of expecting editors to AfD them one by one. There is a general expectation that large scale page creations should be discussed somewhere beforehand, something reflected in the bot policy, and I suspect an RfD of several thousand redirects would not have been feasible. Hut 8.5 17:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why would it be any less feasible than, for example, the mass discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 10 which totaled to thousands of redirects which seem to have worked just fine? * Pppery * it has begun... 17:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- By my count there are under 900 nominations on that log page, so a lot fewer than the approximately 3,000 9/11 victims, and the nominators didn't actually follow proper procedure since none of the redirects were tagged (at least none of the random sample I picked were). More importantly there were a lot more differences between each of the redirects which led to some being kept. Hut 8.5 17:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
the nominators didn't actually follow proper procedure since none of the redirects were tagged
What would've been the proper procedure? Do you mean in creating or deleting them?There is a general expectation that large scale page creations should be discussed somewhere beforehand, something reflected in the bot policy
Where is that expectation expressed? The policy you linked states that itinitially applied to articles, but has since been expanded to include all "content pages", broadly meaning pages designed to be viewed by readers through the mainspace
, and the linked discussion there explicitly excludes redirects from the policy, as Lugnuts pointed it out in the discussion, and Qwerfjkl to me before that. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)- Hut 8.5 means that the nominators of the 2015 discussions I linked to as an example to try to refute his claim that RfDing these redirects instead of deleting them out of process would have been infeasible failed to properly tag the redirects they nominated with
{{subst:rfd}}
, and that specific sentence is not making any comment about the redirects you created. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)- Ah, I see. Thanks, Pppery. I clearly dived into the deep end in this whole adventure. — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hut 8.5 means that the nominators of the 2015 discussions I linked to as an example to try to refute his claim that RfDing these redirects instead of deleting them out of process would have been infeasible failed to properly tag the redirects they nominated with
- The discussions you've linked to suggest that it is sometimes OK to create large numbers of redirects without discussion. That doesn't mean that it's always OK - if people object to it, or might object to it, then it ought to be discussed somewhere first. Hut 8.5 12:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- For sure, Hut 8.5. Except that discussion at AN/I wasn't a calm and collected debate over the pros and cons of the redirects that people might disagree with, but felt rather more like a public lynching, in which some editors expressed quite a lot of anger, as if I had broken some very fundamental rule, not as if it were part and parcel of the usual WP:CYCLE, as you say, Hut 8.5. What I'm asking here is: what is that rule, if it exists at all? Your answer indicates to me it doesn't, as the redirects are simply subject to editors' consensus, and those accusations at ANI were absolutely unfounded and unfair. — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- By my count there are under 900 nominations on that log page, so a lot fewer than the approximately 3,000 9/11 victims, and the nominators didn't actually follow proper procedure since none of the redirects were tagged (at least none of the random sample I picked were). More importantly there were a lot more differences between each of the redirects which led to some being kept. Hut 8.5 17:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why would it be any less feasible than, for example, the mass discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 10 which totaled to thousands of redirects which seem to have worked just fine? * Pppery * it has begun... 17:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
7 July 2022
Megan Huntsman
- Megan Huntsman (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I discussed concerns about the close at the closer's Talk page but continue to have concerns that consensus was interpreted incorrectly and the result should be overturned to delete, or in the alternative, that a relist would be appropriate due to the circumstances of the discussion and a possible procedural error, as discussed with the closer. Beccaynr (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. I definitely don't think a move was the right outcome there, given that nobody suggested that in the discussion. There was voluminous disagreement about whether she met BLP1E or not but I don't think it came to a consensus. Ritchie333 relisting the discussion suggests they were of that opinion too, so the finding of consensus by the closer after no further discussion is surprising. I'm leaning towards opining this should be overturned to no consensus (without prejudice to RM) but I'm going to think a bit more before bolding anything. Thryduulf (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I do not think an overturn to no consensus would be right, given the complete lack of policy based justification from the keep !voters. I'd much prefer a relisting. ––FormalDude talk 04:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Thanks Thryduulf. Although a move was not explicitly mentioned, I felt (as the closing admin) that it was the logical implication of a discussion which, in my mind, seemed to conclude that the individual does not meet notability but that the event might. I feel that the discussion was bogged down by the fact that some were discussing BLP1E, some EVENT and some a bit of both. My reading of the discussion, is that this will either end with an event article and a individual redirect, or a deletion (for which there is not yet consensus). The most efficient way forward would be, in my opinion, for there to be a discussion on the event, after the event article has some slight reworking so that it is clearly about the event (as discussed with Beccaynr on my talk page [3]). The problem is that if it is relisted as the article about the individual, then we are back to the original issues with the discussion. I don't think that a no consensus close would best serve resolving the issue because, again, I think that the consensus will eventually move to "event article + individual redirect" or "delete" and we should find the most efficient way to facilitate that. TigerShark (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just to add to this. I feel that the article as it currently stands is really about the murders than the perpetrator anyway. Reword the opening sentence, remove the infobox and change the "early life" title to "the perpetrator" and you effectively have an article about the event (which arguably should be listed, as previously discussed). I see no point in deleting the article and then inviting it to be recreated (with a redirect) as has been suggested as an alternative, because that puts the article exactly where is it now (or would be with those minor changes). TigerShark (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn - I !voted delete in the AfD. From my view, arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact and/or are logically fallacious should be discounted. This includes the use of original research to support keeping this article, e.g. asserting it is "highly unusual" without RS support and with RS contradicting this conclusion. Even as an event article, BLP issues related to sensationalist coverage still exist and are also contrary to policy. Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS,
These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.
Beccaynr (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC) - Comment. It seems like there was (a) a consensus that an article on the individual was not appropriate and (b) no consensus regarding whether or not an article on the event (i.e. the murders) were notable. It's not the best phrased close, but I'm not exactly sure what this practically means for whether to move the page (there is a notable event and not a notable person) or to delete the page (there is no notable topic here, article title be damned). — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with that analysis, and I think it lends to a delete closure without prejudice to someone creating an event article. The article as it stands is about the individual and not the event. ––FormalDude talk 07:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse (involved). There was very clearly no consensus to delete here. I am neutral on the move. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- From my view, your !vote should have been discounted because during the discussion, you did not address the second prong of WP:N, i.e. whether the subject should be excluded per WP:NOTNEWS, also used personal opinion/WP:OR to support keeping the article, as well as a logically fallicious argument related to WP:BLP1E, and did not address the WP:BLP issues. Asserting WP:GNG based on sensationalist news churnalism and academic WP:RS with only superficial coverage also seems to be an unsubstantiated argument. Beccaynr (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe you should review WP:ONLYESSAY:
Wikipedia is not a system of laws. Deletion processes are discussions, not votes, and we encourage people to put forward their opinions.
Something many deletionist editors in recent years seem to have forgotten in their zeal to delete, delete, delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)- The link to discussions, not votes leads to the Polling is not a substitute for discussion essay, which includes,
If Wikipedia were to resolve issues through voting on them, editors would be tempted to also use voting with respect to article content. This might undermine Wikipedia policies on verifiability, notability, and the neutral point of view.
From my view, opinions such as WP:ILIKEIT, unsupported assertions of significance and WP:VAGUEWAVES at policy should be discounted, especially when an article is based on sensationalist coverage of living people and there is extensive discussion of sources and P&Gs by delete !voters. Beccaynr (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- The link to discussions, not votes leads to the Polling is not a substitute for discussion essay, which includes,
- Maybe you should review WP:ONLYESSAY:
- From my view, your !vote should have been discounted because during the discussion, you did not address the second prong of WP:N, i.e. whether the subject should be excluded per WP:NOTNEWS, also used personal opinion/WP:OR to support keeping the article, as well as a logically fallicious argument related to WP:BLP1E, and did not address the WP:BLP issues. Asserting WP:GNG based on sensationalist news churnalism and academic WP:RS with only superficial coverage also seems to be an unsubstantiated argument. Beccaynr (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to “no consensus”. There was no consensus to keep or delete the article. There were not BLP violation noted (BLP1E is not a “BLP violation” but a lesser issue), so the no consensus defaults to keep. There was no consensus for the move, that was a Supervote. Feel free to submit a rename proposal through WP:RM, but I note an abundance of sources name the person, and the location is incidental, so the merits for the move are dubious. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- My references to BLP issues in the AfD includes the sensationalist churnalism; the BLP1E aspect is a separate issue that keep !voters do not appear to have addressed with P&Gs or support from RS. Beccaynr (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to "no consensus". I was involved. I argued to keep. I was surprised by the result. I noted that slightly more voters wanted to keep (but also note some arguments were brief), but that the delete advocates also provided credible arguments. I was curious to see how this one was closed, to see what people made of my counter argument to BLP1E delete argument (but that wasn't mentioned by the closer) and I assumed it was heading towards no consensus. The "move" result did surprise me, because we were making polarised arguments and while it is never nice to fail to reach reach consensus, that appears to be the only outcome here. I don't think the current move is an improvement to the encyclopedia. I would find re-opening for more time a good outcome too, as I think we needed more input, rather than the primary contributors just repeating our polarised opinions. Peace. (P.S. I hope this is okay to comment here, I'm not an admin). CT55555 (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Deletion Review is open to anyone's well-reasoned opinion. Well I guess technically it's open to any opinions, but you know what I mean. Star Mississippi 13:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus. Following on from my comment above, and having read the comments from others, I'm now firmly of the opinion that no consensus was the correct outcome for that discussion. Move is a valid opinion, but not one that was discussed at all by the participants so the closer should have expressed that as a !vote. There wasn't consensus that the article should be about the event rather than the person, as otherwise there wouldn't have been strong arguments in favour of keeping, and most arguments made did not express an opinion one way or another. It would be an appropriate question to raise at an RM, but given comments here I don't think it would find favour. I think a new discussion would be preferable to reopening the closed one, so that arguments for and against BLP1E being met can be made without the bludgeoning that was a large part of this one. (Beccaynr you are getting dangerously close to that here). Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Endorse- Move is consistent with the original recommendation ('move or improve') of CT55555, which was only changed to keep following a poor quality argument by FormalDude, and where CT55555 continued to maintain a preference for some ATD outcome over keep. Closing with an ATD outcome that has been proposed and not refuted in the course of the AfD is defensible when neither 'keep' nor 'delete' are good outcomes. While 'no consensus' would also have been a reasonable close, I see no positive case for overturning the close that does not involve relitigating the AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)- CT55555 said merge, not move, so no, this closure is not consistent with their "original recommendation". Even if it was, it would still be a supervote, considering it was supported by only one editor. ––FormalDude talk 15:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are right about merge/move: I misread the !vote, as perhaps did Sandstein. You are wrong about ATD closes, however: choosing the best ATD suggested outcome is not a supervote if there is no consensus for either keep or delete. Next time, please acquaint yourself better with our policy on closing deletion discussions before lecturing DRV. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- A close in favor of a solution that no one even mentioned, or which was mentioned only in passing but not supported, is the definition of a supervote. If one has a solution to propose, it should be included in the discussion as a comment. If it's too late, it can be suggested in a later discussion. The extant discussion must have a close that reflects its actual contents. Clearly you are the one who's struggling to understand our policies here. ––FormalDude talk 11:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are right about merge/move: I misread the !vote, as perhaps did Sandstein. You are wrong about ATD closes, however: choosing the best ATD suggested outcome is not a supervote if there is no consensus for either keep or delete. Next time, please acquaint yourself better with our policy on closing deletion discussions before lecturing DRV. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- CT55555 said merge, not move, so no, this closure is not consistent with their "original recommendation". Even if it was, it would still be a supervote, considering it was supported by only one editor. ––FormalDude talk 15:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to either "no consensus" or "keep" Solid policy-based arguments were made on all sides. There was little to no discussion regarding a move so I believe restoring its original title is most appropriate. Frank Anchor 12:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I mistakenly closed this DRV too early and undid the move. I've reverted the DRV and AfD (re)closures, but not the move, so as to not to generate too much confusion. If the closure is endorsed, the article should be moved to its new title again. Sandstein 12:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist, almost per Thryduulf, although it seems that some ATD outcome is appropriate and there is some value to improving the XfD record with a less toxic conclusion to that AfD. Also singling out FormalDude for overzealous behaviour in the AfD with a WP:TROUT: please cool down if and when the article is relisted. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are you serious? Two other contributors both commented more than me. I'm not sure what you feel the need to single me out for. ––FormalDude talk 10:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- TROUT is meant to be less serious, but since you insist on raising the temperature: if the AfD is extended and I see you carrying on as you did before, I will notify AN/I. Your behaviour was worse than editors who wrote more and injured the AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- TROUT is meant to be humorous, but with that threat, I am now laughing, so I guess it worked out. ––FormalDude talk 14:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- TROUT is meant to be less serious, but since you insist on raising the temperature: if the AfD is extended and I see you carrying on as you did before, I will notify AN/I. Your behaviour was worse than editors who wrote more and injured the AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are you serious? Two other contributors both commented more than me. I'm not sure what you feel the need to single me out for. ––FormalDude talk 10:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist. I certainly do not see consensus that the serial murdering was notable, much less a reason to bypass RM. Overall, neither the perpetrator nor the event seems notable in light of our guidelines and the quality of sourcing found (a whole lot of primary and self-published pieces). A relist might encourage addition of other viewpoints to the discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Spot News 18 (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I want to write something about this topic, allow me to write on it. Here is my write-up about this topic which I want to publish. Please check it and everything is good, then only allow me to proceed ahead if any changes or suggestions are welcomed.
Spot News 18 is a digital news publishing website and media production company.[1] It was founded on 30 June 2019, by Ashish Kumar Mishra who also serve as the CEO. The company is headquartered in Mumbai, India.[2] Spot News 18 was one of the first digital publishers in India to offer 24-hour news coverage, and it was also one of the first all-news digital publishers at the time it was launched in 2019.[3] 103.204.161.102 (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
References
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |