Category:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

1) New information has come to light- the origin of this nomination traces back to a December of last year when a series of category nominations relating to Asian diasporas. (Specifically it is a followup to this nomination) At that time I did not participate so I wasn't able to provide the necessary sources back then. It also appears that few of the voters had even bothered to research the subject WP:BEFORE voting for deletion, which they bear the burden of responsibility. Regardless of what the process was, the ball was already moving and by the time I came around to defend this category's existence, most of them had already made up their minds. I will also disclose that a third CFD over a category I created after merging the previous one with another. It was nominated for G4, but not flagged as such and thus currently remains an active discussion.

Specifically the new evidence I wish to point out is that there are a now sources which clearly illustrate from individual reliable sources how people seen in the category should belong, per WP:DEFINING guide. I linked an RFC containing this exact text to the discussion, however I'm sure if any of the participants have seen it. (all emphasis mine)

The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to ^[1] in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. For example, Italian and artist are defining characteristics of Caravaggio, and so of the article on him, because virtually all reliable sources on the topic mention them.

• "Tung Chee-hwa".

  He [Tung] was a second rate businessman, viewed by the local business community as something of an outsider-a Shanghainese with most of his assets outside Hong Kong.

• The Spirit of Cities - Why the Identity of a City Matters in a Global Age.

... were the Shanghainese capitalists, including the father of Tung Chee-hwa ...

• Uneasy Partners - The Conflict Between Public Interest and Private Profit in Hong Kong.

... Son and Heir Tung Chee Hwa‘s career demonstrated the political adaptability that was typical of the Shanghainese who came to post - war Hong Kong.

• "Hong Kong's first chief executive Tung Chee-hwa takes a trip down memory lane".

  An interview with Tung to mark the 20th anniversary of the handover provides an opportunity to reflect on the life of a man who was born in Shanghai

Further, there is a lot of information about how Tung Chee Hwa's career is helped by being a member of this group, satisfying WP:OCEGRS. ^[1]

• As a Shanghainese from the old treaty port of Ningbo which spawned many leading Chinese commercial families, Tung fits in with the so-called “Shanghai gang” around President Jiang. The group’s members are viewed as modernising and opportunistic but politically conservative.

Fundamentally there is an issue with the same five or so editors who consistently vote to CFD, leading to legitimate content being thrown out for whatever reason ( Wikipedia:Baby and bathwater analogy) (if this allegation is against the rules I will remove it)

There were also a number of superfluous statements relating to social anthropology that were made, swaying the outcome of the vote towards deletion. For example I pointed out that the classification is in fact an ethnicity by some standards, but this was completely ignored by the other editors.

2) There was a procedural error in the discussion where one aspect of WP:OCEGRS was completely ignored. "Dedicated group-subject subcategories ... should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category may be created, but that it must at least be reasonable to create one.

After I pointed out that Shanghainese people in Hong Kong exists, and two of the delete voters admitted that the article is perfectly fine. I found a piece of online journalism which explicitly lists 11 people who could forum the nexus of the category, and I was told it merely belongs in an article. There is no real reason this category should be singled out. I have also since expanded the head article to a length of 20k bytes, where as it was just a fraction of this before. Prisencolin ( talk) 05:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as properly closed at the time. New information? Have you discussed this with the closer? You should. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I spoke to @ Good Olfactory: about this and he was the one who recommended DRV if I was not satisfied with the outcome.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 18:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
    • You mean User talk:Good Olfactory#Category:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent. I meant, did you ask the closer about your new information and how to best move forwards. This DRV is not forward looking. You put GO in a difficult spot, he should not encourage you to take this particular issue to DRV, but as closer he must not discourage it, as a matter of principle. This is not for DRV because: No content is deleted; and, there is no criticism of the CfD process itself; and, there is no complaint that the closer mis-read the discussion. Instead, you have come forward with “new information”. Does your new information refute CfD !voting statements? No, not obviously, it is too subtle at best. The war forwards I suggest is a talk page discussion somewhere, and perhaps an RfC. Be warned however, my gut feel from reading the discussions is that in the end you may not be agreed with. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
      • User_talk:Good_Olfactory#Gauging_possibility_of_DRV I did message him later presenting my new evidence, and he replied " I have no objection to a DRV for the discussion that I closed," and saying the decision was mine, and mine alone. The new evidence is an analysis of reliable sources which describe several individuals as belonging with the category (see one of my comments below for the link well). I opened a CFD at some point but it was closed (by a participant in the CFD) for violation of RFC rules.
      • I'm not trying to argue against fundamental nature of the CFD, as this is prohibited at DRV per "to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed)." However now that you specifically asked of me, I will contend that the CFD process has had issues with its insular nature for years. In 2009 DRV overturned the delete closing of a CFD, with the admin noting: "Unfortunately, one of the shortcomings of CFD is that it is a very low-traffic page, so it is more likely than with, say, AFD, that a page which is genuinely encyclopedic and useful will be deleted due to WP:SILENCE". Note that several of the !voters at that discussion are still active at CFD and thus I believe is the same issue that led to Category:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent to be deleted. I have attempted to highlight this trend at WP:ANI after lengthy dispute with several users turned uncivil. -- Prisencolin ( talk) 22:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
        • It is true, there is a history of criticism of the CfD culture itself. You could try asking User:Good Olfactory if CfD is broken. I may have made that allegation myself, but it was a provocative allegation, and a long time ago. Back then, I had the impression that closers were sometimes WP:Supervoting CfDs with poor participation based upon how they usually closed. Subsequently, I modified my allegation to "CfD needs more diverse participants". Anyone who agrees with this may consider adding themselves to Category:Wikipedians who say CfD needs more diverse participants. I learned that Wikipedia category lore is esoteric, hard to grasp initially, but based on a firm logic. Looking at this particular CfD, I see zero hint of a Supervote, or a problem with process. I believe that post-close new information calls for a fresh talk page discussion, not a DRV nomination. I am not sure what talk page is best, but except for asking advice, I advise against using anyone's user_talk page. If in doubt of the best place to discuss, I recommend asking at WT:CfD. It is possible that this DRV could mandate a "relist" of the CfD based on your new information, but that is not my !vote, I am not persuaded that your new information overcomes others' reasons for not having this category. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
          • SmokeyJoe well remembers that "CfD is broken" is my trigger phrase. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
            • SmokeyJoe Just added myselfto Category:Wikipedians who say CfD needs more diverse participants. I'm attributing the waning interest to not displaying cats on the mobile Wikipedia view. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Forum shopping (statement by participant, also in many of the listed CfD) — Prisencolin did not participate in the first 4 CfD; that does not make it "new" information. Rather, that makes it precedent that we follow for subsequent discussion. Multiple editors have explained that we don't categorize "by descent" from cities or regions. The original migrants may be categorized as "People from" the city or region, but only where notable and defining. That matches the claim for Tung Chee-hwa. A person born in China should not be categorized "of Chinese descent". Their immediate decendents after emigration may be of "Chinese descent". These are well established guidelines upheld at CfD. Prisencolin has been WP:VERBOSE, WP:BLUDGEONING, and spamming RFCs and other new discussions outside of CfD contrary to WP:RFCNOT.
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 11:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Multiple users have been peddling the same misinformation that you are, probably because you are the one who originated said notion. In no way is there a rule that says “we don’t categorize by decent from cities or regions”, and the fact that you are removing mention of Wikipedia:Category_names#Heritage or WP:EGRS, which ostensibly contained said guideline is proof that you’re making it up AND covering your tracks. Further, this should be of no concern because I have evidence that “Shanghainese” is in fact an ethnicity, which you have not only have you ignored at least twice, but continue ignoring after I pointed out you are ignoring.— Prisencolin ( talk) 18:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I have two more examples of people of Hong Kong birth, Carrie Lam and Maggie Cheung, along with a set of quotations for each seen here: User:Prisencolin/sh— Prisencolin ( talk) 18:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Category:People of Chaoshanese descent has existed since 2010 and survived a CFD in 2016 so the "precedent" about Chinese descent categories has not existed for very long. Further, the implied notion of "Their immediate decendents after emigration may be of "Chinese descent" is very divorced from sociological and anthropological reality... Chinese sub-ethnic communities persist long after the first generation of diaspora to a foreign country.
  • Actually, if you look at the previous four discussions in which consensus was said to have been reached. 1, 2, 3 (all nominated on the same day as the "Shanghainese" category) they were deleted more on the basis of WP:NARROWCAT rather than on the basis of the intrinsic value of categorizing by sub-national or sub-ethnic identity. There was a !vote saying "We do not generally split national ancestry categories by region (or dialect spoken), for any nation, as there would be no end to that. ", but that was met with a rebuttal pointing out that Category:American people of French-Canadian descent exists.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 20:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse nothing wrong with the close. The forum shopping, bludgeoning, and darn near close to Wikipedia:Harassment should not be condoned. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• WP:OCEGRS is apparently misunderstood by User:Prisencolin. The guideline provides a necessary condition for an ethnic category to exist, not a sufficient condition. On top of that, the discussants were not aligned (to put it mildly) on whether this concerns an ethnic category at all. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • When I presented solid evidence from academic literature which explicitly called "Shanghainese" and "Ethnicity" I had no objections to those specific comments, other than your admission that an article about the subject was suitable for the project. The only objections to whether "Shanghainese" is an "ethnicity" or "ethnic category" not only came before I brought up those sources but were also purely speculatory e.g. "But this suffers further from some misconception that "Shanghainese" is a definable ethnicity. We would never have Category:Los Angeles people of Bostonian descent or anything akin to that." (this comment itself errs in not realizing that Hong Kong was not even the same country as the mainland and remains on a separate passport/visa system)-- Prisencolin ( talk) 21:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak Endorse because the appeal is incomprehensible. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • So its seems my English is poorer than I thought... what part needs clarification?-- Prisencolin ( talk) 00:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Answer to User:Prisencolin - None of it needs clarification. It is too long, and says too little. Any further attempt to clarify or explain would just provide more syntax without semantics. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Ok.... well what can I even do to reduce the nomination message down to something comprehensible? I thought I presented my new evidence clearly and concisely enough (initially I had three additional paragraphs written but I cut that out). Admittedly the AFD discussion does seem rather hard to follow for anyone without knowledge of the subject matter as to make it not exactly clear what I'm trying to refute here.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 06:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Question - Is there a .gif on this page that displays a visual pattern that causes appellants to post walls of text that are semantically valid and have no semantic meaning? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • You may have to re-install your internet, I will mail you the floppy disk containing the software.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 00:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The nominator's rationale for deletion review was more succinctly stated in this edit on the closer's talk page which read in part:

It's clear that these people don't know what they're talking about ...

That's actually not an uncommon sentiment in CFD since there are often subject matter experts in a specific area interacting with generalists who are very familiar with category guidelines. That tension is productive though and leads to better categories for the encyclopedia since either side can carry the day. (Disclosure: I did not participate in this CFD nom but did provide feedback in a follow up nom.) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Additional new evidence: The central question of this discussion seems to be "Is Shanghainese an ethnic group?" As such some kind of neutral source on ethnography needs to be consulted. I have obtained an excerpt of David Levinson's Ethnic Groups Worldwide (1998) which was cited as an WP:NPOV and authoritative source in the nomination for an article on another ethnic group ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venetian people) :

While not ethnically homogeneous, China is dominated by the Han Chinese, who account in general for 92% of the population but com prise an even higher percentage of the population in the densely populated eastern provinces and cities. Han number about 1 .05 billion and are the dominant ethnic group in the nation. There is significant variation within the Han and important distinctions are based on region (north or south), residence (urban or rural), and dialects of the Chinese language (Gan, Hakka, Mandarin or Pei. Min Nan or Hokkien, Min Pei, Wu, Xiang or Hunan. Yue or Cantonese). Experts disagree whether the speakers of the Hakka and Hokkien dialects should be classified as Han or as distinct groups. The Han are the culturally, politically, and economically dominant ethnic group in China.

• This should be enough evidence to at least overturn the assertions of !voters that Shanghainese (synonymous with Wu) is definitely not an ethnic group. Special thanks to WP:RS for help finding the book excerpt.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 02:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It’s been a few days... are there are comments/criticisms of this source I brought up? Hopefully this isn’t overlooked during closing... Prisencolin ( talk) 04:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I don't want to ping anyone because I'm assuming all relevant parties have already seen this, but can I get comment on this new source?-- Prisencolin ( talk) 09:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Read it: there significant regional variation between Han communities, and there is not a consensus on whether some should be viewed as distinct groups. Similar claims were already presented in the original CFD nom though. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The source still says it is an "important distinction," as such we can subsume that "distinction == WP:DEFINING" for the purposes of categorization.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 00:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the outcome was very clear, and nothing has changed which would make this a valid category. SportingFlyer T· C 01:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landspeeder ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

• • I have a problem here with the closer's statement that no consensus was reached. This is not correct. The vote was 12-4 to keep. We need to adopt a new policy in which when a vote, whether to keep or delete, specially by such a margin like this one (12-4 to keep) then the argument closer should not be able to close it as "no-consensus" because a 6-6 is a no consensus, or a 1-1, even a close vote like 12-10 could be called no-consensus, but 75 percent of the vote clearly shows a consensus. Many times also, the closer who writes "no consensus" happens to be the deletion nominator, so that comment can be used to benefit the closer's desired outcome since many arguments that are closed as "no consensus" are put back on VFD months later. Antonio Bunkers Martin ( dime?) 04:02, 9 February, 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse. WP:AFDNOTAVOTE. The closer stated that they weighted arguments, not just votes. No consensus signifies that the arguments on one side, while less numerous, were in the closers opinion better than the arguments on the other sides. The closer should be commended on reading the arguments, and not just closing based on a simple vote count. Anyway, no consensus is a little different from the keep, so there is really no problem here unless anyone wants to argue for a deletion? Lastly per User_talk:AntonioMartin#Editing_other_people's_closes, editing other people's closed is a no-no. Please don't do this again (instead, a discussion here is the right choice). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• I would have closed as keep, but ultimately there is no effective difference between the effect of a keep or a no consensus closure, so no action here. Stifle ( talk) 09:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

It was a marginal case; as those advocating deletion were quite strong and convincing in their arguments, I thought NC would be more acceptable all round; plus as Stifle says, the net effect on the article is the same. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn The OP's reference to VFD shows their seniority. The discussion was also notable in getting another veteran, Lar, to wake up. WP:DGFA advises closers to "Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants." and it doesn't appear that this was done. The entire discussion was absurd as the subject is such an iconic part of the Star Wars universe that deletion was never an option from the outset. The nomination proposed alternatives such as redirection and merger rather than deletion and so should have been speedily closed. All the Delete !votes should have been discounted as failing to understand what the nomination was proposing. The Delete !votes were instead based on WP:FANCRUFT which is not a policy or guideline. The closer's view that this was strong was erroneous and contrary to WP:DGFA which states that "Arguments that contradict policy ... are frequently discounted. Andrew🐉( talk) 12:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I disagree and think "common sense and respect[ing] the judgement and feelings of Wikipedia participants" was very much done, which a close like "The result was keep" (end discussion) .... doesn't. However, for the record I discounted the following !votes following Sandstein's relist : "Keep Current sources shows WP:GNG", "Delete Fancruft Fails WP:GNG" and "Keep I've read all the arguments above, and I find myself in the speedy keep camp" (implying the nomination was somehow in bad faith). A secondary reason for deciding NC was the excessive discussion between Lar and Piotrus, which drowned out a lot of other arguments. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I'm sympathetic to the people who believe this should be "keep", but judging consensus is up to administrators. If we're going to turn it to a strict numerical !vote, a straw poll, then that concept has to be made policy. I !voted to delete. It was kept. That's the bottom line. What is the fuss? Coretheapple ( talk) 16:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The “keep” !votes are all weak. The include empty claims of meeting the GNG, and “keep” !voters listing sources have listed non-independent sources. It couldn’t be closed as “delete” because the sources were not comprehensively demonstrated to be non GNG qualifying, and because WP:BEFORE requires looking at merge and redirect targets, which I’m sure exist. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Many of the keep !votes are weak, though not all (some provide sources that while debatable, aren't weak). The delete !votes however are also mostly pretty weak (no discussion of sources, just a "doesn't meet GNG, CRUFT". Hobit ( talk) 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
    • That's true. With a little GNG-source-analysis, some "keep" !votes could have been refuted, but merely asserting that sources don't meet the GNG is weak. The nomination was strong, except that the case was not made upfront for a deletion as opposed to a merge and redirect. WP:BEFORE requires this. I recommend those arguing deletion to first try merging to elsewhere, and only come back to AfD when that is blocked. AfD is not good for forcing mergers. On my first look, I was surprised at "NC" versus "Keep", but then came to see and agree with the closer's point. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• weak endorse I'm generally loath to overturn an NC outcome, but this one is close. That said, I think NC isn't a crazy reading. The nom was on-point. The delete !votes were mostly weak, but so were the keep !votes. Eh. Numbers were heavily keep. I think keep was a better close, but NC is probably within discretion. Hobit ( talk) 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I do understand this appeal. The appeal is concise; only the AFD is lengthy, and it is the job of the closer to review the AFD, which they did. The closer concluded that the Delete arguments are essentially that it is fancruft, and that the Keep arguments are essentially that it is fancruft, and they don't agree as to what to do with the fancruft. The close of No Consensus seems correct. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

One lesson of this AfD, if there is any, is that interested persons should avoid getting involved in lengthy argumentation. It tends to cloud over the process and is helpful to no one. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• No action I cannot endorse the close as it strains the edge of plausibility discretion. However, since a no-consensus close does default to keep as Stifle describes, I think a no-action close of this appeal is appropriate. I agree that the keep position could have been stronger as the closer described, but the delete position was also on the weak side as Hobit explains. -- Enos733 ( talk) 05:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per Andrew Davidson. NC is not an immediately harmful close, even if incorrect, but if the AfD is going to be noted in the talk page, this DRV should be linked as well to provide context for the next AfD whether or not the appeal is sustained--as there will inevitably be a next AfD sometime. Jclemens ( talk) 01:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep. For the 'no consensus' close to stand, the closer would have had to provide a lot more detailed explanation why the 'keep' votes were discounted. Nsk92 ( talk) 12:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep. Ordinarily disputing the difference between a no consensus outcome and a keep outcome is a fool's errand, but this discussion invokes policy matters of consequence. The keep !voters essentially argue that the coverage of various expressions of the "landspeeder" fictional concept, both inside and beyond the immediate context of the underlying films, should be viewed collectively in assessing notability. The delete !voters argue that the coverage should be partitioned and viewed as discrete subjects. Neither argument is clearly unreasonable, and both are consistent with notability standards. The consensus as expressed in the discussion was to view the coverage collectively. For the closer to reject this consensus and preference a different reading of notability policy was an impermissible supervote; their action is therefore invalid and should be corrected. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 17:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: If this discussion concludes as you suggest, the practical effect will be exactly zero. The article will still be kept. As far as I can determine, if it has any effect whatsoever it will be to encourage more discussions of this kind after AfDs that have no practical effect whatsoever. Am I mistaken? Isn't that the bottom line here? That an admin exercised his judgment and reached a determination under the rules. Or perhaps there will be an impact, a negative one, in that admins will be encouraged to treat AfDs as strictly numerical votes, and not to use their discretion in weighing the strength of arguments. That is of course precisely what AntonioMartin, who commenced this discussion, is seeking. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• The difference between Keep and No Consensus is not zero. If the close is No Consensus then this encourages the deletionists to try renominations, mergers or anything else they can think of to make the article go away. A Keep provides some deterrent against further vexatious nominations. Though even a Keep is not a sure thing -- see Jack Schlossberg for a recent example of WP:NOTAGAIN. Andrew🐉( talk) 00:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

True. But I've seen articles deleted and then they magically reappear, so even a deletion is not a guarantee the issue won't go away. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

By the way I'm confused by your invoking WP:NOTAGAIN. That is in an essay on arguments to avoid. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply

There are other policy and guideline pages which make the same point, such as WP:NOTGETTINGIT and WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." For another fresh example, see Caroline Killeen. Andrew🐉( talk) 14:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Given that 75% of the discussion wasn't actually about the subject itself but about a LEGO model, and a lot of the comments that were about the subject were vague handwaving, No Consensus is probably correct here. I may well have closed it the same way. Black Kite (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I'd probably be OK with a 'no consensus' close if the closing admin provided a more substantive closing statement explaining their reasoning. The closing statement given in this AfD is pretty strange and rather crypric. Nsk92 ( talk) 17:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- When you take away the vacuous votes and dishonest misrepresentations of the speedy keep policy you don't end up with 12-4 but closer to 3-3 and that's definitely in NC territory. AfD is not a vote count, and arguments that policy should be modified to make it one don't belong at DRV. I'm also concerned with statements like Many times also, the closer who writes "no consensus" happens to be the deletion nominator- that wasn't the case here so even if that statement were generally true (and I've seen no evidence that it is) it wouldn't apply here. Reyk _YO! 13:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Looking through the discussion, the keep !votes are so non-source-based that I would be persuaded to recommend overturning to delete if it wasn't for the fact consensus can override our notability policies when there's enough support to keep and not enough will to adhere to our standards. The keep voters made no GNG-based argument at all. SportingFlyer T· C 14:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply