Presidency of Joe Biden ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

WP:BADNAC. This was closed after less than 48 hours with the rationale "The result was Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT." One situation when a non-admin closure is inappropriate is when the outcome is likely to be controversial. This is such a case, as evidenced by the fact that this is the second nomination for deletion for this page in just over a week. A further indication of the controversial nature of this is the non-keep closures of two related AfDs only a few hours after this closure: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Ambassadors appointed by Joe Biden as delete and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political appointments by Joe Biden as redirect. Of course, the first AfD closure should have been taken here to WP:DELREV rather than a second AfD being created (it seems the editor who created the second AfD did not realize there was a previous one until after they had already created the second one). At any rate, the first closure (i.e. of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidency of Joe Biden) was a WP:BADNAC misapplication of WP:SPEEDYKEEP, and the second closure (i.e. of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidency of Joe Biden (2nd nomination)) was either a pure WP:BADNAC for the reasons stated above or overly bureaucratic in taking us here to WP:DELREV when the likely outcome of bringing the first AfD closure here would have been relisting it in order to allow proper discussion – something the second AfD provided. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• I !voted in the discussion, but want to point out the user who closed it, ජපස, was an uninvolved long-term contributor who correctly applied WP:SNOW (they have not edited a US political article for awhile before closing) - even if this gets BADNAC'd, there's really no way there'll be an alternative result. SportingFlyer T· C 00:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (uninvolved) appropriate WP:SNOW close. ( t · c) buidhe 05:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• In response to the comments above, and at the risk of turning this into a relitigation of the AfD, I'll explain why I don't think this was an appropriate WP:SNOW close: The vast majority of the participants in the discussion did not even begin to attempt to address the WP:Reason for deletion in the nomination, which is that this page is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Presidential transition of Joe Biden at present (instead, the discussion focused heavily on procedure, precedent, and whether or not Biden will become president). Closing this early means we are denied a discussion about whether this is in fact a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The fact that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political appointments by Joe Biden was closed as redirect to Presidential transition of Joe Biden with the closing comment stating "It can be undone when its time for this. Until then lets keep content in one place" lends credence to the notion that the outcome of this AfD could have been something other than "keep", had it been allowed to run its course. TompaDompa ( talk) 06:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse No other way this could have gone. AfD was a waste of time and this DRV even more so. Barring something truly bizarre, Biden will be President, this will happen, and it will be notable. And WP:CRYSTAL works both ways - a meteor could strike Earth tomorrow and destroy all life, but that doesn't mean anything scheduled to happen after tomorrow isn't notable. Smartyllama ( talk) 15:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • TompaDompa If you want the article to me merged/redirected, it's often better to try WP:MERGE instead of AfD. ( t · c) buidhe 15:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• This nomination has no prospect of success and should be speedily closed.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Grudging endorse No action. I agree there's no way this was going to get deleted, but there wasn't any rush to snow close it at a roughly 2:1, and especially not as a NAC. If you let it run the full week and an admin closes it with the inevitable outcome, we've put a nail in it. If you SNOW/NAC it, you invite getting dragged to DRV, which just prolongs the process. Anyway, if it was kept open, it might have been a candidate for WP:100 which is always fun. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Updated to adopt Stifle's wording, which really says it better than I did. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse this has absolutely zero chance of being deleted. The only argument for deletion is a claim that we shouldn't have articles on future events except in the highly unlikely situation where an event is absolutely guaranteed to occur. This view doesn't have any basis in policies/guidelines, usual practice, or common sense. I also don't agree that we should reopen decisions just because someone thinks they're more controversial than they are. Hut 8.5 17:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE. I don't think this was a great close and I won't say this close was a WP:BADNAC, but I would suggest the first close was. There were some participants who did suggest sending the article to draft space so there was some debate about whether there should be an article now. That said, there is no way this article is or should be deleted and the close is correct and would reflect community consensus if the discussion were to have continued for the week. -- Enos733 ( talk) 07:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• No action. I explicitly do not endorse an early non-admin closure of a controversial debate – that's pretty much a checklist of all the reasons that you don't do a NAC. Nevertheless, the article is inevitably staying around. Stifle ( talk) 09:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• No action. Yes, this was a BADNAC because it literally violated the "likely to be controversial" rule and if someone wants to {{ trout}} the closing editor, feel free to do that. But then again, it was WP:SNOWing pretty heavily and another outcome was extremely unlikely. Fun fact on the side: Presidency of Donald Trump was created on November 9, 2016, but never nominated for deletion as premature. Regards So Why 07:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist Improper speedy closes. Ҥ ( talk) 20:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. On reading this DRV discussion I was leaning to the standard criticisms of NACs that result in controversy (fail by a measure in hindsight), but in reading the AfD, the close was correct. It was snowing “keep” to “speedy keep” and the ongoing pile on was properly close. The close was not controversial or borderline or arbitrary in any way. Good close, good NAC. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Exactly per SmokeyJoe. Hobit ( talk) 21:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Renomination so soon after the first AFD was tendentious. However, in the future, if there are more similar tendentious AFD nominations made, they should not be NAC-closed, only because they should be dealt with under discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The first close was actually more problematic. That close was a NAC completed less than an hour after the nomination and with only two "keep" votes. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - This is getting silly, now. Thank goodness in the real world, the silliness is coming to an end, concerning the 2020 US prez election. GoodDay ( talk) 01:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

D. S. Bradford ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

It is urged that this particular case be examined once more with the intent on considering reinstatement. The article and articles related to the subject of this article had no issues up until last year, whereupon it was discovered that some of the reference links were either expired or not enough to demonstrate notability. The article was worked on and published and was also deleted, even as links for the subject in sources were found and improved. There have been some developments and new sources are being proposed to add to this article (includes mentions and reports of collaborative work and career) and to restore this article from deletion. Sources: Philadelphia Weekly, ARPost, RealityBox, Philadelphia Weekly, Blabbermouth.net, 93.3 WMMR News, Consequence Of Sound, Alternative Press, Kerrang!, Entertainment Weekly THBAO ( talk) 21:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I see no problems in the AfD. However, I have no objections if this is restored to draft space to be worked on. — C.Fred ( talk) 21:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse You can't close that in any way other than delete. While I want to encourage content creation, looking at the sources above, using those to create a draft would be a waste of time, as none of them really demonstrate notability. SportingFlyer T· C 22:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse correct assessment of consensus ( t · c) buidhe 15:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Deletion discussion was closed accurately. Deletion review is a venue to address issues with failure to follow process, not to "urge that a case be examined once more" or otherwise reargue the original discussion. Stifle ( talk) 09:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endores Nothing wrong with the AfD process, it was closed appropriately. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Properly closed. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment While the instance of the article as it was previously could be cause for deletion, I am asking that it be restored to draft to work on it again. There was also some question about AllMusic being unreliable, but that was only in relation to genre and not to biographical purposes, from which some of this article’s information was sourced. There didn’t seem to be an acknowledgement of that fact. Additionally, there was proof offered that the biography was written on AllMusic before it was summarized on the subject’s own website, which linked back to the original source. The sources from the original article will be complimented by the above sources, which hold more weight than some of the previous smaller and less prominent publications. There is more substantial information about this person available now and as time progresses, the draft will provide better information, all of which is verifiable and shows notability in the fields of interest in music, art, and science. THBAO ( talk) 20:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Not the best sourcing. [1] looks independent, in-depth, and overall solid. But seems like mostly an interview without much pulled in from elsewhere. [2] is local and mostly an interview, the the introduction is probably enough to count as a solid reliable source. Everything else is pretty much just a mention. One good article somewhere that isn't quite so local and isn't an interview (say an actual review of their work, even if negative) would probably be enough. But for now, not over the WP:GNG bar. endorse and restore to draft. Hobit ( talk) 22:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - There doesn't appear to have been closer error. Robert McClenon ( talk) 08:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Magali Elise Roques ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

• Overturn. Roques has received prestigious awards and is widely published. The extensive amount of her publications which have been retracted because of plagiarism is remarkable in itself and justifies an entry about her in Wikipedia. See discussion here. Melchior2006 ( talk) 19:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment from deleting admin: I came across this article while clearing WP:RFPP, where Lightbluerain had requested semiprotection due to vandalism concerns. Instead of protecting it, I deleted the page because it appeared to be a largely negative WP:COATRACK article about a BLP, intended to focus entirely on the plagiarism controversy concerning this person. I don't agree that the coverage of the plagiarism issues, at least what was included in citations in the article, is sufficient to meet the WP:GNG and she does not appear to be sufficiently notable for an article outside of that, which is why I've asked Melchior2006 to bring it to DRV. GorillaWarfare  (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy deletion. Paraphrasing what I wrote at the declined arbitration request, the article listed the routine milestones and publications typical of any minor academic. There was no claim of notability satisfying WP:PROF or any other notability guideline. The lead consisted of 55 characters giving the subject's name, birth year and occupation, with another 220 characters describing claims of plagiarism. Given the lack of notability, that means the WP:G10 speedy deletion criterion (attack page) was accurate. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy deletion. I realize that the notability criteria are different in the WP:EN than in the WP:DE. However, it does seem to me that men with similar biographies are included in the WP and women are not. Yes, there is a plagiarism controversy, but that is probably the reason people would be looking her up on the Wikipedia. Thus, it is good for the awards that she has received to be listed as well, so that readers can make their own decisions. I will admit that I am an inclusionist - I fight for inclusion of articles, especially ones about women, as we don't have disk space problems. As an academic I am probably biased, but I feel that many people below the level of Nobel Prize winners need to be included in the WP, just not in epic detail. -- WiseWoman ( talk) 15:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  While I agree with the principle to include as many articles about women as possible, it should be noted that her academic integrity has been tarnished due to these retractions. Her dissertation was also in part plagiarized. This means the awards she received and the degree she got might all be cast in doubt. There is an ongoing investigation in the CNRS. We should wait for the results first. FlybellFly ( talk) 22:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I can't see the revision and it probably shouldn't be temp-undeleted, but I trust Johnuniq's analysis here and if that's correct then the deletion should be endorsed. It does not preclude someone else writing an article on her where WP:G10 does not apply, though that may be a difficult task. SportingFlyer T· C 15:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  If you haven't read the article, I would humbly request that you refrain from commenting on it. -- Melchior2006 ( talk) 07:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  No, I'm perfectly able to participate in the discussion. A good closer will note that I have not viewed the article and will downweight my participation accordingly. SportingFlyer T· C 11:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• For what it's worth, it's definitely not an attack page, and there's nothing on it that's any worse than what's in this discussion. I could certainly do a temp undelete if one wanted. But it's a otherwise very close to an A7; the only thing that makes it better than my CV is the claim she was a Canada Research Chair, but it's an apparent mistranslation of her having been a postdoc for Claude Panaccio, who was a Canada Research Chair. So ... Wily D 13:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I am also unable to evaluate the article myself, but I'm willing to trust GorillaWarfare and Johnuniq, who have both sufficiently indicated that the page met G10 criteria. If someone wishes to re-create the article, please bring new sources here so the community can evaluate them. CThomas³ ( talk) 18:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  If anyone needs a copy of the article to evaluate I'm happy to provide it, but per SportingFlyer, given the G10 concerns I would prefer not temporarily undeleting it publicly. GorillaWarfare  (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse speedy deletion. While I am also for inclusivity and, furthermore, strongly think that the WP:PROF criteria set the bar too high (echoing WiseWoman, we do have unlimited space here for more bios!), I don't think it is just to this scholar or to any female scholar that we create and defend a BLP *only because of* a scandal. The creator clearly created the page to document the scandal (hence WP:G10). It was not a proper bio but a WP:COATRACK. If documenting the scandal was the original intention, then the page should have been titled The Roques Plagiarism Incident. But even then such a page is unwarranted as this single event does not yet satisfy WP:GNG. We currently only have a few retraction notices (which are not independent secondary sources) and one minor coverage in the Daily Nous blog. FlybellFly ( talk) 19:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  We currently have six retractions from the editors of prominent scholarly journals. -- Melchior2006 ( talk) 07:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  My primary point is that if/when the event becomes notable, then the page should be the Rogues Plagiarism Incident page, not a bio. Doesn't WP:GNG require significant coverage by secondary sources? These retraction notices will be primary sources, no? FlybellFly ( talk) 17:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  Correct; the retraction notices certainly don't contribute to establishing her notability. We would need significant coverage of her/the retractions in independent reliable sources. GorillaWarfare  (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  Retraction notices are what I referred to below, as primary source sleuthing. Wikipedia should not be doing this. The policy is WP:PSTS. If Wikipedia allowed every/any academic’s bio to list their retractions, it would be a flagrant WP:NPOV failure. Acceptable only if mentioned in a reliable reputable independent secondary source. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  If academics have their complete works listed, then retractions should also be included. But really only list publications or retractions if they are important in some way. IE if referenced by other writings. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse speedy deletion. I am unable to read the deleted article; however, I looked up the subject, and I do not see any way that the subject could pass WP:PROF. If the retracted publications had all been legitimate, the record would still be one of an unremarkable early-career academic. (There is another Magali Roques, a cell biologist at Universität Bern, who is much more prominent than the philosopher on Google Scholar.) The plagiarism incident has not itself attracted significant attention — the Daily Nous post mentioned by FlybellFly is all I can find. Retraction Watch just points to the Daily Nous without doing a writeup of their own [3]. This isn't enough coverage to warrant an article on the incident, and I'm highly dubious that the Daily Nous is a good source for WP:BLP material, whether that content is in a biography or an article on an event. Maybe the situation will change, but right now I don't even see grounds to describe the incident within another article, let alone devote a page to it. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Don't endorse, Leave deleted - the article had a single, negative sentence that was well sourced and relevant, it's in no way an attack page - it was largely her CV. G10 very obviously doesn't apply - we're openly tossing around the whole of the issue here without concern. That said, I would call it an A7 - the claim she held a Canada Research Chair is a mistranslation of her postdoc being funded by someone else's Canada Research Chair, leaving a decent CV but nothing of particular note; really, the French equivalent of a run of the mill assistant professor. Wily D 10:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • She's not a post-doc, apparently the original reporting got that wrong. The fact that it *could* easily get that wrong is a hint about her notability, but it appears to be a permanent position, maybe akin to an assistant prof in the US? Hobit ( talk) 08:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah, CNRS is a permanent position, akin to being an assistant professor in the States. But she was a postdoc, and she was the postdoc of someone with a Canada Research Chair. That got mistranslated into the article as though she had a Canada Research Chair, which would have been a claim of significance that would've prevented A7 deletion. But, it wasn't true, so I'm fine with leaving this deleted as a A7. Wily D 09:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• I don't see how BLP policy is relevant here. BLP says we need to remove unsourced or poorly-sourced negative information about living people. It certainly doesn't say we need to remove negative information that's verifiable by reference to scholarly journals. BLP is not a whitewasher's charter. It should protect people from unproven allegations, but it certainly shouldn't defend a demonstrable cheater. Overturn G10. She's not a notable person and shouldn't have a standalone article but this doesn't make deletion the appropriate response. The matter should be covered in List of scientific misconduct incidents, and her name should redirect there.— S Marshall  T/ C 11:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • It's not mentioned there now, and she's a not terribly high profile academic just doing boring plagarism, so there aren't likely to be any knock on effects. If someone really wants to write something there they might be able to, but I'm very skeptical it merits it. Maybe it'll pick up attention, but this isn't one of the hundred most important instances of academic misconduct. Wily D 13:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Worth noting that the deletion was both for G10 and A7 concerns (I thought I'd added A7 to the deletion rationale but it looks like I just wrote it out instead). I do think G10 applies, but A7 does also apply. GorillaWarfare  (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with Marshall that at most she deserves an entry in a List of Research Misconduct page. Not List of scientific misconduct incidents, exactly, as it is only for the natural and social sciences. Contrary to Wily, I believe that this case of plagiarism is much worse than many of the incidents already listed in List of scientific misconduct incidents. We're talking about whole paragraphs of copy-and-pasted text from a wide range of sources (multiple authors, multiple outlets including Wikipedia and news articles, even from her own supervisor's PhD dissertation!). Her position is extremely competitive and she was only one of two philosophers selected that year into the CNRS. FlybellFly ( talk) 16:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Article aside, we really shouldn't be adding negative information about a BLP to a list of incidents if that person or incident isn't otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T· C 07:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Well, there are some "Wow, who gives a shit?" entries on that list too. Things like faking results have real knock-on effects and can be pretty significant; plagarism means you're spinning you wheels and maybe stealing credit, but is almost never import in the big picture. Wily D 09:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Just responding to this comment, so the following does not have any import to the current discussion. Many of the listings on that page are single incident minor plagiarism without any independent secondary reporting (e.g., "Ismail Deha Er (Turkey), former Associate Professor of Marine Engineering at Istanbul Technical University, plagiarized vast majority of his paper published at Energy Sources Part A.[334] I. Deha Er simply copied content of a technical report published by MAN Diesel titled "Emission Control Two-Stroke Low-Speed Diesel Engines." Where [334] is just the retraction notice). If your standard holds, then these entries should be deleted from those pages, too. I'll stop commenting on this aspect. FlybellFly ( talk) 16:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Request emailed copy of the deleted article, as offered by User:GorillaWarfare. This sounds like a possible case of BLP zealotry, and I would like to have a look please. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Me too please. Hobit ( talk) 15:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I've sent a copy of the deleted article to both of you, via EmailUser. GorillaWarfare  (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Received, thanks. “Some think ...”. Bad but not egregious, arguably an unsourced attack, but I think sourceable. It’s a question that I think belonged on the article talk page, to discuss the reliability of sources, and whether it is primary source sleuthing. I note no issue with the bulk of the article, nor with foreign language Wikipedia versions, de.Wikipedia examined. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC). It’s the “accusations of plagiarism” issue already mentioned by the OP and in the discussion linked. A probably non-notable researcher, misidentified as a professor in a source translation, G10 is possibly heavy handed, but I think the article would be deleted at AfD as failing WP:PROF, and I agree with WileyD above. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy Received the article. Certainly not an attack page IMO. Probably fails WP:PROF, but that is an AfD call. Might pass WP:N at this point. I think I'd prefer we not have this article, but that should be a decision made by the community. Hobit ( talk) 08:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The article, as it stood, definitely failed WP:PROF, and definitely failed WP:N. In neither case was it remotely close. It might be possible to write an article about her that didn't (although I doubt it), but what we had wasn't it. Wily D 09:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted Although this is not an attack page, and G10 does not apply, A7 would apply, as the prize won has no article and neither does the awarding organisation. Unless secondary sources mention the retractions, I don't think it should be mentioned in those lists of misconduct articles. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Charlie (Street Fighter) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The page has existed without any substantial issues since October 2004. However, due to the article's inadequate state of sourcing, it came to the attention of an editor who nominated it for AfD last week. For some reason, only about three other editors including myself have participated in the discussion. I voted Keep and brought up some sources for discussion; to which both the nominator, and another editor who usually err towards delete or merge in AfD votes, have indicated that they may withdraw or reconsider the deletion or redirection of the article if more sources could be found. I have very recently posted some more sources, and made a request to whoever intending to close the AfD that it should relisted in order to allow the aforementioned users more time to respond, which is a precedent that has been done with many recent AfD's, to generate a more thorough discussion and consensus due to lack of participation and because two editors have indicated that they may change their mind after I posted the sources. For some reason, an uninvolved editor User:Buidhe have ignored my suggestion that the AfD be relisted, and closed the discussion prematurely without leaving any comments about their ddecision. I would like to appeal the closer's decision, as I am of the view that the editor appears to be inexperienced at dealing with potentially contentious AfD's, as this one should have been relisted to generate a clearer consensus, and to give the other editors time to respond. Haleth ( talk) 16:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Closer's comment The discussion got decent participation and of the editors who participated, 3 agreed that it did not have enough sourcing [there were not enough sources] to justify a stand-alone article while Haleth disagreed. I stand by my close as appropriate. Just existing for a long time is not evidence that the topic is encyclopedic or notable IMO, especially considering that Wikipedia used to have much looser standards. ( t · c) buidhe 16:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Several other AfD discussions have been relisted at least once or twice, with many more editors in terms of participation. In this case it is evident to me that the discussion should be relisted once the other editors have indicated that they would like to see more new sources being introduced into the discussion. Unfortunately, you have also not addressed the points I have made, that two editors have expressed an interest in reviewing their stance when more sources be found. The nominator has also indicated he may consider withdrawing his nomination altogether if more reliable sources are found. The third editor simply made an assertion, without discussing whether the newer sources were unsuitable or unreliable to sustain the article. Per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. I was prepared to restructure and improve the article with the sources I have located, should the consensus move towards recognizing the subject topic as being notable. Haleth ( talk) 16:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Neither @ Zxcvbnm: or @ Piotrus: changed or struck their position based on evidence you presented. I therefore concluded that other editors did not recognize the sources presented as sufficient to show the *independent notability* of the topic or the value of a stand-alone article on it. ( t · c) buidhe 17:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Technical comment pinging User:Haleth - I might have changed my vote (or not), where I made aware that I was replied there through a proper WP:ECHO. Since this was not done, I did not read the comment with the new sources until now. I don't have time to review them right now, but in the future, if you reply to someone, please ping them. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Understood. Haleth ( talk) 14:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I still stand by my position. While the character pages Haleth has already made are commendable and this is in no way personal, I clearly take a harder line on notability than they do, and don't believe many small snippets together fulfill the significance criterion. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 17:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Of course it's not personal and it's a given that we have to agree to disagree when taking opposing stances during a discussion, though I don't agree that you take a harder line on notability then me. I find your interpretation of WP:SIGCOV and stance on WP:GNG to be inconsistent and confusing at times, but I digress. Haleth ( talk) 14:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• I think merge is the correct result here and I'm not selling trout today since nothing was technically wrong, but given how this DRV has gone so far, an overturn and re-close by an admin or a relist is probably justified since the AfD wasn't an easy one and the result isn't uncontroversial. SportingFlyer T· C 22:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist. Effectivley we have the entire salad: one delete (default by the nom), my merge vote, one keep vote, and one redirect. While I still think a merge is a sensible compromise, a relist wouldn't harm anyone and would have likely provided more opinions making it less controversial. Not that I blame the closer for ruling merge, it is a reasonable enough compromise - but if I was closing this, I'd just have relisted it instead. Additionally, it is best practice to provide a rationale for why a deletion was closed in such a way, if the distribution of votes can be controversial, this hasn't been done and deserves a (very small) WP:TROUTing. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• relist if we were at this point after 2 relists or something, you'd have to make a call. But that's not the case. It should have been relisted. Hobit ( talk) 19:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Monday Morning (newsletter) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The page has existed without any major issues since 2011. The page belongs to India's second-largest student media body and all the information in the article is legitimate. The speedy decision of this page is unfair and a prior warning should have been given before deciding on its deletion so hastily. We assure the mods that the page would certainly be rectified in accordance with all the guidelines once it is restored Parzival221B ( talk) 16:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Tone and content appear to fit the definition of blatant promotion. — C.Fred ( talk) 19:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Can we get a tempundelete please for all of us tool-less commentators? SportingFlyer T· C 11:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • So let it be written, so let it be done. Wily D 13:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Cheers! SportingFlyer T· C 14:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• I'm not actually convinced WP:G11 applies here after reviewing the text. It's an article that probably isn't notable and is written far too "closely" to the subject, but I'm not entirely sure the goal here is promotional, as evidenced by the fact it was sent to AfD a few minutes before it was nominated for speedy deletion and the nominator didn't note WP:PROMO in their statement. I also understand why people might think WP:G11 applies, and I don't see this being kept in its current form, but I'm leaning towards a relist since an AfD would give the DRV nom a small amount of time to fix the issues. SportingFlyer T· C 14:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• I agree with SportingFlyer, that the page is not overly promo in nature and the parts that are can actually be fixed. Hence I nominated it for AfD and was frankly surprised that minutes later it was nominated for CSD under G11 and then deleted. We can restore it and continue the AfD giving enough time for anyone to work on it to make it acceptable here. Roller26 ( talk) 15:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• overturn speedy and relist I can see why it was deleted as a G11--that was a stretch, but not a big one. It is overly promotional, but not irredeemably so IMO. I'm also not a fan of speeding something at AfD unless there is a pressing issue. So I think we should just have the AfD discussion. Hobit ( talk) 19:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy and relist at AfD. Hobit raises a good point. There was nothing pressing in the page that warranted immediate deletion, so it's probably better to let the AfD run its course and get community input. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G11 and list at AFD. Speedy deletion should be non-controversial. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy delete and relist at AfD. as there certainly are non-promotional versions in the history. The latest version did contain puffery, but that could be edited out or reverted. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply