EFS Facilities Services ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Please can you restore the page that was speedily deleted as this was a new page with new sources . It was speedily deleted without a discussion 86.98.142.14 ( talk) 05:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• The content was substantially the same as the page deleted at afd, even if the press releases used to support it were different. Endorse the G4, and, given the obvious terms of use violations here, I'd have been tempted to G11 it even without the afd. As an aside, I can't remember the last time I've seen so many crossed-out usernames in a row as I have while looking at the various incarnations of this page. — Cryptic 05:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and salt, clear campaign to advertise on our site. Stifle ( talk) 09:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the closure of the AFD as Delete, regardless of whether that is what is being appealed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse of the G4, based on the statement by Cryptic that the article was substantially the same as the deleted article and that it also qualified for G11. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • It would have been a poor G11, and I don't think I'd have deleted it - but, as I said, I'd've been tempted. — Cryptic 20:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Maybe this is a prejudice on my part, but I am more interested in DRV requests filed by registered users. It is a prejudice in the etymological sense that is is a prejudgement. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• ECP SALT, and consider title blacklisting. This is a rare case where gaming of titles is being done by paid editors rather than by ultras. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and Salt would be the ideal choice. scope_creep ^Talk 14:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

There appears to be misunderstandings regarding this DRV leading to claims this is outside DRV scope. For clarity in simple terms; this is about the closing admins understanding of the discussion outcome and their rationale for closing. These flaws must be demonstrated. This is not an AfD do over. This fall squarely in point 1 of the DRV criteria.

Jill Ovens ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

There's been 23 more references added, a number of which are considered reliable sources. Based on the depth of coverage in the sources, and the number and quality of sources present, there's enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG.

A large number of the sources are self-published, either by the subject of the article themself, a political they are or were a member of or a trade union she was an official in. A large number are passing quotes where her name is mentioned in passing or she is quoted in passing. Some are lists of candidates at an election and a list of her political party amongst many others.

Additionally, as a large number of sources are offline sources they cannot be checked by the average reader While this is not disqualifying this issue is addressed by by User:Alpha3031 here.

Chris, I've taken a look at some of the sources you've added (e.g. way we were, tech subjects at risk) but there were a fair number of them. Are you able to clarify which ones you intend to be considered towards BASIC/GNG? Not being the main topic is fine, but WP:SIGCOV still says directly and in detail in the sentence before that. More importantly, is there anything that isn't composed of quotes for the subject, "she said X, she said Y, she said Z," etc? That kind of coverage is perfectly fine for filling an article out, subject to WP:PRIMARY, but it isn't the type of thing that would support a claim for BASIC. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 04:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This was not replied to in the discussion meaning that it has to be taken without further explanation from the person adding them as they are behind a complex registration wall as such they cannot be assessed or counted for or against the coverage of the article subject.

I will now go through the sources in turn and why they do not meet SIGCOV or pass GNG. This is as of this revision of the article (the version as at the time of filing this review and the same as at time of closure of the AfD).

• References 1, 4, 23, 24 27, and 28 - Self-published by political parties article subject was or is a member of
• References 2, 13 - Quoted in the articles and not the subject of the article
• References 3, 5, 6 - 12, 15 - 18 and 21, are covered by the section above and relate to the comments from Alpha3031
• Reference 14 - A blog written by the subject of the article
• Reference 19 - Reliable source where article subject is the subject of the article
• References 20 and 22 - Mention in passing simply for holding a party post and giving a quote, not the subject of the article
• References 25, 28 and 29 - purely lists of candidates at elections
• Reference 26 - interview for a blog.
• Reference 30 - A submission to a public consultation, which anyone could have responded to published by the Parliament of New Zealand as part of the routine publication of all individual responses to a public consultation
• Reference 31 - Reliable source where the article subject is the subject of the article on a local issue.
• Reference 32 - A blog
• References 33 and 34 are the same article and only mentioned in passing as someone's wife.

As such references 19 and 31 pass reliable independent and about the article's subject, the rest though do not pass or cannot be assessed for if they pass or not. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 03:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse If you're admitting there's already two suitable sources, then what's the point? This is purely an AfD-style argument not within the jurisdiction of DRV. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  What an odd thing to say, surely you need more than two sources one of which is a complaint over a dog park a genuinely minor issue and one on switching party which I’ll grant is a reliable source of significance

  come on though this feels like the bar is so low the people commenting here could trip over it.

  the justification from the closer was ‘23 new sources’ which has been shown to be absurd when the sources are drilled into as they claim those ‘23 new sources’ push the article into significant coverage and into general notability

  I am feeling like I’m talking to brick walls here with the reasons and comments from people contributing here and at the original AfD. How can this cross the thresholds in anyway of being notable enough for Wikipedia.

  On a personal note the lack of information understanding here is frustrating as it seems that anything, like as little as one thing can get someone over no matter how minor it is. Even when the overwhelming rest are just passing mentions, self publication and also mentions.

  I also have no idea what you mean by “ This is purely an AfD-style argument not within the jurisdiction of DRV.” Please explain as that comes across as dismissive when the review statement focuses on the reason given by the closing admin which is erroneous (in my opinion). PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 05:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• #26 was left out of your source assessment above, if you care. (So was #21, but that's another page of the same source as #16 and #17.) — Cryptic 05:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  I will correct this oversight. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 05:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Omissions corrected PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 05:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. DRV is a place to handle failures to follow the deletion process, not a place to re-argue the AFD because you lost. Stifle ( talk) 09:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Stifle ( talk) 09:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

This is in no way anything like your characterisation of ‘not a place to re-argue the AFD because you lost’

This is a good faith DRV (not a sour grapes thing as claimed) as the closing admin has (in my opinion) not followed the discussion and is fundamentally flawed in their closure outcome rationale.

This issue seems to be getting ignored as there is a hang up on a non-issue, which is a Distraction from the core issue. PicturePerfect666 ( talk)

09:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse and WP:TROUT the nominator for attempting to relitigate the AFD, which is not the purpose of deletion reviews. The closing admin weighed the keep and delete votes properly, though closing as no consensus would have been a viable option (and possibly a better option) since solid arguments were made on both sides. Frank Anchor 14:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The closing admin fundamentally did not follow process by building their closure rationale on faulty grounds: this being their claims that ‘23 new sources’ have pushed the article into passing GNG. This had to be demonstrated as faulty and not backed by the discussion or there is nothing to review. Simply dismissing as outside DRR feels like a misunderstanding of the issue at hand here. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 14:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

WP:BLUDGEONing the process will not help your cause. You made your point, consensus disagrees. It’s time to move on. Frank Anchor 16:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

This is not bludgeoning, please do not make bad faith assumptions...this is purely explanation. I am feeling like i am not being taken seriously here and that I am being held in bad faith...when the exact opposite if true. Please engage with the actual substance as opposed to pondering the motives of the contributor. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 18:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

This is not a bad faith assumption, it is blatantly obvious bludgeoning, defined as when a user replies to many "!votes" or comments, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart many comments from others with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote". They always have to have the last word and may ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view. This seems to be exactly what PicturePerfect666 is doing. Further, this person is assuming bad faith by accusing me of WP:BITING. I don't consider a user with several hundred edits and and a very well put together (though in my opinion incorrect) DRV nomination to be a "newcomer." Frank Anchor 20:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Are you suggesting being a newcomer therefore means you can't be competent or string an argument or sentence together? It is more about understanding the culture and how things work, not being intelligent or competent at drafting an argument. You have no way of knowing my real-world occupation. Simply having something well put together and well written does not negate if a new user is a new user. Also a 'few hundred edits' compared to thousands and thousands by others such as yourself who has nearly 23,000. Pales into dust when it comes to understanding the culture and how processes work. Coming in and stating how dare you respond and accusing of bludgeoning and not understanding how things work (when this falls in criteria 1) is not a helpful way for a new user to learn. If you think I have done wrong, be helpful not a hindrance. Provide constructive feedback, not carte blacnhe dismissal.

I also find you pushing this bludgeoning schtick as something which getting beyond bad faith now as it feels in my opinion you are effectively saying 'shut up and get lost, how dare you reply to things more than I or other would like', with no consideration whatsoever give to the content. Also, save the line of 'well there you go you must have the last word', please engage with me on the substance instead of being dismissive.

I have not seen any arguments which counter what I have posted it is simply 'the original admin was right' without explanation, other than the erroneous 'relitigating the AfD', which I have shown and demonstrated to be false. Also, the users stating that have not given reasons why this is so-called 'relitigating the AfD'.

I also note the actual substance here is still being wholly ignored as this issue goes to the heart of the closing rationale and understanding of the closing admin applied to the discussion.

Please I beg of all of you to engage on the substance here of the issue at hand instead of focusing your efforts in dismissing me for some reason. No wonder I feel like this is bite the newcomer. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 22:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I could say something about how engaging in process properly is required for one to be effectively heard, but I feel as though it would again be dismissed as personal preference. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 01:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Surely, given your experience, you can recognize that there's a distinct difference between badgering and engaging in process @ Alpha3031. Hey man im josh ( talk) 01:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, and if you look at their talk page I tried to discuss it with them, Hey man im josh. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 01:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

No worries @ Alpha3031, I understand your comment differently now after a reread and your response. Hey man im josh ( talk) 01:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ PicturePerfect666: @ Frank Anchor said that they did not consider you a newcomer and that you competently put together this DRV. However, you seemed to have missed that. Replying to every single comment in a discussion and making bad faith accusations (as you have against me, Frank, and Drmies on your own talk page) is not productive. Telling everybody who disagrees with you that they don't understand policy is not productive. You've refused to accept that some people disagree with you on the weight of the sources and the bar that must be met for GNG. It's fine to disagree, but you've, in affect, implied that no one but you or Alpha are competent and that everybody else is wrong. I don't care if you think you aren't bludgeoning the discussion, you have been by every definition. So I urge you to consider dropping the stick. Disagree with others if you wish, but allow discussions to take place without every comment who disagrees with you being told they're wrong. Hey man im josh ( talk) 01:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I am not sure I should be reply to this as I might just get told i am one of the colourfull descriptors for 'shut up you are replying too much'.

To begin with please see this contribution here. Which shows I have replied to Frank..so please withdraw that part of your above comments.

Please withdraw this line that you have pushed over and over which is false. "Replying to every single comment in a discussion" Also this is patently false "and making bad faith accusations (as you have against me, Frank, and Drmies on your own talk page) is not productive. I am making no bad faith assumptions against anyone, I just think you are wrong and I want to know how you came to your outcome. I do not think you are a bad person or acting in bad faith, I just think you are wrong. I in no way think you are 'acting in bad faith'. I am also not going to have a third party discussion regarding the mens rea of myself when talking about a third party or the mens rea of a third party.

This line is also false "Telling everybody who disagrees with you that they don't understand policy is not productive." I have not told anyone they do not understand policy here. I am simply stating that they have failed to see this falls within the scope of DRV. There was also no explanation byy anyone who has said this is "relitiigating the AfD" how it is. It is just an assertion repeated without explanation.

I am making no claims of competence or lack there of. All I am saying is it seems that there is by a lot of the replies here (except Alpha) with no response to the substance at issue. It now seems Alpha has got you on the substance as opposed to me the contributor. Which is nice to see.

This line "You've refused to accept that some people disagree with you on the weight of the sources and the bar that must be met for GNG". This is nothing to do with me 'refusing to accept others disagree with me'. I know for a fact people do disagree with me. By you saying that you are basically saying I am not allowed to reply to others too much or beyond what you or others consider a certain quota.

This sources being something which pushes into SIGCOV or GNG is also not something you have addressed when questioned about it. You are simply not engaging with how you think the sources meet the threshold. You have simply gone 'they do.' Which you are not explaining. You are simply saying I think it does therefore it does. Please go in to more dept than that.

You surely must see the frustration when you are asked about how these sources you claims (The 23 new sources) push this into SIGCOV and GNG. This could have been avoided if you had explained that and explained why you closed as keep on the deletion closing. More than one user has said that a no consensus would have been more appropriate than keep.

I urge you to answer the substance of the discussion as opposed to focusing your colourful descriptors of 'you talk and reply to too much' at me. When is too much replying too much in your opinion? and what is the reply quota? PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 02:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I am feeling a lot of this all round from the people replying here; biting the newcomer. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 18:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Those who do not agree with you are not are not, by default, being WP:BITEY. You have felt the need to "explain" to every single reply on this review and at AfD, which is completely unnecessary and pretty in line with the definition of badgering. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I disagree with your assessment. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 19:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Hey man im josh, I don't believe the 23 added sources were substantively reviewed in the AFD. Was it your own assessment that they met GNG? Alpha3031 ( t • c) 00:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  There is, in total, 34 source, but that 23 I mentioned was just the additional sources added by @ Kiwichris. Most of the keep votes actually came in before those were added and some of the existing sources also contribute to the claim to notability, so let's not fixate on that specific number that keeps being brought up. Hey man im josh ( talk) 01:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  My question was not intended to be about the number, rather whether your assessment was based on what was substantively discussed at AFD, or the improvements made to the article. Given that, on a reread (I thought the close was on the 9th) there were comments a few hours before and even, in one case, two hours after the close, I believe that is also a factor that should have been considered. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 01:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Hey man im joshare you going to answer this?... this goes to the heart of the frustration I have here. You have seemingly been quick to answer me on other points but not on this fundamental point of the reason you used to close the AfD. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 17:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I would urge PicturePerfect666 to be considerably more succinct and avoid the temptation to respond to every single argument. It is quality not quantity of argument that carries the day here and prolix walls of text will not receive a high weight from the closer. Stifle ( talk) 09:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I can't see that this could have been closed as consensus to delete. Possibly no consensus, but re-closing a keep decision as no consensus changes nothing material about the outcome and is just process for process' sake. Even in their opening statement for this review, the nominator accepts that the article contains two reliable sources with significant coverage, which is at least a reasonable case for notability, and would make the close a reasonable one on its face; arguments to the contrary are re-litigating the AfD rather than reviewing the close. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 14:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the closure as Keep. The Keep arguments were both more numerous than the Delete arguments and more detailed and guideline-based. A closure of No Consensus would have been valid, although in my opinion Keep was better; but a close of No Consensus would not have been materially different in its effect. Maybe the appellant mistakes length of argument for strength of argument. Does the appellant actually think that arguing with every post will actually change enough !votes to change the outcome of either an AFD or a DRV? (It didn't work in the AFD, and it isn't working in the DRV.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - A caution to the appellant advising them against vexatious litigation may be in order. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Without having done more than skim the article, and barely more for the afd, I think this might have gone over better if it had been a new afd and argued a bit differently (and more succintly!) - perhaps along the lines of "We just kept this, partly on the basis of a late rewrite that wasn't adequately examined. [source assessment from above] There's good coverage in exactly one reliable source among those, and an extremely local matter raised in another. Given the unsuitability of all the other references, we can't accept the offline sources as being enough, at least unless someone else is able to look at them and verify their quality." — Cryptic 20:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment to User:Cryptic - Yes, but.... If they had filed a new AFD, someone would have argued that the existing AFD should be respected for 90 days. They could have submitted a differently worded DRV, asking for a Relisting of the AFD for the reasons you have listed. But that would be using precision tools rather than a bludgeon. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  That sounds like an excellent way forwards which i was not aware could be done I thought you could only overturn these things not re-open them. Re-opening it to examine the sources is like a perfect way forwards PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 22:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment - My Endorse of the close is unchanged, but we should, as an Ignore All Rules action, either:
  • Allow a new AFD for the analysis of sources,
  • Relist to allow the analysis of sources.
  • That is, it doesn't matter whether we call it a new AFD or more of the same AFD.
  • However, the appellant should be topic-banned to be limited to discussion of source reliability. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  I am happy to agree to this PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 16:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Personally, I think I would have closed this discussion as "No consensus" but it would have resulted in the same outcome as a "Keep" which is the article would not have been deleted. I respect that well-intentioned and experienced closers can have different opinions after reviewing the same discussion. PicturePerfect666, I have read this DRV request, the AFD and your talk page and what you interpret as editors asking you to "shut up" is actually advice from experienced editors saying that you will have more success here if you are less confrontational. It's not that politeness is more important than policy just that part of your job in discussions is persuasion of other editors to see your point of view and hostility and accusations (hypothetically) can cause other editors to tune out the points you are trying to make. We are all human beings after all and even should you have policy on your side, you still need to effectively interact with your fellow editors which requires some diplomacy rather than insisting you are right. Just my 2 cents. Oh, and the more you participate in AFDs, the more you will see that sometimes consensus goes against you and sometimes it doesn't. Articles I thought were garbage have been kept and others I thought were promising have been deleted. It's not fair but that's the system we work within. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Endorse both "keep" and "no consensus" would have been reasonable interpretations of that discussion, although in the latter case relisting for further examination of the sources would have been reasonable too. I also strongly endorse the comments regarding PicturePerfect666's bludgeoning of this discussion and note that sanctions are possible if it continues. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Give over and leave off the pile on will you please. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 21:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Because several editors are making the same observation about your behavior, it is not a "pile on". If you could step away for a moment from arguing for what you want to happen, you might consider that they may have an accurate view of the situation. No one is infallible, not me, not you, and sometimes people who disagree with us actually have a clearer view about what is going on than we do, especially something as complex as Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you can't accept that sometimes you are wrong, then collaborative editing may not be for you. I've been editing for over 10 years and I still get criticism. Sometimes it's wrong, sometimes it's right. You just try to keep becoming a better editor. That's Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't need any more people telling me the same...this it getting to the point of enough already...the irony of your blocks of text on the same issue when I have been sworn off doing that. This is genuine flogging a dead horse territory. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 15:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

If the supposedly dead horse continues to bray, they may be a different species of equid and still alive. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

This is very true, and you will notice how little I contribute in the bocks I used to. I appear to think that I may come out of this better. PicturePerfect666 ( talk) 21:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Keep, and no, a no consensus would not have been a reasonable close based on the discussion. To the extent that anyone thought NC would have been reasonable, I think that they were likely paying too much attention to repeated challenges by the nominator... without noting that those did not generally cause change in bolded !votes. Jclemens ( talk) 08:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply