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
20 July 2022
18 July 2022
Market Watch
- Market Watch (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
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)
- Endorse deletion. All you're presenting are YouTube videos (that I won't click on) and CNBC urls, which are WP:PRIMARY. I'll notify the deleting admin. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This page only has a few words because the decision was made to turn the article into a redirect at the AFD. There was no one advocating to Keep this article. Lately, there has been a move on the part of a few editors to PROD and bring to AFD old TV shows that filled up cable TV network schedules in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s and this AFD was part of all of that movement. Most of these efforts have led to article deletions but in this AFD, we had editors advocating a redirect that pointed to the network so that's how I closed the discussion.
- If you would like to bring this article back, we typically advise editors to start a draft version, addressing the problems pointed out in the AFD, and to submit it to AFC for review. Do you see that as an option for you if this AFD decision is not overturned? Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Where is this discussion? It seems it is a big damage for the internet since it is a huge challenge to find it now. If we delete, it will disappear in internet and everyone cannot find anymore.--Wpcpey (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market Watch. Someone who is better at templates than I (thanks @Liz for fixing my earlier mess) can fix the DRV to link to it. Star Mississippi 20:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I mean the discussion related to "AFD old TV shows that filled up cable TV network schedules in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s". On the other hand, it is extreme hard to find other link without CNBC's website since this programmed end more than 16-20 years. I am very worry there have more related article will be delete. Wpcpey (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market Watch. Someone who is better at templates than I (thanks @Liz for fixing my earlier mess) can fix the DRV to link to it. Star Mississippi 20:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Where is this discussion? It seems it is a big damage for the internet since it is a huge challenge to find it now. If we delete, it will disappear in internet and everyone cannot find anymore.--Wpcpey (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wpcpey, this move to delete articles involving old cable TV shows didn't involve a formal discussion. I'm basing my comments on the articles that I see nominated for deletion at AFD and PROD'd. Like right now, there is a similar movement to delete articles on athletes that are considered "non-notable". It's just a trend I (and others) have spotted. It involves individual editors and what they are focusing upon. There has been one editor over the past few months who has focused on PROD'ding these old TV shows but I think they have moved on to other subjects. I know this answer will not be the one you like but I'm answering it honestly based on what I see every day as an administrator. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Endorse close. Discussion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market Watch was not properly linked in the template (fixed now), and per Wpcpey's comment above, they apparently had not even seen it. A procedural close wouldn't be inappropriate here as their statement here is an AfD "keep" argument rather than a challenge to the validity of the close of the discussion as a whole, but even if the latter was assumed, the close accurately reflects the consensus of the (admittedly not extensive) discussion, and there's no indication of other circumstances which would raise any questions. --Finngall talk 20:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I spend many times finding the sources and some users even say end the discussion. I think it is not fair. It seems no one concerned and teaches me how can I revise back to the previous version of the "Market Watch” article that has sufficient information. --Wpcpey (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
It seems no one concerned and teaches me how can I revise back to the previous version of the "Market Watch” article
- Only if this discussion closes with an action other than endorse could you do that. The consensus is this isn't notable enough to merit a standalone article and that's applicable to more than this program. At the moment you may not edit it at all because you were edit warring. Please take some time to understand what makes television shows notable as you don't appear to right now. Star Mississippi 21:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I spend many times finding the sources and some users even say end the discussion. I think it is not fair. It seems no one concerned and teaches me how can I revise back to the previous version of the "Market Watch” article that has sufficient information. --Wpcpey (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment to closer, Draft:Market Watch now exists as a copy/paste move and should be processed when this discussion ends. Thanks DanCherek for cleaning up attribution. Star Mississippi 02:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - The request to Liz by Wpcpey for a link to guidelines explaining how we handle such AfDs is a reasonable and it is unsatisfactory that we seem to have de facto policy without adequate documentation. If we were to move XfD in the direction of a more precedent-oriented format, then the series of cases in which the de facto policy was formed could simply be linked to. In this case, can we at least find a link to a relevant AfD? If not, I am leaning to overturn and relist, so that this AfD, at least, can provide such a precedent. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Khanjar: The Knife (closed)
|
---|
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. |
17 July 2022
Music4Uonline
- Music4Uonline (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The author of this article is a friend of mine, and asked if I'd be able to suggest how it could be made compatible with Wikipedia rules. To that end, I'd request undeletion and moving to my userspace. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Recommend userification While requests for undeletion might also be an appropriate place to make this request, I think sending this there would be pointless bureaucracy. Since the deletion 15+ years ago (I didn't realize we had an NCORP back then...) was pretty benign, I see no reason we can't just restore the content for further work. Be aware, however, that coverage requirements for businesses have tightened since then: Wikipedia is pretty clear our job is not to be free advertising, but rather descriptions of businesses that have already made a significant impact that they've been covered by an independent (rather than pay-for-press-release) news source. There's more to it than that, of course, but feel free to ask for help if you're having difficulties meeting the notability threshold. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Procedural close as it appears WP:RFU is the appropriate forum for this request. Though if it were to remain on deletion review, I would support restoring to user space. Article was deleted in 2006 so a lot has likely changed since then. I would not oppose a good-faith attempt to rewrite this page if the notability is there. Frank Anchor 20:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies if this is the incorrect place to ask, I was told this was the correct place to ask. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was the one that directed Mattbuck here. WP:RFU says that it
is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages ... that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria ..., or in deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator. ... This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, ...—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process but through deletion review instead.
In this case the page was not deleted following a PROD or CSD, but as a result of this AfD, so it wasn't uncontroversial. Therefore RFU does not apply and it's a DRV matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was the one that directed Mattbuck here. WP:RFU says that it
- Apologies if this is the incorrect place to ask, I was told this was the correct place to ask. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- While we did have WP:NCORP fifteen years ago, we didn't have WP:G11, and this would absolutely be speedied as such if it were created today. The last sentence, "With over 30 years experience in the business-music industry, GMS has a very well developed customer service capability, offering a customer helpline 9am-9pm 7days, systems advice and general advice on choosing a music provider.", is typical of the content. Can be emailed if someone's feeling particularly merciful, but shouldn't be userfied as-is. —Cryptic 05:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't doubt it'll be bad, but I figured it would be easier if I had an idea of what was originally written. If someone wants to email rather than undelete that's fine, but figured it may break attribution history to do so. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Since your goal is to "suggest how it could be made compatible with Wikipedia rules", you don't need attribution. You only need attribution if you want to evolve this into something that can be hosted on enwiki while retaining anything at all copyrightable from the original version, which are almost completely incompatible. It's not an issue, anyway; all edits except adding the afd tag were by Hezza1506. —Cryptic 01:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't doubt it'll be bad, but I figured it would be easier if I had an idea of what was originally written. If someone wants to email rather than undelete that's fine, but figured it may break attribution history to do so. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The deleted version was very promotional and would certainly be deleted under WP:CSD#G11 if created now, probably even in userspace. I think it would be best to start again as it would need a near-complete rewrite anyway. Hut 8.5 18:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Allow userfication, which is best requested by asking the deleting admin or at WP:REFUND. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
15 July 2022
Chronovisor
- Chronovisor (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This was closed as: delete. Can be redirected to time viewer if somebody writes it up there (with sources)
. However, the (brief) writing up with sources had already been done, and one of the participants had already noted that fact in the AfD, something the closer has evidently missed. The discussion should have been closed as "redirect", as that would address the concern of the "delete" side (lack of notability), while accommodating the "merge" option, which two editors presented (one as an alternative to deletion, the other as a second choice to keeping). I don't see any justification for deleting the history of the page: it's not enough here that some participants perceived its content as being of low quality (words like"hoax" were mentioned, but I think it should by now be obvious that what is a hoax is the topic of the article, not the article itself). – Uanfala (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to redirect. At the broad brush level there is no consensus, especially when one of the delete !voters later said "I am increasingly supportive of a merge" (albeit without adjusting their bolding), but looking deeper a redirect would indeed seem to be compatible with almost all voter's comments. Discussions about what and how much about the topic to include at the target is a matter for the talk page of that article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is there any actual desire to merge the content anywhere? If not then there's no need to restore the history, just redirect it. The article was unsourced apart from two fringe sources written by people who believe that the subject actually exists, as a result they have zero credibility. Nor does the content sound very encyclopedic at all, as it relates various incredible claims without much criticism. Hut 8.5 11:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your assumption here seems to be that redirecting should by default involve the deletion of the history unless there's strong consensus to do something with that content right away. My understanding, on the other hand, is that the relevant page history under a redirect shouldn't be deleted unless there's a reason to, for example, if the content meets a CSD or if there's specific consensus that this content should be deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- My understanding is the same as Uanfala's - "redirect" and "delete and redirect" outcomes are distinct, the first can be implemented by anybody the latter only by administrators. That there is no content worth merging is an opinion but not one that gained a consensus of those participating in the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is a reason to delete the content, which was echoed by many people in the discussion - the content was very poor quality and consequently shouldn't be added to any other article. If a merge is not an option then there is no reason to retain the edit history. Hut 8.5 07:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The point is that there was no consensus that
the content was very poor quality
so whether and if so what to merge needs further discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)- The consensus was to delete the article and a large part of the reason for that was that the content was very poor quality, so it's fair to delete the article rather than just redirecting it. The deleted article did take seriously the possibility that somebody managed to photograph the crucifixion of Jesus, this is not content which can be used anywhere else without a near-total rewrite and some sourced which aren't fringe. Hut 8.5 11:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- While the discussion was closed as delete, the point of this review is that that wasn't actually the consensus of the discussion. The discussion concluded that there should not be a stand-alone article, but there were multiple comments that recommended a merge, with multiple comments indicating those advocating for complete deletion had misunderstood the article or its sources, indeed one participant explicitly moved from delete to merge during the discussion which does strengthen those arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually only one person supported a merge, and that person also supported deletion as well. One of the two Keep comments provided a source but that doesn't argue in favour of a merge because the deleted article didn't cite that source and (more importantly) wasn't based on it, so at best that's an argument to write some more content about it. The other Keep comment provided a link to a student programming contest, which definitely isn't a usable source. Delete is a far better closure. Hut 8.5 17:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- While the discussion was closed as delete, the point of this review is that that wasn't actually the consensus of the discussion. The discussion concluded that there should not be a stand-alone article, but there were multiple comments that recommended a merge, with multiple comments indicating those advocating for complete deletion had misunderstood the article or its sources, indeed one participant explicitly moved from delete to merge during the discussion which does strengthen those arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The consensus was to delete the article and a large part of the reason for that was that the content was very poor quality, so it's fair to delete the article rather than just redirecting it. The deleted article did take seriously the possibility that somebody managed to photograph the crucifixion of Jesus, this is not content which can be used anywhere else without a near-total rewrite and some sourced which aren't fringe. Hut 8.5 11:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The point is that there was no consensus that
- There is a reason to delete the content, which was echoed by many people in the discussion - the content was very poor quality and consequently shouldn't be added to any other article. If a merge is not an option then there is no reason to retain the edit history. Hut 8.5 07:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- My understanding is the same as Uanfala's - "redirect" and "delete and redirect" outcomes are distinct, the first can be implemented by anybody the latter only by administrators. That there is no content worth merging is an opinion but not one that gained a consensus of those participating in the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your assumption here seems to be that redirecting should by default involve the deletion of the history unless there's strong consensus to do something with that content right away. My understanding, on the other hand, is that the relevant page history under a redirect shouldn't be deleted unless there's a reason to, for example, if the content meets a CSD or if there's specific consensus that this content should be deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note the content also exists at Time_travel_claims_and_urban_legends#The_Chronovisor. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I should note that's not the same content as the deleted version. Hut 8.5 18:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agree Time_travel_claims_and_urban_legends#The_Chronovisor is not the same content as the deleted version. It's less credulous, and could be sourced using a citation to Paul Nahins book. Unfortunately at the time of the AfD I overlooked that article. If I'd known about it, I'd have advised a redirect to it since, as a collection of unsubstantiated real-world claims, it is a much better target...whereas the focus of time viewer is fictional mentions of a hypothetical device. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Authoritarian enclave
- Authoritarian enclave (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
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)
- Overturn there is no policy or guideline that favors the deletion of stubs about notable topics on the grounds that they resemble dictionary entries. There are plenty of sources so the article needs expansion not deletion (t · c) buidhe 01:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- :Overturn to no consensus the delete arguments are predicated on WP:NOTDICTIONARY with very little explanation. Several keep arguments provide explanations refuting this, and show that the article could easily be expanded based on sources available. Frank Anchor 01:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to No Consensus, having not seen the original article. However, the argument that one sentence was only a dictionary definition can just as reasonably be an argument to keep in order to expand, so that the supervote was a supervote. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to keep. The delete !votes were extremely weak and did not even attempt to refute the detailed arguments in favour of keeping. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus, it seems that little effort was made to reach consensus, through either expansion from the sources to show it could be more than a dictionary definition, or by refuting the claims of notability. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn bad close: we do not simply judge articles as is at AfD, but also their potential for improvement. The close statement appeared to misstate policy. Either keep, per the numbers, or relist would be acceptable outcomes; 'no consensus' seems to be at odds with the fact that keep !votes were an absolute majority and the delete rationale was effectively argued against by the keep proponents. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
14 July 2022
Mamata Kanojia
- Mamata Kanojia (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
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)
- Overturn to delete, per WP:LOCALCON. There is a broad consensus that sports biographies must include at least one example of significant coverage; a local consensus cannot overturn that requirement. Note that there was an effort to discuss this with the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I believe AfDs are by definition a "community consensus"; so, I'm not sure WP:LOCALCON is applicable to them. The same pretty much applies to the two DRs listed below this one as well (but I'm not going to repeat the same post there). -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- The relevant line is
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.
While AfD's are a community consensus, it is among a limited group of editors at one place and time, and cannot overrule policies or guidelines which have community consensus on a wider scale. BilledMammal (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)- I was a bit slow to respond, but I pretty much agree with what Pawnkingthree and Hut 8.5 posted below about LOCALCON in the DR about "Subroto Das". -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Then I have the same question for you as I had for Pawnkingthree;
Can you explain that a little further? We have a policy saying that local consensus cannot override consensus on a wider scale, but you are saying these local consensuses are fine?
. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)- My opinion is that it's possible to argue that every consensus is essentially a "local consensus" if you base your argument on simply that it involved a limited number of editors. So, I think it's better to make the distinction based on where the consensus was established, and I think that's what LOCALCON is trying to imply. I also think that overturning the consensus to delete runs the risk of be seen (perhaps unfairly) as a WP:SUPERVOTE by whichever admin decided to to do that. It might be reasonable to request that the discussion be relisted per item 3 of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE or even start another AFD per WP:RENOM (after a reasonable amount of time has passed), but there would probably still need to be more than the same two people !voting delete and the same core group of people !voting keep for the outcome to be any different. If there's been a change in the way the notability of these types of articles is now being assessed, then trying to implement such a change community wide asap is likely going to receive resistance until the change has had time to sink in and starts to be applied at the community level. Furthermore, nominating a bunch of similar articles for deletion for essentially the same reason in order to try and "enforce" such a change is likely going to be seen (perhaps unfairly) as WP:POINTY by some and lead to even more resistence. Perhaps it might take some time for whatever change was made to trickle down to the WikiProject and AfD level and maybe it's best to try and proceed a little more slowly until then. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: It isn't about the number of editors, it is about the level of the discussion. For example, a consensus at an article - even if it involves a formal discussion with broad participation like an RfC - is below a consensus on a policy page. The same is true of consensus at a noticeboard, and a consensus at AfD. WP:DETCON speaks to this; consensus isn't a vote, but is instead determined by the quality of arguments presented, assessed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
- The reason this needs to be true is then established by the rest of your comment; the broader community has decided that it disagrees with how the editors at AfD have been assessing notability and found a consensus to change the relevant guidelines. This change now needs to be reflected at AfD and it would be disruptive to allow a small group of editors who opposed that change to stop that happening. BilledMammal (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- My opinion is that it's possible to argue that every consensus is essentially a "local consensus" if you base your argument on simply that it involved a limited number of editors. So, I think it's better to make the distinction based on where the consensus was established, and I think that's what LOCALCON is trying to imply. I also think that overturning the consensus to delete runs the risk of be seen (perhaps unfairly) as a WP:SUPERVOTE by whichever admin decided to to do that. It might be reasonable to request that the discussion be relisted per item 3 of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE or even start another AFD per WP:RENOM (after a reasonable amount of time has passed), but there would probably still need to be more than the same two people !voting delete and the same core group of people !voting keep for the outcome to be any different. If there's been a change in the way the notability of these types of articles is now being assessed, then trying to implement such a change community wide asap is likely going to receive resistance until the change has had time to sink in and starts to be applied at the community level. Furthermore, nominating a bunch of similar articles for deletion for essentially the same reason in order to try and "enforce" such a change is likely going to be seen (perhaps unfairly) as WP:POINTY by some and lead to even more resistence. Perhaps it might take some time for whatever change was made to trickle down to the WikiProject and AfD level and maybe it's best to try and proceed a little more slowly until then. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The relevant line is
- I believe AfDs are by definition a "community consensus"; so, I'm not sure WP:LOCALCON is applicable to them. The same pretty much applies to the two DRs listed below this one as well (but I'm not going to repeat the same post there). -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - I participated in both of the deletion discussions for this article - the one started in May and the one from June. This year. Both of which were closed as keep. And now in July we're at deletion review? Blimey.
- On the issue of local consensus, there is a long established consensus, going back to the discussions around Chitty (cricketer) in 2018, that where sourcing absolutely cannot be found that we would redirect articles such as this to a suitable list. This runs through a variety of other discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. James (1814 cricketer) from 2019, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Pitts (cricketer, died 1847) from 2020, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Selby (cricketer, born c.1765) from 2021, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Andrew from April 2022 and was most recently confirmed at this redirect for discussion from this month. That's a local consensus over a period of four or more years. And each of those articles are weaker by far than the one here - assuming we're even searching for all of the different transliterations of her name. So why on earth we'd overturn to delete I have no idea. And that's the worse case - there are pragmatic arguments in this case why we might keep this article - gender, ethnicity, broadening the scope of the encyclopaedia etc...
- So, two AfD and now a DRV in a short space of time. Good luck dealing with this one. I note as well that there is a current ArbCom discussion going on about behaviour around deletion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse while no consensus would also have been reasonable there wasn't a consensus for deletion, and I don't think it was a good idea to start a second AfD less than a month after it was kept at AfD. Hut 8.5 12:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- One Delete !vote is usually sufficient for soft delete of a stub with no SIGCOV. –dlthewave ☎ 12:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is, if nobody else commented. Not when there are six valid "keep" votes as well... BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, if we closed this as Delete we'd be saying that seven people supporting keeping the article made it more likely to be deleted, which is just silly. Hut 8.5 16:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @BeanieFan11: But are there six valid "keep" votes? If WP:LOCALCON applies to AfD, and if there is broad community consensus for WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, then none of them are.
- Since WP:LOCALCON applies to formal discussions that involve a
consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time
, it applies to AfD. Thus, since there is broad community consensus for WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 none of these keep votes are valid. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)- Even if the Keep !votes were all complete gibberish it still wouldn't be possible to close this AfD as Delete. Hut 8.5 07:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
"Even if the Keep !votes were all complete gibberish it still wouldn't be possible to close this AfD as Delete."
- No, really no. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is one of the longest-standing policies we have. WP:NOTAVOTEis a very long standing and high-acceptance explanation of it. If one person is talking sense and the rest are talking gibberish, then it is the job of the closer to go with the one talking sense. FOARP (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Even if the Keep !votes were all complete gibberish it still wouldn't be possible to close this AfD as Delete. Hut 8.5 07:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Even if it were closed as soft delete, any editor could request restoration for any reason, which one of the keep !voters undoubtedly would. AGoing to a DRV to get a soft delete that's going to get restored anyway seems like needless bureaucracy to me. And "any reason" means "any reason." It doesn't matter if you disagree with the reason. It would still be restored. An editor could request restoration of a soft delete because the tooth fairy told them to and it would still be restored. So closing as soft delete (either at AfD or DRV) is pointless when there are multiple people wishing to keep the article. Smartyllama (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is, if nobody else commented. Not when there are six valid "keep" votes as well... BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- One Delete !vote is usually sufficient for soft delete of a stub with no SIGCOV. –dlthewave ☎ 12:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse per Hut. It does also seem incredibly WP:POINTY and disruptive to keep re-nominating an article, and then going for a DRV too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse, that could not have been anything other than "keep." BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment courtesy ping for those who took part in that AfD - @BilledMammal, StAnselm, Blue Square Thing, Johnpacklambert, Joseph2302, AssociateAffiliate, Abecedare, Rugbyfan22, CT55555, and Explicit: Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse the AFD should have been speedy closed as a bad-faith re-nomination of an AFD kept with overwhelming consensus less than a month prior and no new deletion rationale, but that is beside the point. Like the first AFD, there was consensus to keep. Both the nom the sole "delete" vote cite WP:NSPORT, but their claims are successfully refuted by User:Lugnuts' vote (along with his/her argument in the first AFD). Frank Anchor 15:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse The closer made a reasonable decision on closing the discussion with the views mentioned in the discussion. This seems like a personal vendetta here. Two deletion discussions and a deletion review from the same editor within a couple of months. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. This seems to be another WP:POINTy renom from Dlthewave, who seems increasingly incapable of accepting any opinions which differ from their own. This renom seems to question the WP:AGF of the closer too. StickyWicket (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse - The appropriate conclusion from the closer after review of the AFD. At this point the gender of the third trout doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn local consensus cannot overturn the broader consensus that articles should not exist if there is no significant coverage of the subject in independent sources. (t · c) buidhe 23:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. Policies and guidelines are subject to interpretation in each individual case, and applied to these cases by consensus. Nothing wrong with the closure. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn - AFD is not supposed to be a pure head-count (nor, incidentally, is DelRev supposed to be a pure repeat of AFD, which means it is not necessary to ping AFD participants). Per WP:CONLEVEL a local consensus at AFD can't overturn a higher-level consensus. In this case the "keep" faction were using a essay (WP:NCRIC, or WP:CRIN as it is now), whilst the "delete" votes were relying squarely on WP:NSPORT which is a very recent, higher-level guide decided through large-scale and exhaustive participation. Allowing a "Keep" result to stand in this case would render the entire process that WP:NSPORT pointless and be an example of exactly the kind of failure to respect policies/guidelines in assessing AFDs that is currently the subject of an ARBCOM case. FOARP (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse Even if we completely discount all keep !votes (which we shouldn't), one delete !vote other than nominator is hardly a consensus. At most that gives us a soft delete and anyone could request its restoration anyway, which the keep !voters undoubtedly would. So there's really no point in doing that even if we were to completely discount every single keep !vote, which is nonsense. Smartyllama (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Shabana Kausar
- Shabana Kausar (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
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)
- Overturn to delete, per WP:LOCALCON. There is a broad consensus that sports biographies must include at least one example of significant coverage; a local consensus cannot overturn that requirement. Note that there were multiple efforts to discuss this with the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - per my comments on the DRV above this:
- On the issue of local consensus, there is a long established consensus, going back to the discussions around Chitty (cricketer) in 2018, that where sourcing absolutely cannot be found that we would redirect articles such as this to a suitable list. This runs through a variety of other discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. James (1814 cricketer) from 2019, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Pitts (cricketer, died 1847) from 2020, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Selby (cricketer, born c.1765) from 2021, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Andrew from April 2022 and was most recently confirmed at this redirect for discussion from this month. That's a local consensus over a period of four or more years. And each of those articles are weaker by far than the one here - assuming we've even searched for any different transliterations of her name. So why on earth we'd overturn to delete I have no idea. And that's the worse case - there are pragmatic arguments in this case why we might keep this article - gender, ethnicity, broadening the scope of the encyclopaedia etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Policies and guidelines are interpreted and applied to individual cases by consensus, and the consensus here was to keep. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse while no consensus would also have been reasonable there wasn't a consensus for deletion, and I don't think it was a good idea to start a second AfD less than a month after it was kept at AfD. Hut 8.5 12:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse per Hut. It does also seem incredibly WP:POINTY and disruptive to keep re-nominating an article, and then going for a DRV too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse, that could not have been anything other than "keep." Also, I find it a bit ridiculous (for all three of these discussions) how after the first AFD was closed as "keep," dlthewave then nominated it for AFD a second time, and when that did not go his way he brought it to DRV! BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment courtesy ping for those who took part in that AfD - @BilledMammal, StAnselm, Blue Square Thing, Joseph2302, Stifle, Rugbyfan22, and Explicit: Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse The closer made a reasonable decision on closing the discussion with the views mentioned in the discussion. This seems like a personal vendetta here. Two deletion discussions and a deletion review from the same editor within a couple of months. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse - The close reflected the consensus. A female {{trout}} to the appellant. These salmonids, like other vertebrates, are capable of reproduction. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn - AFD is not supposed to be a pure head-count (nor, incidentally, is DelRev supposed to be a pure repeat of AFD, which means it is not necessary to ping AFD participants). Per WP:CONLEVEL a local consensus at AFD can't overturn a higher-level consensus. In this case the "keep" faction were using a essay (WP:NCRIC, or WP:CRIN as it is now), whilst the "delete" votes were relying squarely on WP:NSPORT which is a very recent, higher-level guide decided through large-scale and exhaustive participation. Allowing a "Keep" result to stand in this case would render the entire process that WP:NSPORT pointless and be an example of exactly the kind of failure to respect policies/guidelines in assessing AFDs that is currently the subject of an ARBCOM case. FOARP (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse As I said or will soon say on the other two related DRVs, even if we completely discount all keep !votes (which we shouldn't), one delete !vote other than nominator equals a soft delete at best and it could be restored upon request for any reason. So one of the keep !voters would undoubtedly have requested restoration for the same reason they !voted keep and it would have been restored. "Any reason" means any reason, whether you agree with it or not. So whether their reason to restore the soft deleted article is correct or not is irrelevant. No way there was consensus to delete here, and a soft delete would have been pointless, so no reason to overturn this. Smartyllama (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Subroto Das
- Subroto Das (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
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 to delete, per WP:LOCALCON. There is a broad consensus that sports biographies must include at least one example of significant coverage; a local consensus cannot overturn that requirement. Note that there were multiple efforts to discuss this with the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment as involved editor. This is all extremely disruptive. The article was nominated for deletion less than a month after a previous AfD had closed with a consensus to keep. So the arguments in that AfD should be weighed as well (and maybe they were). StAnselm (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - per my comments on the DRV above this:
- On the issue of local consensus, there is a long established consensus, going back to the discussions around Chitty (cricketer) in 2018, that where sourcing absolutely cannot be found that we would redirect articles such as this to a suitable list. This runs through a variety of other discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. James (1814 cricketer) from 2019, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Pitts (cricketer, died 1847) from 2020, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Selby (cricketer, born c.1765) from 2021, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Andrew from April 2022 and was most recently confirmed at this redirect for discussion from this month. That's a local consensus over a period of four or more years. And each of those articles are weaker by far than the one here - assuming we've even searched for any different transliterations of his name. So why on earth we'd overturn to delete I have no idea. And that's the worse case - there are pragmatic arguments in this case why we might keep this article - ethnicity, the very high probability of finding written sources if we had access to them, broadening the scope of the encyclopaedia etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse while no consensus would also have been reasonable there wasn't a consensus for deletion, and I don't think it was a good idea to start a second AfD less than a month after it was kept at AfD. Hut 8.5 12:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Hut 8.5: I'm struggling to see how a keep result isn't a WP:LOCALCON violation given WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Can you explain why you disagree? BilledMammal (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:LOCALCON is about a WikiProject's guidelines not being able to override a wider community consensus. It's not really applicable to AfDs, all of which are "local consensus" by their very nature - the views of the participants of each one carry the day.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- If nothing else, this debate only had one person supporting deletion other than the nominator. That's not enough for a "delete" closure. Even if the debate had only consisted of the nomination and that one Delete !vote, and nobody had supported keeping the article at all, the debate still would not have been closed as Delete but as either No Consensus or soft delete. And of course those weren't the only comments, as far more people supported keeping it, so soft deletion is definitely not an option. There are situations in which the closing admin would have been justified in ignoring the participation and deleting the article anyway, but they relate to core policy problems such as BLP violations rather than sports notability guidelines.
- Since there isn't any way the discussion can be closed as Delete, I don't see much point in going further, since Keep and No Consensus are the other closures and they have the same practical effect, and as I've said I don't think this AfD should have taken place in the first place. Hut 8.5 16:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Hut 8.5: It appears you aren't presented an argument that the result was correct, just that there weren't sufficient votes for "delete". I disagree with that, on the basis of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:DETCON, but I can understand where you are coming from. However, doesn't that mean to avoid WP:LOCALCON issues this closures should be overridden to no consensus, or the discussion reopened? BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't want to get into yet another argument about sports notability guidelines just in order to determine whether this AfD should be closed as Keep or No Consensus, as those have no practical difference. But if you insist, the argument that the subject's career means that sources are likely to exist and that these may not have been found due to the subject being from a non-English speaking country and being active in a pre-internet era does have some basis in WP:NEXIST, so I don't think it's fair to ignore those comments. Relisting this AfD would not be appropriate, as there was plenty of participation and there haven't been any changes late in the discussion. It isn't appropriate to relist an AfD just because you don't like the outcome and/or arguments. Hut 8.5 07:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- You would be correct if WP:SPORTCRIT #5 did not exist but as it does sports biographies must have at least one example of WP:SIGCOV. If one example can be found then WP:NEXIST does allow for the article to be temporarily kept on the presumption that more can be found, but in the absence of that one example it does not. BilledMammal (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't want to get into yet another argument about sports notability guidelines just in order to determine whether this AfD should be closed as Keep or No Consensus, as those have no practical difference. But if you insist, the argument that the subject's career means that sources are likely to exist and that these may not have been found due to the subject being from a non-English speaking country and being active in a pre-internet era does have some basis in WP:NEXIST, so I don't think it's fair to ignore those comments. Relisting this AfD would not be appropriate, as there was plenty of participation and there haven't been any changes late in the discussion. It isn't appropriate to relist an AfD just because you don't like the outcome and/or arguments. Hut 8.5 07:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Hut 8.5: It appears you aren't presented an argument that the result was correct, just that there weren't sufficient votes for "delete". I disagree with that, on the basis of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:DETCON, but I can understand where you are coming from. However, doesn't that mean to avoid WP:LOCALCON issues this closures should be overridden to no consensus, or the discussion reopened? BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Pawnkingthree: Can you explain that a little further? We have a policy saying that local consensus cannot override consensus on a wider scale, but you are saying these local consensuses are fine? BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:LOCALCON is about a WikiProject's guidelines not being able to override a wider community consensus. It's not really applicable to AfDs, all of which are "local consensus" by their very nature - the views of the participants of each one carry the day.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Hut 8.5: I'm struggling to see how a keep result isn't a WP:LOCALCON violation given WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Can you explain why you disagree? BilledMammal (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse per Hut. It does also seem incredibly WP:POINTY and disruptive to keep re-nominating an article, and then going for a DRV too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse, good close. There was no consensus to delete. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment courtesy ping for those who took part in that AfD - @BilledMammal, StAnselm, Blue Square Thing, BeanieFan11, AssociateAffiliate, Rugbyfan22, and Explicit: Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse the AFD should have been speedy closed as a bad-faith re-nomination of an AFD kept with overwhelming consensus less than a month prior and no new deletion rationale, but that is beside the point. Like the first AFD, there was consensus to keep. Both the nom the sole "delete" vote cite WP:NSPORT, but their claims are successfully refuted by User:Lugnuts' vote (along with his/her argument in the first AFD). Frank Anchor 15:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse The closer made a reasonable decision on closing the discussion with the views mentioned in the discussion. This seems like a personal vendetta here. Two deletion discussions and a deletion review from the same editor within a couple of months. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse - The correct conclusion from the second AFD. A maletrout to the appellant. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, on what basis do you endorse the outcome? You haven't addressed any of my points, and !votes that do not include a rationale are likely to be disregarded. –dlthewave ☎ 21:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- On the basis that the closer correctly reviewed the results of the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, on what basis do you endorse the outcome? You haven't addressed any of my points, and !votes that do not include a rationale are likely to be disregarded. –dlthewave ☎ 21:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse Discussion presented strong, reasonable grounds for the existence of sourcing given the extent of play engaged. This was not refuted. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the original closure and yet more mounting evidence of Dlethewave's WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour, whereby they cannot accept any opinions outside of theirs. StickyWicket (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn - AFD is not supposed to be a pure head-count (nor, incidentally, is DelRev supposed to be a pure repeat of AFD, which means it is not necessary to ping AFD participants). Per WP:CONLEVEL a local consensus at AFD can't overturn a higher-level consensus. In this case the "keep" faction were using a essay (WP:NCRIC, or WP:CRIN as it is now), whilst the "delete" votes were relying squarely on WP:NSPORT which is a very recent, higher-level guide decided through large-scale and exhaustive participation. Allowing a "Keep" result to stand in this case would render the entire process that WP:NSPORT pointless and be an example of exactly the kind of failure to respect policies/guidelines in assessing AFDs that is currently the subject of an ARBCOM case. FOARP (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse Even if we completely discount all keep !votes (which we shouldn't), one delete !vote other than the nominator equals a soft delete at best at which point one of the keep !voters would have surely requested restoration. And they can do so for any reason. The fact that some people disagree with that reason is irrelevant. So it would have been restored even if it were closed as soft delete. No way this could have been closed as consensus to delete. Smartyllama (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
13 July 2022
Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric
- Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This discussion was canvassed at the Polish Wikipedia with messages that were far from neutral. (For example, in Google translation: Can I ask you to vote in favor of it if you share my position?
[3] And, more blatantly, If you agree with my position, please share your thoughts on this topic
[4].) Two of the "keep" !votes were from single-purpose accounts; the others were from the article creator, who named the page after himself and his PhD advisor, and two editors who are active at the Polish Wikipedia but hardly at all so here. The nominator and the three "delete" !voters are all active editors of math and physics topics at en.wiki. Just counting noses, and even including the SPA who made an argument based on more than Google hits, that's 3 "deletes" to 4 "keeps", which hardly looks like consensus. Given the evident canvassing and conflict-of-interest concerns, this should not have been closed so quickly. XOR'easter (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Checkuser note: The creator of the article, Guswen, has socked using a confirmed sockpuppet SicilianNajdorf. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to Relist due to canvassing and sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- It seems that the accusation of one-time editing raised by XOR'easter is going too far. One can infer from it an accusation of ignorance in the subject under discussion (" !votes were from single-purpose accounts"). I am an old-school electronics engineer, and I have worked for many years scientifically in the field of device durability and metrology having to handle issues related to the metric under discussion. PawełMM (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Relist despite the presence of socks and canvassing, legitimate "keep" arguments were made and WP:SIGCOV was provided, though there were also solid "delete" arguments. I think the best case is to relist, strike the arguments made by confirmed socks, and see if consensus can develop over the next several days. Frank Anchor 12:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Relist (I participated in this discussion) I agree with XOR'easter that the closing was a bit premature. I'm not sure what PawełMM means here by "going too far." It's easy enough to look at the edit history of an account and see that the only post the account has ever made is on this one AfD. PianoDan (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Relist. On the face of it, this could easily have been a no-consensus close, which would have had the same effect as the actual close, but the canvassing and sockpuppetry finding motivate increased scrutiny rather than the easy close. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Relist since facts have emerged that suggest the !vote was flawed. I have not formed an opinion on whether the close was sound. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. My name is Szymon Łukaszyk. I am the author of both the article and the metric and contribute to English Wikipedia as Guswen and to Polish Wikipedia as Gus~plwiki.
- I hope that the following list summarizes the objections raised during the discussion:
- 1. Lack of notability (Tercer original objection for deletion, PianoDan, XOR'easter, jraimbau).
- "no evidence of sufficient coverage in independent sources" PianoDan, "insufficient evidence that people have cared enough about it for us to write an article" XOR'easter, "citations do not directly relate to the topic" jraimbau, "Novelty and usefulness are also unrelated to notability" PianoDan.
- I believe that I have refuted this objection by providing references to numerous publications reporting on successful applications of this concept (mainly in various interpolation algorithms), as well as its further analysis, improvements, adaptations, recoveries, etc.
- 2. Misconception (Tercer original objection for deletion)
- "the conclusion is that it is a misconception", "if you had done it correctly it would satisfy the 'identity of indiscernibles' and would be a metric", "your function is not a distance"
- This objection is based on an econometrics preprint, whose author himself admits that his consideration does not greatly affect the merit of the article, where otherwise conclusive results in applied physics are presented. Furthermore, the LK-metric proved to be useful in practical applications. Thus, it is not a "misconception" and this objection is refuted.
- 3. Lack of novelty (XOR'easter)
- "things that already existed"
- This objection is based on a 1995 publication concerning "The generalized Weber problem with expected distances" and disclosing an expected distance between two regions that indeed corresponds to the particular 2-dimensional form of the LK-metric of mutually independent random vectors for bounded distributions.
- I believe that I have refuted this objection by non-exhaustively comparing the scope my PhD dissertation with this equation. Even if this concept was hinted by this 1995 publication (of which I was unaware, until XOR'easter brought it to my attention), it was not further researched and generalized, until 2003.
- 4. Triviality (jraimbau)
- "the mathematical content of the article is entirely trivial, judging from the article itself the work it describes consists in putting one's name on (a particular case of) what should be named 'expected distance between two random variables'"
- This is not true. Such an "expected distance between two random variables" was hinted only in 1995 and further researched and generalized only in 2003. Furthermore, this objection also contradicts the misconception objection: clearly an "expected distance between two random variables" is not a misconception.
- 5. Name invented on Wikipedia (XOR'easter)
- "we would fail as a community if we let that stand"
- This is not true. This distance function was discovered and researched by me (Łukaszyk) and revised by the supervisor of my PhD dissertation (Karmowski). That’s the origin of the name of this function, under which it is prevailingly known in the literature.
- 6. WP:COI
- That’s a fact. But is that a sufficient, standalone reason to delete this article from Wikipedia?
- 7. WP:CANVASSING
- Indeed, I asked on Polish Wikipedia for engagement in this discussion, as I stood alone against many (Prof. Karmowski, the supervisor of my PhD supported me but - by not being Wikipedian - did not see any possibility of his personal involvement).
- Nonetheless, my request for engagement in this discussion might have led to the provision of further arguments to delete this article. Those who engaged might have agreed with already submitted arguments to delete this article and, perhaps, provide new ones.
- Furthermore, as I announced at the end of the discussion, I have presented a friend (SicilianNajdorf) with my WP:COI issue and asked him to improve the article, which he did by adding "Earlier research", "Practical applications", and "Further research" sections. SicilianNajdorf and Gus~plwiki are separate accounts belonging to different people.
- Guswen (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ps. The discussion was closed before I managed to reply on XOR'easter objection of 20:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC) stating that "Brutovsky and Horvath use a different distance between probability distributions and say that the topic of this article 'should also be mentioned' in the last two lines of the appendix".
- That's not true. Brutovsky and Horvath clearly state (cf. p 9(240), l. 34-40) that "A further perspective in the analysis of tumors consisting of several spatial compartments should also be mentioned". They point that in "such case, the consequences of random switching could be readily quantified using Lukaszyk-Karmowski distance". Guswen (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Guswen under point 7, you note you raised it on pl-wiki while completely avoiding any mention that you did so in a fashion that was i) a biased message ii) a biased audience iii) non-transparent (you didn't note its activity at the afd). Between that and the sock @Dreamy Jazz I am surprised you haven't been sanctioned Nosebagbear (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was amazed that this article is considered for deletion 20 years after I defended my PhD dissertation and 13 years after it has been created on English Wikipedia. No doubt, I reacted emotionally, which was a shoot in the knee, in a way. For example, when the article was put under the deletion discussion I was invited to improve it. And I should have done so (e.g. by introducing "Practical applications" and "Further research" sections), prior to voting on the discussion page. However, as soon as I voted, I was thanked by PianoDan for acknowledging my WP:COI and deprived of the right of further edits to this article. Clearly, I'm not an experienced Wikipedian, and I don't know the intricacies of all the procedures.
- But what do you mean by "biased message", "biased audience", and "non-transparency"?
- I placed a question on Polish Wikiproject:Math saying “Czy mogę prosić o Wasz merytoryczny udział w tej dyskusji na angielskiej Wiki?”, i.e. „Can I ask for your substantive participation in this discussion on the English Wiki?”.
- What's biased and/or non-transparent in this question? And to what kind of audience should this question be addressed?
- As PawełMM correctly pointed "the content of the article deals with a rather hermetic field such as higher mathematics" and "discussing such specialized issues as the article raises should be done by those with expertise in the field under discussion".
- And as I said, those mathematicians who participated might have, as well, agreed with already submitted arguments to delete this article, instead of voting "Keep". Guswen (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- You were not "deprived of the right to edit the article." You should never have edited the article in the the first place. PianoDan (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I gave two examples of biased phrasing in my statement above. As for the rest of that wall of text, I will only say that if you wish to reply to arguments raised in the deletion discussion, you should !vote for it to be relisted. See the purpose of deletion review. XOR'easter (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Guswen under point 7, you note you raised it on pl-wiki while completely avoiding any mention that you did so in a fashion that was i) a biased message ii) a biased audience iii) non-transparent (you didn't note its activity at the afd). Between that and the sock @Dreamy Jazz I am surprised you haven't been sanctioned Nosebagbear (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haya Maraachli (2nd nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haya Maraachli (2nd nomination) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
The speedy deletion of this page per WP:G3 appears to be outside of the criteria. It is also otherwise disputed, because 1) concerns about editor conduct can be addressed in other forums, and 2) it seems best for the encyclopedia to allow this AfD discussion to continue. I discussed this with Bbb23 at their Talk page after they deleted the page. Beccaynr (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn - I participated in this AfD and !voted to delete the article. Per WP:G3, this AfD does not appear to be pure vandalism, i.e. blatant and obvious misinformation or a blatant hoax. Concerns about conduct have been addressed in discussion with the nominating editor, and based on the circumstances of this article and the deleted discussion, it seems best for the encyclopedia to allow this AfD discussion to continue. Beccaynr (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Request temporary undeletion - access to the AfD history may be helpful to participants here. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy overturn. Just as we would not delete an article that was created for vandalistic purposes but then updated and contributed to in good faith, nor should we do so to an AFD. The absolute most that should be done is the AFD closed as speedy-keep. Bearing in mind the 2nd AFD was opened less than an hour after the first closed, that would probably be appropriate. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Overturn speedy deletion, but speedy keep. I'm not immediately seeing anything in the AfD that constituted vandalism, it was disruptive (the same nominator almost immediately starting a new AfD with the same rationale after the first discussion was closed as keep) but that is a reason to speedy keep the article rather than speedily deleting the AfD nomination. The speedy keep would be procedural - I've not looked at the article and so have no opinion about the notability of the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- What is the WP:SKCRIT basis for this AfD? During the AfD, I provided further reasons for deletion and the only keep !voter withdrew their !vote after a review of sources and discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't seen the 2nd AFD but if it's as described then it would be 2c I guess "making nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.164.154 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:SKCRIT#2 includes "The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion" so it does not appear to apply. Beccaynr (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't seen the 2nd AFD but if it's as described then it would be 2c I guess "making nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.164.154 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- What is the WP:SKCRIT basis for this AfD? During the AfD, I provided further reasons for deletion and the only keep !voter withdrew their !vote after a review of sources and discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn and reopen or at worst speedy keep and let someone relist with a better deletion rationale if there is one. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn It was certainly disruptive, but it wasn't vandalism. It should probably be speedily kept though as we shouldn't allow editors to immediately re-nominate just because they don't like the result. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn the deletion and close as speedy keep - while the creation of the AfD wasn't vandalism it was started less than an hour after the previous discussion was closed, which is clearly inappropriate. If the nominator wanted to contest the closure of the previous AfD they should have come here instead, and otherwise they should have waited a while. Hut 8.5 11:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn. The page was not vandalism and there was a lengthy discussion between CT55555 and Beccaynr as well, so this did not qualify for G3. ✗plicit 13:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree with @Beccaynr that letting editors see the conversation might better inform this conversation, because while I voted keep at AfD#1 and complained about the renomination at AfD#2, I was also persuaded with withdraw my keep vote at AfD#2. Was this "vandalism"? I'm not sure. Was it bad process? Absolutely. Should we be forgiving to new editors who make process errors? I think yes. CT55555 (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn, procedural keep, and take to DRV Creating a new AFD for the same article just hours after the first one was closed is bad process and disruptive, but it is not vandalism. As such, the deletion of the AFD should be overturned, the AFD should be closed as Procedural keep with a short note about the renomination, and a DRV discussion should be opened. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:6D9F:EF76:E543:D571 (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn. Renominating so quickly is certainly disruptive, but the editor in question was new and likely just wasn't familiar with the procedure for challenging deletions (see here)—there was no intent to harm the encyclopedia, so the AfD wasn't vandalism and the speedy was, in my view, unnecessarily BITEy. I agree with the 2601 IP that a procedural close with a pointer to DRV would have been the best response. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Jason Perry (politician)
- Jason Perry (politician) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Incorrect interpretation of consensus Trimfrim20 (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn and keep. I played an active role in supporting keep in the deletion discussion. I think most of those commenting (on both the keep and delete sides) were very well aware that Mr Perry was not the Mayor of London, but the dispute was whether or not he met notability criteria as a local politician (Mayor of London is automatically considered notable). As Goldsztajn (talk) referred to in the initial discussion there is significant notable media coverage (including BBC, ITV etc.) that would result in Mr. Perry passing WP:GNG and WP:NPOL in his own right - and not for the reasons mentioned in the closing of the deletion, or a mistaken assumption that he was Mayor of London (which I don’t believe anyone in the discussion believed was the case). Trimfrim20 (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to keep or no consensus (not a participant in the discussion) I'm not sure how I would vote in the AfD, but the majority of editors participating in the discussion argued that the politician had sufficient coverage after he was elected to be notable either via NPOL or GNG. Close reads like a supervote (t · c) buidhe 16:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to keep or relist. Not counting the nominator (see below) there were two delete !votes, one of which was a reasonable but disputed interpretation of WP:NPOL, the other stated that because the subject was not Mayor of London they didn't meet the GNG, which is clearly incorrect (no office can preclude someone from meeting the GNG). On the keep side, there were four !votes, only one of which was possibly under the mistaken assumption they were mayor of London - and even that is not completely clear given they start by saying "London Boroughs means...". Together with the other comments by those favouring keep, the assertion that they fail NPOL is clearly fully refuted. The other argument made for deletion was that they don't meet the GNG but additional sources mentioned, especially those presented in the discussion by Goldsztajn, at the very least show that is not clear cut. Closing as keep or relisting for further commentary on the additional sources would have been valid outcomes (no consensus wouldn't have been wrong, but given discussion continued right up until the day of closure a relist would be the better choice). Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn I !voted keep in the discussion. Close is a supervote, absent of any analysis of the discussion (and FWIW I cannot detect any keep contributor having any confusion over the status of London Borough mayors). There was no refutation of the sources presented in the discussion. At minimum a no consensus close
or relist. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC) - Overturn to no consensus the closer misinterpreted consensus and incorrectly discounted the “keep” votes. Sources presented in the discussion were not refuted by the nom or any “delete” vote. or relist to allow more time for consensus. But there clearly is not consensus to delete. Frank Anchor 23:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus I do not think the close was accurate in saying that the keep voters were confusing Perry's position with the Mayor of London - it seems clear they were referring to London Borough mayors. They should not have been discounted. Pawnkingthree (talk)
- Overturn to no consensus or relist (involved) I was surprised by the close, even if I agreed with it (Note I mistakenly said fails GNG when I meant NPOL). A relist could determine whether the sources provided (and they came late in the discussion) are sufficient to meet GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn and Relist - There was no consensus after one week, and the participation was in between minimal (usually relist) and extensive (don't relist), so that a relist is the best idea. The reason for discounting the Keep !votes appears to be a !vote. It doesn't look as if they actually said that. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Given the views here I have no objection to a speedy overturn of my decision and relist of the debate. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn to keep (involved). None of the keep votes confused his post with Mayor of London as the closer claimed. Clearly no consensus to delete. Consensus appears to be to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist Definitely a bad close. I think this would benefit from further discussion, as I don't think there is a strong enough consensus for either keep or delete. Curbon7 (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist. It's quite clear that the close was not a faithful summary of the discussion nor that it weighted votes properly. I weakly prefer a relist to closing as no consensus; either would work, but giving the discussion a bit more time seems to be apt given the controversial close. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. There is not, and never has been, any consensus that London's borough mayors are "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to pass NPOL #2 on substance, and the argument that such a consensus exists did hinge on citing a precedent that explicitly talks about the citywide Mayor of London without ever extending that to sub-citywide borough mayors. There is, in fact, no size of community (not small towns, not megacities, not anything in between) where mayors get an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors — regardless of the size of the community, a mayor's notability always hinges on the article being far more substantive than this was, and far more reliably sourced than this was. If somebody can write a better article about him than this was, then that's fine and doesn't require the original deletion to be overturned before it can happen — but there is not even one city on the entire planet whose mayors would ever be deemed "inherently" notable enough to keep an article that was as unsubstantive and poorly sourced as this. Even an actual citywide Mayor of London would still need more substance and sourcing than this had. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your response seems to ignore WP:NEXIST and it is worth noting that you !voted Delete in the Deletion Discussion. It also totally ignores the reasons that this close was poor - regardless of your views it did not represent the debate that took place in any way, shape or form. Your comment here also ignores a number of views put forward after your original comment, most notably those by Goldsztajn.Trimfrim20 (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Goldsztajn's arguments weren't strong ones.
For one thing, they were simply incorrect about how mayoral notability works. Firstly, the size of the community that they're mayor of is irrelevant to the process, because there is no population test in WP:NPOL #2 at all — the notability of a mayor is a factor of the sourcing and substance present in the article, not of how many people do or don't live in the community. Secondly, the fact that the community might be larger than a House of Commons constituency is irrelevant — even for MPs, notability isn't extended because of the number of voters in their constituency, it's extended because they sit in a nationwide legislative body and have equal voice in passing laws applicable to the entire nation, and are thus notable to the entire country and not just to the voters of their own constituency. Thirdly, the number of votes that a person did or didn't get in an election is also irrelevant to notability — it's entirely possible for a person to get more than 95,000 votes in a run for office but still lose the election because somebody else got even more votes than they did, and it's entirely possible for a person to win an election with far less than 95,000 votes, so no part of our notability criteria give any consideration to how many votes a politician did or didn't get in the process of winning or losing an election.
And even the sources Goldsztajn listed weren't strong evidence of NPOL-passing notability either: this one briefly mentions his name without being about him in any non-trivial sense, and thus isn't contributing any notability points; this one is just coverage of a mayoral debate, not giving Perry more attention than it gives to seven other candidates he was running against; and the others are all just the run of the mill local-interest coverage that any mayor of anywhere is always going to receive as a matter of course.
All of those sources would be perfectly fine for verification of facts, but they aren't all equally valuable as evidence of notability — WP:GNG is not simply a question of counting up the number of footnotes it's possible to add to an article, but also takes into account the depth of any given source, the range of sourcing and the context of what each source is covering the person for, so sources can add verifiability without actually building notability, because those are two different tests.
Mayors aren't automatically notable just because you can show a piece of "mayor elected" and a piece of "mayor misses meeting due to illness" and a piece of "all the mayoral candidates debate" and a piece of "mayor reopens local pool" — every mayor of anywhere can always show that sort of cursory and minor coverage. Mayors become notable when you can write a substantive and well-sourced article that analyzes their long-term political impact, by detailing specific major projects they spearheaded and specific effects they had on the long-term development of the community, and on and so forth, but nothing of that calibre was really possible to extract from the sources Goldsztajn offered. That might certainly become possible in the future, but it wasn't evident in the sources Goldsztajn actually offered. Bearcat (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Goldsztajn's arguments weren't strong ones.
- Your response seems to ignore WP:NEXIST and it is worth noting that you !voted Delete in the Deletion Discussion. It also totally ignores the reasons that this close was poor - regardless of your views it did not represent the debate that took place in any way, shape or form. Your comment here also ignores a number of views put forward after your original comment, most notably those by Goldsztajn.Trimfrim20 (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Recent discussions
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)
- 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)
11 July 2022
Nuvve
There is more than one review (four in total): here, here, here, and here. There are release sources: here, here, and here. All in all, sufficient sources to restore the article. DareshMohan (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- There isn't anything stopping you from recreating the article. If you want the deleted version restored to draft space to serve as a starting point then I'm sure that can be done, but there was hardly anything in it - just an infobox and a cast list. Hut 8.5 19:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, there isn't, but the question is that other than the Rediff review, are any of the other sources considered reliable? DareshMohan (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse if this is an appeal of the closure. Otherwise it isn't clear what is being requested. The title isn't salted and the author can always prepare and submit a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Allow re-creation and re-submission through AFC. I don't see a good reason to prohibit re-creation and re-submission through WP:AFC given that there's been a good faith effort to find new sources. I'm not 100% convinced of its notability, but that's something that can be demonstrated by an article creator rather than required to occur here. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Either way please save the deleted version as a draft to work on. DareshMohan (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
TechEngage
- TechEngage (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The Site passes GNG. The "News & Observer" and "Honolulu Star" articles are multiple examples of significant coverage from independent sources for the site to pass GNG. Jinnahsequaid (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. DRV is not AfD round 2. These sources were considered in the discussion where consensus was that they were not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are alot more sources that were being missed in the previous review. I think we should consider it again. It includes many major newspapers, including Anderson Independent-Mail, Birmingham Post-Herald, Austin American-Statesman, Santa Maria Times, Eastern Wake News, Ventura County Star, The Miami Herald, The Knoxville News-Sentinel, The Miami News. (And all of them has covered it for multiple years and in multiple times). Further, I added a news clip of 2010 of News & Observer so no one can say it' for only 2-3 years. I don't have the full subscriptions to fetch the whole lists. Hope, you will be satisfied with it @Thryduulf
- For me, it's enough to pass the GNG. Jinnahsequaid (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just rewrite the article as a draft from the ground up based on the supposedly GNG-compliant sources. I do not think a deletion review is needed to get permission to recreate a deleted article; WP:G4 (which states that any copies of AfD-deleted articles can be deleted ASAP without warning) doesn't apply to recreations that don't copy anything from the originally deleted article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse as the right summary of the AFD. Significant coverage was considered in the AFD. The title has not been salted and the appellant can submit a draft for review with the better sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Basar (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The person is a notable billionaire businessman Aaeeshaaadil4 (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
10 July 2022
Flags of cities of the United States (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article is actually a redirect to Wikimedia Commons, which means maybe the page has been deleted for over two months ago. Means the gallery of the images of the flags is WP:LISTCRUFT. Heraldrist (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
8 July 2022
Vladislav Sviblov
- Vladislav Sviblov (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Please consider this removal. This article has already been deleted before and I disputed the deletion. It was indicated that additional sources should be added to the article and work on the text in the draft should be done. I created an article in the draft, improved it, added additional sources, and the reviewer moved the article to the main space. The same participant put it up for deletion again. Only one participant spoke and did not take into account my arguments and my adherence to consensus.
Here is the link for first deletion [7]
And the second [8]
Валерий Пасько (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse as a proper close, again. Evidently the additional sources and additional text were not sufficient to establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Allow Submission of Draft - The title was not salted, although one participant in the AFD recommended that it be salted, so a reviewer can accept the draft if the body of the article as resubmitted speaks for itself. It is normally not enough just to add sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. Properly deleted at two AfDs. The article was reference bombed and lacked independent secondary sources. DO NOT encourage submission of draft, but respect the AfD decisions, until at least six months after the second AfD. Do not encourage “additional sources”, further reference bombings makes it worse, instead require less and better sources. Do not entertain any protest that does not follow the advice at WP:THREE, and also demand that the native language Wikipedia article (Russian) exists and is linked. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Russian language article exists (ru:Свиблов, Владислав Владимирович) Валерий Пасько (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Every project has their own guidelines. English's are among the most stringent, notability wise. Star Mississippi 18:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. En.Wikipedia seems very strong on insisting on quality independent reputable reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in depth. The Russian article lacks this. I wouldn’t call the Russian article “reference bombed”, but is thoroughly referencing every little fact including. It is very primary-source biased, and incompatible with WP:PSTS. I think en.Wikipedia is so insistent because it is sensitive about being regularly abused by companies, companies CEOs, and company products being advertised in en.Wikipedia.
- It’s good that there is a Russian article linked. Next required are the WP:THREE best sources for demonstrating notability. Scanning the translated Russian article, I don’t see them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The person is mentioned on sites such as forbes.ru ([9]), kommersant.ru (]), [https://www.interfax.ru/business/767770 interfax.ru (]), [https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/19131394 .bloomberg.com ([https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/19131394]). And in the magazine "Золото и технологии". Are all of these sources irrelevant? Валерий Пасько (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Every project has their own guidelines. English's are among the most stringent, notability wise. Star Mississippi 18:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Russian language article exists (ru:Свиблов, Владислав Владимирович) Валерий Пасько (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse incubate in draft does not mean immediately resubmit when the underlying issues haven't been addressed. Is there a reason you're so focused on this article? Courtesy @Liz: as closer of last AfD. Star Mississippi 18:59, 11 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 [10]). 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)
- 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)
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. |
6 July 2022
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was previously nominated for a PROD and no policies were cited to support a redirect. The AfD ended with two votes after being relisted twice: one in favor of deletion and another in favor of a redirect. As the nominator of the AfD, I disagree with a redirect and believe the deletion should proceed. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:05, 6 July 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 |