Kali Kumar Tongchangya ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I asked the closing admin to reconsider this closure, but they refused. This is obviously a complex discussion, demonstrated by remaining open for a long period. My immediate concern is that the closure is only a partial interpretation of the discussion, since there's no mention of the contributions around NPOL and presumed notability for members of the Indian Autonomous District Councils (ADCs). NPOL, like NPROF, establishes notability criteria separate from the GNG, and the closure, completely focussed on the GNG discussion, ignores the presumed notability aspect (ie, the closure does not address in any way the discussion on the status of the ADCs). Nor does the closure address an earlier AfD precedent (Dec 2022) which recognised presumed notability for members of the ADCs (AFAIK the only previous discussion on the subject). The closer mentioned WP:CCC in their talk page response to my inquiry, but the closure gives no explanation of how consensus changed from the earlier AfD discussion with regards to the ADCs/presumed notability. I do not see a consensus from the discussion; by itself, a delete interpretation solely on GNG criteria might be reasonable, however, there was no consensus on the status of the ADCs' applicability to NPOL, which would mean the no change to previous consensus, that is, membership in the ADCs accords presumed notability. FWIW, as an AtD, I also made a subsequent contribution suggesting a redirect. Thank you and regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 22:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse for a start WP:NPOL does not establish notability independent of the GNG as claimed, it is one of the additional criteria of WP:BIO, which merely indicates the subject is likely to be notable. Nor is it clear that the subject actually meets NPOL at all. AfDs do not establish "precedent", and being a member of an autonomous district council in India is not always recognised as evidence of passing NPOL (see this AfD, for example). WP:NSUBPOL, which has frequently been trotted out in support of this idea, is only an essay and doesn't actually say that they are notable at all. There's nothing stopping you from redirecting the title and since the article was a one sentence stub there isn't anything useful to merge. Hut 8.5 10:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  I advise you to see this AfD, for example which says member of an autonomous district council in India passes NPOL. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ ^{Let's Talk !} 16:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse largely per Hut 8.5. The delete/ATD voters made a solid case that WP:GNG was not met, while the keep votes made a less compelling argument that WP:NPOL was met. I would support draftification per Robert McClennon’s vote on the AFD which was not refuted by any other voter, but any editor who is interested in working on this page in draft space can go through the WP:REFUND process if so inclined. Frank Anchor 13:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I don't see this is a complex discussion at all. The closer said it all. The WP:NPOL presumption of notability is not impiercable (through concrete findigs about sourcing); see WP:SNG: "The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." — Alalch E. 14:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, noting, as another editor did, that I took part in the AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I've stayed silent on this AfD over the past month and a half, but have followed it quite closely. I am a hardliner when it comes to NPOL; I think it is one of our most mission-critical guidelines, and as such find the occasional attempts to undermine it out-of-step. As such I find myself fundamentally (but respectfully ) disagreeing with Alalch E.'s rationale above, which I think I can address with my comments at this previous AfD. All that aside, I find myself in the same camp. I am not sufficiently convinced at this being an NPOL-conferring office; in very unclear/fringe cases like this, wider community input would be desired for clarity, rather the dictations of a small handful of editors, and given that the community has been in an anti-SNG mood recently, I'm skeptical the outcome would be in favor. Curbon7 ( talk) 20:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I would like to contest the deletion of three pages:

• List of Parkruns in the United Kingdom ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
• List of Parkruns in the United States of America ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
• List of Parkruns in France ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

deleted under "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". These are long-standing pages contributed to by multiple people, not just created by one user. Parkrun is a charity, so nobody is editing here for commercial gain. Whether any promotion is "unambiguous" is up for debate and I feel this issue could be solved through normal editing.

I did request the deleting administrator, @ Jimfbleak: undelete them and allow them to go through articles for deletion if required, but my request was turned down.

Thanks all Garuda3 ( talk) 11:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Worth adding as well, Jimfbleak was not the nominator. I don't know who the nominator was. Garuda3 ( talk) 12:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse:
  • • I haven't seen the deleted material, but am guessing that it was at least as promotional as the material that has been inserted in Parkrun, much of which is non-neutral.
    • It has been my experience that I can trust the judgment of Jimfbleak as to what should be deleted as G11.
    • The "multiple people" may be meatpuppets of a non-profit organization.
    • Promotion is not limited to commercial promotion. Promotional content by non-profit organizations is also subject to deletion.
  • Allow Creation and Review of Drafts in draft space just so that the community can view the material. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Temporarily undeleted for this DRV. CC'ing User:Robert McClenon in case you want to take another look. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Extraordinary Writ. Apart from perhaps the numbers listed from the parkrun website I'm not seeing anything overly promotional on those pages. Garuda3 ( talk) 19:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Not seeing this as promotional per se, but I get why it could be viewed as such. overturn speedy, send to AfD where it will likely be deleted for issues with WP:NLIST, WP:NOTDIR and the GNG. If the closer doesn't want to list them, ping me and I will. Hobit ( talk) 20:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G11, send to AfD entirely per Hobit: NOTDIR is the biggest hurdle here, not promotionalism. I get how an editor and admin might differ on that, but speedy deletion is a rather blunt tool to solve this problem, when a more nuanced discussion is likely to be beneficial, and at the very least provide a more definitive record of why we decided not to host these here, if that is indeed the outcome. Jclemens ( talk) 21:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn there's somewhat of a degree of ambiguity here, to my mind the "unambiguous" threshold is not met. Better to be tested at AfD against NLIST and/or OKFORK. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 00:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn these might well be deleted under WP:NOT, but they're aren't G11 candidates. Hut 8.5 10:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G11, send to AfD agree with Jclemens that this is a NOTDIR case rather than a clear G11. G11 should only be used in unambiguous cases and there's enough ambiguity here. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Some of the leading prose content feels promotional, but the pages would not need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as inoffensive, encyclopedically formatted lists—in form if not in substance, as they may not meet the guidelines for standalone lists.— Alalch E. 13:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy does not appear to be a clear case of G11. Can be sent to AFD if any user so chooses. Frank Anchor 14:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G11 and Send to AFD, concurring with Jclemens and Spiderone. The deleting administrator was answering the wrong question, whether the lists should be deleted, rather than whether they should be speedily deleted as G11. The issue is one of list notability, to be answered at AFD. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Robert McClenon:: You appear to have inadvertently !voted twice on this DRV, once further up for "allow creation and review of drafts" and then here for "overturn and send to AFD". Would you be so good as to strike one or other. Stifle ( talk) 08:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and list at AFD. Clearly not G11, but seems likely to be deletable for other reasons. Stifle ( talk) 11:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  To add to that – something promoting a non-profit or charity can still be deleted for G11; "promotional" is not limited to "commercial" (and ParkRun skirts that line very, very closely in any event). I think this list is deletable under (for example) WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIR, but that is a matter that must properly go to AFD. Stifle ( talk) 08:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as nominator. Entirely promotional. Nothing but linkfarms for that organisation. Wikipedia is not a free mirror for businesses promotional content. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply

What got into you? You have some kind of personal vendetta against parkrun? Or are you incapable of correctly identifying promotional content? This speedy request was abysmal and the approving admin was lost. Probably makes sense since they were given adminship in december. Willbb234 16:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply

It’s even worse when you consider they even tagged Parkrun itself, which is indisputably notable. Garuda3 ( talk) 16:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Just for the record, the deleting admin has been an admin since 2003, not since December. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. No case for speedy under G11. There could be a case for deletion. gidonb ( talk) 21:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply