London Buses route 278 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

None of the delete votes were made after I substantially improved the article on 10 July, which saw the following sources added:

• https://www.keybuses.com/article/real-life-safety-trials
• https://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/18092493.new-bus-services-now-running-harrow-brent/
• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2fsKBAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA278&dq=London+Buses+route+278&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=London%20Buses%20route%20278&f=false
• https://ickenhamresidents.co.uk/2017/07/08/tfl-propose-new-ickenham-heathrow-bus-service/
• https://chiswickherald.co.uk/heathrow-free-travel-zone-to-be-scrapped-next-month-p12874-338.htm

Problematic sources were also removed since nomination, which was also a reason cited for deletion by @ Ajf773: (their other complaint was that sources were run of the mill, which is subjective). I believed that these sources, in addition to two already cited ( Londonist and Harrow Times now meant the article passes WP:GNG. However, I don't believe the article in its improved state was considered by many voters.

The closer, @ Sandstein:, also stated they dismissed !keep votes due to WP:AGF. I don't think it's fair to dismiss the views of editors who clearly support keeping this article, based on this policy.

For example, my interpretation of @ AlgaeGraphix:'s keep vote, citing WP:IDL was that they were responding to @ GizzyCatBella:'s delete vote. Their delete vote reads "NOTCLEANUP indeed, there is nothing useful here, just a catalog-entry for an insignificant entity." This vote does not cite any policy, but uses subjective terms like "nothing useful" and "insignificant entity". The response to me reads like those in WP:IDL, and thus I think AlgaeGraphix's comment was fair, and was not in violation of WP:AGF.

Finally, the comment by @ Piotrus: reads "It has been shortened ([1] vs [2]). I am not sure how this improves notability. Can you elaborate?". The article was shortened by another editor, and I replied to Piotrus' comment with "I have added several sources. I'm not sure why it has been shortened though, I need to take a closer look." Unfortunately, the discussion was closed less than two hours later, so I never had a chance to follow this up. Could the discussion have been kept open a bit longer to allow me or other editors to follow this up? Often controversial AfDs are relisted, I'm unsure why this wasn't the case here. The closure felt abrupt.

In summary, I would like to see this article reconsidered, as I do not believe the deleting admin and many of the delete voters acknowledged the significant improvement made to it between nomination and deletion. I also feel delete votes were improperly dismissed. Thanks for your consideration. NemesisAT ( talk) 22:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Endorse. While I haven't seen NemesisAT reply; they also forgot to ping me so. I wouldn't mind hearing more from them about what sources they added and how they meet RS/SIGCOV etc. but a relist just to continue this discussion is a hard sell; the fact remains that Sandstein is totally right that the keep votes in this nom are a joke. Nemesis' vote is a question about a notability tag, other votes are no better, including a rant about a cabal, a personal attack calling the nom a "drive by nomination", and a WP:KEEPER. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, sorry about the lack of a ping. This is my first time creating a deletion review, the discussion below didn't ping all participants so I presumed I shouldn't either. When I'm back home I will properly ping all participants. Sorry NemesisAT ( talk) 13:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi Piotrus, so I feel the Harrow Times source and the book source qualify as WP:SIGCOV. The Ickenham Residents' Association source is not from a major publication but I believe it still improves the case for notability, as it is discussing this specific route. The Buses Magazine and Chiswick Herald sources are only minor mentions, but I believe they're worth mentioning as again, it demonstrates that a wide range of people are talking about this bus route. These sources are in addition to a second Harrow Times article and a Londonist article that were already cited. Combined, I feel these sources add up to show buses running under number 278 is a notable topic, and the information in the article is largely verifiable. NemesisAT ( talk) 14:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Pinging other participants (am not sure what the protocol is here, sorry if I'm not doing this the correct way): @ Thryduulf:, @ Andrew Davidson:, @ Onel5969:, @ Jumpytoo:, @ Toviemaix:. I think I have now covered everyone. NemesisAT ( talk) 14:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

@ NemesisAT Just a small note that when I mentioned the ping, I meant the comment in the AfD, the ping here worked and thus I was summoned :) But if you want someone to reply in a given AfD, it's best to ping them there. Many people don't check for comments or replies in AfD they commented in. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak Endorse:
  • • The appellant says that they substantially improved the article after the Delete votes were made. No. They substantially improved the sourcing of the article, but the nomination wasn't based on weak sourcing, but on a lack of notability. The text of an article should speak for itself. The average reader doesn't want to look at sources, only to know that there are sources. The average reader wants to read the text of the article. The issue was that the bus route isn't notable, and the bus route still isn't notable.
    • The closer had no obligation to Relist, because the article hadn't been materially improved.
    • I partly disagree with the closer in discounting the Keeps, but it was a valid exercise of judgment by the closer, and that is what the closer is supposed to do.
    • Putting a notability tag on an article while one is developing the AFD nomination is an entirely reasonable practice.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Robert McClenon: Why is the bus route not notable? It has WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources. NemesisAT ( talk) 08:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• I remain unconvinced the article passes WP:GNG in its most recent state however I feel like relisting the AfD for another week wouldn't have been unreasonable. Ajf773 ( talk) 05:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Closer's comment: I explained in the closure why I dismissed the "keep" opinions as mostly useless. It is true that NemesisAT wrote towards the end of the discussion that they "improved" the article, but this did not sway any views, and it's easy to see why: Anybody can claim "improvement", but few editors (and certainly not I) will spend valuable volunteer time to comb through the article again and compare it with previous versions to find out what might have been improved and whether this improvement addresses the reasons for deletion. To make a persuasive case, NemesisAT would have had to explain in the AfD how they improved the article, citing the sources they now cite above, and explain why this means that the reasons for deletion are now no longer applicable. If they had done so, I'd probably have relisted the AfD. But they did not, and so I did not, and as a result I believe that the AfD was correctly closed. Sandstein 09:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• There are two limbs to Sandstein's closing statement. First, he says that the "keep" opinions fail to address the suggested reason for deletion, which is a lack of notability. I would agree that when the challenge is about notability, the response can only be to show independent sources that meet WP:RS; and the !votes in the debate don't add much value in the way of sourcing. Second, he discounts some !votes which amount to direct attacks on the nominator.
  I wholeheartedly agree with Sandstein on the second point. It's not OK to charge around AfD punching nominators on the nose, and I view the behaviour in that debate as totally outside Wikipedia's conduct standards. Andrew Dingley and AlgaeGraphix's contributions both demonstrate their need for some support and direction from a member of our administrative corps. The fact that someone nominates an article for deletion doesn't justify being breathtakingly rude to them.
  I don't fully agree with Sandstein on his first point. NemesisAT did say he'd introduced additional sources, and because this took place late in the debate, there was no attempt to analyze them. This is understandably difficult for a closer. The current fashion for constantly relisting debates isn't ideal: AfD is costly in volunteer time, and volunteer time is Wikipedia's only limited resource, so closable discussions should be closed where possible. But in this case I differ from Sandstein in that I feel the new sources were added in good faith, and to me they appear sufficiently plausible to justify a relist for the purpose of analyzing them.— S Marshall  T/ C 09:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  The fact that someone nominates an article for deletion doesn't justify being breathtakingly rude to them.- ideally yes, but historically prepending a personal attack with the word "keep" has usually been an exemption to the civility rules that apply to the rest of us. I'm glad to see this seems to be slowly changing. Reyk _YO! 10:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  It is inappropriate to make a personal attack as part of a keep !vote, but doing so does not and should not invalidate the !keep vote. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  Just to be clear, IMO the two keep votes called out for containing personal attacks didn't contain anything but personal attacks. Reyk _YO! 15:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- On the keep side we had an attack on the nominator that didn't discuss the article, another attack on the nominator that omitted discussing the article in favour of some unfunny vehicle puns, an empty KEEPPER, and one person who actually seemed to be trying to improve the article. Unfortunately the other participants were unconvinced that even these improvements demonstrated the notability necessary to keep the article. It's always a balance between encouraging improvements even late in an AfD, and just drip-feeding marginal sources just to invalidate previous delete !votes (this one I think was clearly the former) but I think the bar for chucking out !votes should be pretty high. Reyk _YO! 10:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  Hello, I understand it could have come across that way but I certainly wasn't adding sources just to try and invalidate existing delete votes. I restored this article after it was redirected with no discussion a while ago, but only added a couple sources. I should have put in more effort at that point to improve the article. I probably should have been quicker to improve the article when the deletion nomination was filed, but also didn't. I was however expecting the discussion to remain open for longer, and as already mentioned above, I had hoped the improved article would have been better considered. To me, it feels like a shame to throw out an encyclopedic article based on the conduct of a few voters over one week. Best wishes NemesisAT ( talk) 14:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  I understand that. Unfortunately I've seen people drop in a very bad source right at the last minute and saying (more or less verbatim), "I added a source. All the previous delete !votes are invalidated" as a cynical tactical maneuver. I had tried to be clear that that's not what I think you were doing. Reyk _YO! 15:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  Thank you for clarifying. I'm just passionate about public transport and feel there is a place on Wikipedia for bus routes. I'm saddened by others who cite WP:MILL, which feels like a very subjective essay, and isn't policy. NemesisAT ( talk) 15:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  @ Reyk: Even if someone does add a source cynically, the discussion should not be closed before other editors have had a chance to see whether the added material does or does not change anything. That might mean relisting, it might just mean holding off on closing. In this case there was an explicit comment that something needed more investigation to determine whether it did or did have an impact but the discussion was closed before that could happen. If Sandstein believed that change to the article did not address the rationale for deletion then they should have participated in the discussion to say so rather than supervote. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Sandstein's supervotes are getting beyond a joke. "I must discount all "keep" opinions" is quite typical of his style which fails to observe WP:DGFA's guidance to "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants." This seems to be one-way traffic. Andrew🐉( talk) 14:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comments:
  • • I concur with User:S Marshall's breakdown of User:Sandstein's dismissal of the Keep statements, and I thank User:S Marshall for analysis, and for a call for civility in AFD discussions.
    • If the Keep statements that were personal attacks (or impersonal attacks) are discounted, there is a consensus (not only a rough consensus) for deletion.
    • To address User:NemesisAT's question, the bus route is run-of-the-mill.
    • To further address User:NemesisAT' question, the AFD participants and the closer have already discussed notability and concluded that the bus route is not notable, and asking about notability at this point is relitigation.
    • When NemesisAT has reference-bombed the article, it is not feasible for the AFD editors or the closer or the DRV editors to read all of them to see which ones are said to provide significant coverage rather than passing mentions.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

WP:MILL is an essay, and I don't see how that trumps WP:GNG. We are all passionate about different things, what is ROTM to one person is important and special to the next. We have many other bus route articles on Wikipedia, I don't understand how you can propose deleting this one per WP:MILL without deleting all other bus routes on Wikipedia.

I don't believe the article was WP:REFBOMBed. It was simply improved. I took the time to improve it, so I feel a bit miffed to be honest that you suggest my work should just be deleted without further evaluation. As for notability, my feeling was the votes and close did not properly assess this, and thus I opened this discussion. NemesisAT ( talk) 15:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Relist. It is not appropriate to arbitrarily dismiss votes from one side of an argument just because they allegedly violate NPA (if an editor is making personal attacks then that needs to be dealt with independently, the manner in which an opinion is expressed does not invalidate that opinion), nor is it appropriate to close a discussion when participants have not had a chance to review changes made during the discussion. While I'm not convinced the article in its final state did demonstrate that it met the GNG that is a matter for AfD not DRV and I've not reviewed whether any of the information removed by Toviemaix would make a difference to that. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  "If", Thryduulf? Is it seriously your intention to imply that that debate wasn't full of direct attacks on the nominator? I see that one of the attackers is now doubling down by attacking the AfD closer at DRV. I invite you to consider putting on your sysop hat and dealing with the matter.— S Marshall  T/ C 15:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  My "if" was referring to the general case not just this specific discussion. As someone involved in the AfD and DRV it would not be appropriate for me to be acting as a sysop here. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - This DRV is appealing a close on the grounds of new sources, but nothing resembling a source analysis was given either in the AfD or in this DRV request. @ NemesisAT: Are you familiar with WP:THREE? Can you give the three references that best justify WP:SIGCOV? — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  Sure thing:

  • The Book of 365: All the Numbers, None of the Maths which covers the former route using number 278 in detail
  • Ickenham Residents Association post discussing the introduction of the route due to the planned Crossrail line, not a major publication but demonstrates a local angle
  • Hillingdon Times covers the introduction of the new route and how it has replaced another route, the 140, as well as the new direct link between Ruislip and Heathrow.

  I believe the wide range of coverage from various sources demonstrates notability for this route number. Thanks NemesisAT ( talk) 15:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - There is nothing wrong with Sandstein's rationale. In fact, it's nice to see an AfD close who goes beyond simply counting !votes, and actually considers policy based opinions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  There wasn't much in the way of policy based opinions on either side. One delete voter cited Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, but with no explanation as to why Wikipedia shouldn't document bus routes. Another stated "there is nothing useful here, just a catalog-entry for an insignificant entity", which is subjective and not policy based. There was also concerns raised about poor quality sources, but these were subsequently removed. I just think there was a clear consensus, policy based or otherwise. NemesisAT ( talk) 15:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn unless the long-distance telepathy implied by the closer's statement "this did not sway any views" can be substantiated. That is, just because someone doesn't come back and say "Nope, read those, they all suck, still not notable" or "Wow, what great sourcing... I agree it should be kept" there is no necessary inference that the votes have not changed. While Reyk's point about adding a single lousy reference as a "cynical tactical maneuver" is well taken, the solution to that is to treat a pattern of such AfD participation as a user conduct issue, not to imagine that a closer can extrapolate that added sources are inadequate simply because no one commented upon them. Jclemens ( talk) 18:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the Keep arguments in that discussion largely consisted of attacks on the motivations and/or actions of the other side. It was reasonable for the closer to downweight those comments - apart from anything else they simply don't constitute valid arguments. While I wouldn't strongly object to a relist, I don't think the sources mentioned really make it worth doing so. The best looking one (the book) was brought up in the AfD and wasn't felt to be very convincing, and passing mentions in local newspapers and the like aren't going to demonstrate notability. Hut 8.5 18:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn reasonable close and relist - Given the absence of useful source analysis, Sandstein's close was a reasonable reading of the AfD discussion as it stood. Nonetheless, the sources NemesisAT are of a quality that normally deserve attention in an AfD, so relisting is appropriate. S Marshall is quite right to be concerned about the behaviour of the participants he named in the AfD: I've bookmarked the AfD, and if I see any further harassment, I'll raise the matter on the AN/I dramaboard. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. Although my Keep vote was not couched in the most politic of terms, there are a number of editors who routinely advocate for the deletion of all bus-transport-related articles. Sandstein may not not be aware of the history and background of previous bus AFDs, but that in no way excuses discounting the opinions of one side and not critically assessing those on the other. AlgaeGraphix ( talk) 21:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • My reading of how discussions are closed is exactly the opposite of yours, then. I think that under our discussion-closing norms, Sandstein was required to discount your opinion. We expect sysops to disregard !votes that aren't policy-compliant; WP:NPA is policy; therefore !votes that contain personal attacks receive zero weight in the close. QED. Sandstein's hatnote says I must discount those !votes, indicating that he feels he has no discretion in the matter at all, and I don't think he's wrong.— S Marshall  T/ C 22:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

    In fairness I don't think AlgaeGraphix vote was a personal attack, rather a response to the "not useful" comment above. NemesisAT ( talk) 22:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

    • It consisted of "keep" followed by unfounded and disparaging speculation about the nominator's motivations.— S Marshall  T/ C 09:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Relist for a better discussion. (I point out we have been very accommodating to articles of this nature with no better sourcing, and if we're goin to change standard practice it should take more than an isolated AfD.) DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Relist to allow for discussion of NemesisAT's newly added sources and rewrite of the article. Cunard ( talk) 10:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• relist on the basis there are some reasonable sources to discuss. That said, I personally don't think any of the new sources listed above are very helpful for meeting WP:N. So we'll likely be back to a redirect in a week or so. Hobit ( talk) 16:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Most if not all of the keep votes were indeed discountable for failing to address the reasons for the nomination. Nevertheless, per WP:IAR, following the rules strictly should not prevent us from improving the encyclopedia – and the improvements to the article during the nomination period don't deserve dismissal out of hand. As such, Endorse but relist. Stifle ( talk) 12:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Darnitsa (pharmaceutical company) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I tried to fix the problems of the previous page, among which were called native advertising, PR, lack of independent sources, there were doubts about notability. Used sources include independent secondary scientific publications, as well as two third-party encyclopedic sources (see on References: №13 №15) that show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

The proposed text of the new version of the page you can see in my sandbox.

According the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require, I disclose my employer: Pharmaceutical company “Darnitsa”. Kirotsi ( talk) 19:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• I closed the AfD. Kirotsi thank you for the ping, and the COI disclosure. I looked at the sandbox draft briefly. It is substantially different from the version that was deleted, with more references. I can't see any reason for the draft not to be moved into mainspace, and don't see that DRV needs be involved. I think it's still quite promotional in style, and I'm not sure if would survive a second AfD, but that's not DRV's problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be moved to mainspace on the deleting sysop's say-so.— S Marshall  T/ C 15:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (to draftify). I read the AfD consensus to be “draftify”. Enough time has passed for the draftified and improved article to be boldly mainspaced if an editor in good standing believes the reasons for deletion are overcome. Alternatively, submit through AfC.

If the article had been draftified, this would be simpler. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply

User:Kirotsi has a COI, and so AfC should be used. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply

With the AfD reclosed as “draftify”, it would make it easier for an AfC reviewer to accept and mainspace it. If there is disagreement, AfD2 would be a good place to discuss it. As it stands now, a single non-COI editor is needed to mainspace the sandbox. Personally, I am unenthusiastic to engage with a foreign language WP:CORP topic, it usually involves very careful reading for judging independent editors of sources. However, the article is much better that what appears to have been discussed at AfD. Is there a native language Wikipedia article for it? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC) reply

SmokeyJoe, there is an old version in the native Ukrainian language that needs to be corrected. There is a page in Russian that I have corrected and expanded. Based on that page, I have prepared the English version. -- Kirotsi ( talk) 06:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

User:Kirotsi, thanks, that's good. I don't know if many agree with me, but in judging the notability of a foreign language topic, I take notice of the quality of the native language Wikipedia article. When reviewing I always look for it. It is helpful to link to that foreign language Wikipedia article. For articles, these links are found in the "In other languages" box, in a frame outside of the article. If it is not there, and you don't know how to add it (I don't) or it is a draft, then add the link as an external link.

If you speak the native language, I strongly urge you to improve the native language article. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Draftify Its not exactly promotional , but with an emphasis on production figures it's not encyclopedic either. Draft space was meant for this. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks to all editors for taking the time to study this request. In EnWiki, this is my first experience of recovering previously deleted pages. And I had doubts about the most correct procedure. Now I understand that it was necessary to boldly work in the draft space. Maybe I should wait until this thread is closed before submitting a page draft for review at AfC? -- Kirotsi ( talk) 06:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Kirotsi, if it was deleted, you are usually welcome to work on it either in your userspace, or in draftspace. To have the deleted article userfied or draftified, ask for userfication or draftification at WP:REFUND. Now that we are here at DRV, it is best to wait for this DRV discussion to close. To hurry up its closure, you might try posting a formal "Withdraw" comment on this DRV discussion, and go to WP:ANRFC and request closure. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Prince Philippos of Greece ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The page was originally at Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark about a decade ago (though it has been recreated a couple of times through the past years), until it was recreated recently by a user under the title Prince Philippos of Greece in 2021. The page was then expanded by me, using material from the web and incorporating some info regarding his personal life from his wife's article. I am not sure what the state of this article was back in 2011 when it was deleted but I think the admin who deleted the page today should have started a deletion discussion for users to comment on the "current" state of the article, rather than referencing a discussion that took place ten years ago, because this version of the article was fully sourced and as far as I know a page with references that are potentially reliable should not be deleted in an instant. Therefore, I ask for the article to be restored and then if users believe it does not meet the notability criteria, it can be deleted through a new discussion. I thought about asking the admin directly to restore the page but I guess securing the community's support would be the right way of doing it. Keivan.f ^Talk 04:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Oveturn G4 deletion and allow for a new AFD if desired. This has actually be deleted via G4 six times since 2011. However, the content from this most recent version is not substantially identical to the version deleted at AFD. No opinion on the merits of this article, but I don't think its similar enough to the AFD'd version for G4 to be applicable. Hog Farm _Talk 05:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Who are all these people who rush straight to deletion review instead of first consulting the deleting administrator? I am perfectly happy ti restore the article and let the editor who nominated it for speedy deletion take it to a deletion discussion if they wish to, since the deletion has been questioned. JBW ( talk) 09:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - User:JBW - Discussion with the deleting administrator is encouraged but not required, and it is not necessary to scold filing editors for not consulting the deleting administrator. In fact, if a filer is bitten for not consulting, it may illustrate that the deleting administrator is being brusque, and that consultation would not have been helpful. Some editors have said, in recent discussions, that we want DRV to be as welcoming as possible. Is that true, or is that just something that we say? Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Robert McClenon: Thank you for your comment. You are, of course, perfectly right to point out that I should have expressed myself in a more friendly way. Whether it is required or not, I think common sense says that if you disagree with something someone has done your first step should be to consult them about your concerns, with seeking third party support for overturning their action kept in reserve to be used only if bilateral agreement can't be reached. As for my manner suggesting that consulting me would not have been helpful, you are welcome to read through my talk page archives. Of course I am not an impartial observer, and you may come to a different conclusion, but my impression is that I am fairly friendly to editors who consult me in a constructive spirit. However, that doesn't detract from the fact that this time my approach was not good. Thank you for drawing my attention to that. JBW ( talk) 15:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Procedural Close - Article has been restored and is at AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC) reply