Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing
speedy deletions and outcomes of
deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "
Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the
instructions below.
if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be
renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
(This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per
this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
to point out
other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
to challenge an article's deletion via the
proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been
protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise
prohibited content will not be restored.
Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
Check that it is not on the list of
perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a
PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.
1.
Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:
{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 May 26}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 26}}</noinclude>
If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 26|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the
established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the
appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the
Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
*'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{
TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the
policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a
consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the
appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be
closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
If the decision under appeal was a
speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the
appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at
WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
(Note, this refers to the
4th nomination from April 28, 2024.) The nomination for deleting the article made a claim of
WP:NOTDIRECTORY but didn't include any explanations to back up the claim (and multiple previous nominations already rejected that claim). This goes against
WP:AFDFORMAT: "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." In addition, most of the comments were a combination of
WP:PERNOM and/or
WP:JUSTAPOLICY. This also goes against
WP:AFDFORMAT: "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments." Of the few arguments that were made, most referred erroneously to digital IMAX theaters, which weren't even part of the list and were actually called out in the intro paragraph as being excluded from the article (making it clear the commenters didn't even know what was in it). Therefore, the deletion was based on a flawed nomination, flawed votes, no real debate, and arguments against something that wasn't even in the article. Which means per Wikipedia's own guidelines, there was no solid basis for deleting it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jonovitch (
talk •
contribs) 00:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oops, sorry I forgot to sign -- thanks for adding that.
Jonovitch (
talk) 09:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse There was a very clear consensus to delete there, and this couldn't have been closed any other way.
* Pppery *it has begun... 01:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The consensus was entirely
WP:PERNOM and/or
WP:JUSTAPOLICY, which clearly go against Wikipedia's guidelines. Should those votes not be discarded? And if they are discarded, what's left? I'm sincerely asking; I don't understand why a decision can be made based on those votes.
Jonovitch (
talk) 09:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
OwenX: backed up that decision with this one, and now this decision is being backed up with that one -- circular logic. And both of those decisions ignored the multiple previous "keep" decisions where the same arguments were repeatedly considered and rejected. Why were the many previous "keep" decisions ignored while the single "delete" decision gets reinforced (even though it's full of problematic
WP:PERNOM and
WP:JUSTAPOLICY votes)?
I understand some people don't want this article to exist, but I and others did provide several policy-based reasons why it meets Wikipedia requirements and guidelines. Here are a few of them again:
1.
WP:NOTDATABASE says, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." The article's intro paragraphs provided context for the data in the list, plus explanations and definitions, with references to independent sources.
2.
WP:N says, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." IMAX 15/70 film theaters have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources for decades (also the new laser variants more recently). In the last year they have become even more notable, due to Oppenheimer and Dune 2. Countless news stories across the globe pointed out how these theaters are notable because of their technical superiority to regular theaters, immense size, unique aspect ratio, and rarity. The many citations in the article were from verifiable sources -- some from news articles, some from theater websites (for raw data purposes, not editorializing), and only a very small handful from the IMAX corporate website (again for data, not editorializing).
3.
WP:USEFUL says, "a cogent argument must be more specific: who is the content useful for, and why?" The different types of "IMAX" theaters (and the IMAX Corporation's lack of clarity) leads to a lot of confusion among moviegoers. The article was useful because it helped confused moviegoers understand the differences between the types of IMAX-branded theaters, it showed them the technical specifications of why one type of IMAX is superior (or inferior) than another, and it included this information in a list sorted by geography, so moviegoers could find which (if any) of the superior theater formats was near them.
4.
WP:LISTPURP says, "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list." Point 3 above explained why/how the structured list was a valuable source of information for moviegoers.
5.
WP:NLIST says, "a list topic is considered notable ... if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." The topic of IMAX 15/70 film theaters (and the newer laser formats) have been discussed in many independent news articles; a couple of specific examples were linked to in the other discussion (but apparently were ignored). Because the group is notable, the list of items in that group is valid.
6. Whenever
WP:NOTDIRECTORY came up, commenters asked the person who made the claim to explain how the article fit that guideline. Nobody was able to do so. But commenters repeatedly explained how the article isn't a directory. The arguments for deletion based on this point (which are most of them) seem to be a case of
proof by assertion.
(Note, none of the above falls under
WP:MUSTBESOURCES -- there are independent sources. The article cited many of them, and more could have been added if it hadn't been deleted. Because there are plenty in existence to choose from, this falls under
WP:NEXIST.)
Sincere question: The votes to delete were
WP:PERNOM and
WP:JUSTAPOLICY, which go against the policies and guidelines. The article itself did meet the policies and guidelines. So what else is needed? Or what am I missing?
Jonovitch (
talk) 09:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
What's needed is for this DRV to be closed as out of process because you have erroneously nominated the wrong deletion for discussion, when you should have nominated the deletion from the
last AfD (which is not the AfD here discussed), as it is the only close which can actionably be challeged. Nothing can happen out of this DRV, it's a big nothing. —
Alalch E. 19:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I may be partially to blame for this – at the most recent AfD, I suggested that DRV was more appropriate than recreating the article under a new title. Sorry if that led to confusion over which AfD should be the basis of a deletion review.
RunningTiger123 (
talk) 20:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse The close was correct and reflected consensus. I haven't seen the article, but I do think the deletion rationale is potentially wrong - I think it meets
WP:LISTN after a very cursory before search, and I'm not sure
WP:NOTDIRECTORY actually applies if it could be fixed with contextual editing - but I can't fault the deletion discussion here.
SportingFlyerT·C 04:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I would normally temp undelete, but it had so many revisions it needed a steward to delete, so I'm not sure it's possible. If someone else knows that it is, please do so.
StarMississippi 12:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It doesn't need a steward to undelete, but you do need to repeatedly partial undelete it in chunks of only a couple hundred revisions at once or it times out. The real problem is that it would need a steward to delete again once it exceeded 5000 undeleted revisions. It's a significant hassle on both ends. —
Cryptic 14:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse as the only possible outcome. (involved as the closing admin of the subsequent AfD for essentially the same article.) A closing admin may discard a !vote when a participant relies on an irrelevant policy or guideline, e.g., "Delete per IDONTLIKEIT". The closer may not discard an otherwise valid !vote when they disagree on a factual assessment, which is what the appellant is asking us to do here.
WP:NOTDIRECTORY is, prima facie, a relevant policy. Whether the article falls under this category or not is a question of fact, where the closing admin may not overrule a unanimous consensus with a supervote.
I also see no merit in appealing an AfD that was already relitigated the very next day, under a slightly different title, in a failed attempt to game the system. The appellant, who participated in the subsequent AfD ("AfD5"), is a "sleeper account", created in 2008 but with a total of nine edits before being awakened by a Reddit call to arms.
Contrary to the appellant's claim, I did not "back up" AfD5 based on the closing of AfD4. I mentioned AfD4 in my lengthy closing rationale, but AfD5 was closed on its own merits. Similarly,
Star Mississippi isn't backing up her decision with the result of the subsequent AfD, but merely pointing out the futility of appealing a decision that has already been relitigated. There is no "circular logic" here, just a clear, consistent, correct application of AfD policy.
Owen×☎ 11:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry about the back and forth, I know this has gotten messy. I'm trying to raise the right questions in the right place.
1. Here and in the other discussion, I showed how the votes of
WP:PERNOM and
WP:JUSTAPOLICY clearly violated the guidelines in
WP:AFDFORMAT, and how the votes introduced arguments that were irrelevant to the article being debated. Because of this, per your explanation above, shouldn't those votes have been discarded by the closing admin? I have yet to hear an explanation why those votes were valid. So I ask again sincerely, if they went against policy, why were they not discarded?
2. Additionally, I and others asked many times how the article fails under
WP:NOTDIRECTORY, the primary claim in both discussions. That question was never answered; the claims were only repeated (which goes against
WP:JUSTAPOLICY). I and others rebutted those (and other) claims using Wikipedia's own guidelines to back up the rebuttals. Further, we used the policies and guidelines to positively show how the article did meet requirements (see the direct quotes from the policies above). So how was the article just a directory? And why were the rebuttals and evidences ignored, even though they were based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Both of the above issues appear to be
proof by assertion, "in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction and refutation" and asserted as fact "solely due to a lack of challengers." But the claims were challenged and refuted using Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. What more is needed?
Lastly, attempts to dismiss arguments from a "sleeper account" (or other people making arguments, regardless of where they came from) goes against
WP:ATTP. Please speak to the arguments and questions regarding the policies and guidelines, not to the people making the arguments. Thank you!
Jonovitch (
talk) 18:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, but you did not show those !votes were irrelevant to the article being debated". You are asserting that they are incorrect. The two are very different. As I explained above, one is a question of policy, while the other is a question of fact. It is perfectly valid to argue whether or not the article met
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Both for- and against- arguments are relevant to a discussion about an article that at least at first blush looks like little more than a directory. Neither argument may be discarded in such a discussion. The WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY arguments you keep bringing up are a part of an essay, not a policy. They provide excellent advice on how to conduct oneself in an AfD, but you cannot use this essay to demand an otherwise valid !vote be discarded. You have yet to present a policy-based justification for discarding all !votes in that AfD.
I join you in lamenting that no one made the effort to educate you and others on why the article fails under WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but that is not the purpose of AfD. Had you and your fellow Keep voters been here for the bona fide purpose of writing an encyclopedia, I'm sure you would have found the answer by now. Alas, it is very clear from your contribution history that you are
not here to write an encyclopedia, which is why I brought up your record as a dormant, now-single-purpose account. Wikipedia has a low tolerance for people trying to use it as a
free web hosting service, not to mention for people engaging in
off-wiki canvassing to sway the result of discussions. If you have a legal background, I'm sure you're familiar with the
unclean hands doctrine. This type of behaviour will make it very difficult to find a sympathetic ear here. At this point, you are not only wasting everyone's time in an appeal that has already been identified as moot, but you are also squandering the little goodwill we may have had towards your cause.
Owen×☎ 19:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You're mixing up my words, and making up a few others. To clarify, I showed how most of the votes were
WP:PERNOM and
WP:JUSTAPOLICY. In addition to that, I pointed out that three of the nine votes referred to digital IMAX venues (which were never part of the list!) -- those were the irrelevant arguments I referred to. I then asked (not demanded) why the votes weren't discarded, because you stated above that a closing admin may discard votes that don't align with policies and guidelines.
It's true, I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia (though I have been registered for a long time and I use the site frequently). The few edits I've made were mostly to practice how to do it, and I've been trying to follow the directions I've been given and go through the correct processes here. So while I might not get everything right, you're completely wrong about me not being here to write an encyclopedia.
WP:NOTNOTHERE
I learned about this article's deletion by chance. I'm not a regular contributor to Reddit and only a sporadic visitor there. When I happened to see the post, I ignored it at first and didn't read it until a few days later. Then I took the time to understand the situation here before finally joining the discussion, doing my best to follow the rules, and pointing out where it appeared others failed to do so.
My motivation is simply this: I've used the information in this article in the past, I found it very helpful to research the technical differences and geographic locations of the different types of IMAX venues, and I'd like to help others who have the same questions and confusion that I did.
As a side note, I've been critical of IMAX as often as I have praised it. I'm not a fanboy, and I don't get anything out of this. I ask you again to refrain from speculating about my (and others') intentions. I'm trying to play by the rules here, and your hostility isn't helping.
WP:AGFJonovitch (
talk) 06:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural close as moot. The challenged deletion is not from the last AfD. The last AfD was
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors. When there has been a later AfD for a given topic, DRV can not produce any outcome other than a declaratory outcome. For this reason, there is no chance of success, as overturning the close of the here challenged DRV can not result in undeletion of the page—being that the outcome of the later AfD is determinative and can not be bypassed—and therefore, the DRV should be closed.—
Alalch E. 17:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
To be honest, when viewing both AfDs together, there's not really a consensus to delete. Simply endorsing the close here is going to lead to an awkward result, as even though it looks like the community has definitively said we shouldn't have an article on this topic in the second-to-last AfD, the most recent AfD is a clear "no consensus," even with the canvassing, as clearly non-canvassed participants have noted the NOTDIR reason doesn't necessarily apply (and I could make a valid LISTN argument had I cared enough to participate, as was done in the second discussion). I'd argue there needs to be some sort of path to allow something on this topic to get back to mainspace.
SportingFlyerT·C 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think part of the issue is the group that came from Reddit - no judgement, just stating the origin - wants this to be in index of either kind of IMAX and seem to be under the impression that more "X Theatre has an Imax" helps, when we know that coverage of the kind of IMAX and maybe why they're predominant would be better to make the case. Aside from WP:ITSUSEFUL, I'm not actually sure this list as constructed is useful to anyone because neither the article under discussion at AfD4 nor 5 wasn navigable nor well organized. It probably needs to be chunked and re scoped. I think this could be incubated in draft space if @
Jonovitch or others are willing to. That unfortunately does not seem clear right now.
StarMississippi 02:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm totally willing to rework the list, since I agree it was a bit unwieldy in it's most recent format. I also agree that adding more IMAX types/venues doesn't necessarily improve the list, and can actually reduce its value. Here are my thoughts, if I were to rebuild it (whether from scratch or from a restored article):
I'd definitely include the Grand Theater format venues (15/70 film and dual 4K laser, in 1.43:1 aspect ratio on massive screens, often standalone locations). These are the rarest and most notable.
I lean toward including IMAX Dome theaters, since those are also rare and unique.
I'd of course exclude the crappy digital "LieIMAX" venues (dual 2K digital xenon projectors in multiplexes).
If only to avoid the arguments that the list is just a directory, I kind of lean toward excluding the "IMAX with Laser" venues (single 4K laser projectors in multiplexes). I might experiment with putting these in a separate section, so as to more easily distinguish between the types of venues.
I'd of course include an intro with definitions and an explanation of which types of venues are included and excluded.
I'd experiment with listing the venues first by type (15/70 film, dual 4K laser, dome, maybe single laser?) and then by geography.
I'm not sure what the next step for this would be, and I might need some help with Wikipedia's editing syntax (I'm learning as I go), but I'm definitely willing to try this route.
For what it's worth, as I stated elsewhere I'm not an IMAX fanboy (and I only sporadically visit Reddit), I just found this article to be very helpful and I'd like to help others.
What are your recommendations? What's the next step? What pitfalls should I avoid and what concerns should I address?
Jonovitch (
talk) 07:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Initially deleted as an
WP:R3, despite clearly not being eligible under that criterion, subsequently undeleted and redeleted under
WP:G6 which it likewise does not qualify for, a rather clear
WP:!G6 actually. As an
Template:R without mention its retention at RFD is highly questionable, but the community should have the chance to weigh in on this one. Deleting admin has not responded to the request for undeletion in some time, as such I am bringing this here.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (
talk) 20:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn and send to RfD. I correctly guessed who the deleting admin was before I clicked the link. Her out-of-process speedy deletions, as well as her brusque, dismissive responses to being questioned about them, make regular appearances here at DRV. G6 is not a catch-all "I think this doesn't belong here and I have a Delete button" tool.
Owen×☎ 21:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy overturn as we don't need 7 days here, just the 7 days at RfD, which is where it belongs as this is clearly not uncontested. Disappointed with the deleting admin's response to the IP's reasonable request.
StarMississippi 21:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Questions - What was this a redirect to? But why isn't the appellant logging on?
Robert McClenon (
talk) 21:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Dynamic IP who frequently participates around here if this is the editor I think it is.
Citizendium, to which it pointed for 16 years.
StarMississippi 21:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Because I don't have an account. I would not call myself a DRV regular by any stretch, but when admins refuse to overturn improper speedy deletions after being given reasonable time I list therm here per procedure.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (
talk) 21:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy overturn another out-of-process deletion. Support sending to RfD procedurally from DRV.—
Alalch E. 21:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Undelete all the history and send to RfD.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Undelete and send to RfD as above. And are we really seeing a deletion by Deb here again? They've shown up here far more than they should.
* Pppery *it has begun... 01:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy overturn grossly out of process G6. Send to RFD if desired. FrankAnchor 02:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I don't see a statement by the closer,
User:Deb (but she has been properly notified).
Robert McClenon (
talk) 15:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I think the redirect should be restored and kept, because I think that the subject should be known as that.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 15:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Send to RfD I might have done this myself. Probably worth updating what G6 is not to make it clear G6 shouldn't be used for this.
SportingFlyerT·C 20:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
afds are not popularity contests, they are not headcounts. they are based on the strength of policy based arguments. Yes the headcount here is very clearly on the delete side but a small local call does override long term wider policies. The first three delete comments here were based on the fact that this was an unreferenced blp. Once references were provided these three become moot. they are no longer valid and closers should dismiss them. After sources were provided we saw two delete comments. The first was a boilerplate comment from Tim the made a vague wave at wp:sirs which is a policy related to companies which is clearly irrelevant here. The next from Bearian was a vague wave at common outcomes where common outcomes do not actually mention nationally broadcast radio hosts. Neither is a valid policy based call for deletion and neither make any relevant comments on the sources provided. Since no one was made a relevant counter to the presentation of relevant sources claiming GNG pass there is no way this should have been closed delete. Uncomfortable based on headcount then relist asking for discussion of sources or close no consensus. Instead we have a close based on guessing what the previous voters may have thought if they had come back for another look [
[1]]. Sorry but afds are not decided on what someone might have had in mind but did not say. They are not decided by guesses by closers. Lets actually look at evidence provided during discussions instead of ignoring the fundamental idea of afDs were the D stands for discussion not for dismissing sources without analysis. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Duffbeerforme (
talk •
contribs) t12:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse close per essentially
User_talk:OwenX#Caroline_Tran_afd. The earlier comments don't become moot just because Duff declares them so. Editors could have returned to revise them following Duff's !vote, but they didn't. If you think you have a case, request the draft and improve it with the sources. It wouldn't be a G4 and you could bring it back to mainspace
StarMississippi 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse largely per StarMississipi. Adding that not only did any of the “delete” voters not change their mind after sources were presented, but two additional “delete” votes came in after the fact with one referencing the sources as not meeting
WP:SIRS. Allow restoration as draft if Duff or any other user wants to improve upon it. FrankAnchor 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse discussion was clearly to delete, and the sources presented don't make me think an obvious mistake was made.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse as clearly the best closure even based on the case made by the appellant:
Of the five Delete voters, two did their own searches, and two voted after the appellant provided their sources. Even if the one who said that it was an unsourced BLP (presumably because it was an unsourced BLP) is discounted, that leaves four. There was no need to Relist. There was a consensus to delete either after the appellant's sources or after searching for sources.
Temporary undeletion is not necessary, but I would be interested in seeing a temporary undeletion. I might want to do a source analysis, but it isn't necessary.
I am sure that occasionally, maybe very occasionally, when an appellant says that AFD is not a vote count, the appellant really has the stronger case than the majority of participants. However, when I see an appellant say that AFD is not a vote count, it usually means that they are saying that they wanted the closer to
supervote.
There was no need to Relist, and we would be overturning a Keep.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 21:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Request temp undeletion. Was the nom misleading with “completely unsourced”? —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Allow userfication/draftification and recommend attempts to overcome the deletion reasons follow advice at
WP:THREE. The sources listed in the AfD are worth looking at.
The discussion could have been relisted for detailed examination of new sources, but deletion was well within admin discretion.
I note that the article began as a 2004 stub, with a source. I also not that the article content did not contain information from the new sources listed at AfD, that the article never had good sources, and that
WP:TNT applies in my opinion.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 00:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment to
User:SmokeyJoe - Good question. The nominator was correct in saying that the article was completely unsourced. The external link to the subject's web site was removed at the end of December 2023 as a dead link.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 02:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment to appellant - The references that you have added are malformed, and cannot be viewed by reviewers. So the version that you had updated still did not satisfy
BLP guidelines.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 02:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I am trying unsuccessfully to have discussion at
the DRV talk page about Speedy Closes for troublesome nominations.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 04:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:G4 excludes "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". Guidelines on the notability of companies and organisations (
WP:SIRS) are not relevant, user essays (
WP:THREE) are not guidelines, and there is no requirement for sources to be linked or available online. Without access to the sources I don't know if they are enough, but the positions of the inline citations within the text suggests they don't verify much, and would not be enough for an article; when the article was deleted it still had no source cited for most of the content.
Peter James (
talk) 09:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse Peter James is quite correct. Even so, I did attempt to find these sources online without success. I know that DRV is not a second pass at AFD, but even so I did cast a wider net and went looking for other sources. Searches are complicated by the fact there is a Caroline Tran (born ~1986) in Australia involved in the fashion industry. What I did find are
primary sources such as
this. Maybe there is enough material out there on which to base a BLP, but I'm not finding it. Duffbeerforme, I think your best bet is to have this draftified, and work on it over time, trying to establish better sourcing to support this BLP. The article being deleted at AFD doesn't mean it's never going to exist. There's no deadline here. --
Hammersoft (
talk) 11:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse per Star Mississippi.—
Alalch E. 17:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This category was deleted for reasons I can't understand (and with no debate discussion at all) because dividing occupations up - particularly athletes - by populated is something normal. Request recreation.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 13:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
For smaller cities certainly. But Monterrey is not a small city.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 17:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Again, not a category expert, but if it were re-created and populated, how many notable individuals would be covered?
Jclemens (
talk) 18:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Baseball-Reference lists 7 major league players born in Monterrey
here, so at least that many. There might be others who are notable despite not reaching that level, but I'm not sure how to find out.
Hatman31 (
talk) 16:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Hatman31, that's current players. There are almost certainly more former players from there. There are also other baseball sites which list beyond MLB players too, like those who played before integration of MLB in the Mexican League as well as minor leaguers and so on.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 18:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The link I posted includes both current and former MLB players.
Hatman31 (he/him ·
talk ·
contribs) 21:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Good catch. I skimmed through it so my apologies.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 09:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It's a very old, poorly attended CfD, but my sense is that it would still be an
WP:OVERCAT.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SportingFlyer, there are at least 300 "Baseball players from *city*" categories and similar number for footballers, basketball players and so on... so deleting this particular one is rather strange. In fact, I was quite surprised there WASN'T a category for a major city where baseball is a popular sport.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 22:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Question - There were two DRVs a few days ago about categories (one of which has been dealt with), and I left them alone because I don't know enough about categories to take an informed part in a
CFD discussion or a review of a
CFD discussion. But I can see that this has to do with a discussion that took place nine years ago. If a DRV is about an
AFD discussion that took place several years ago, we usually don't review the discussion, but advise the appellant to create a draft for review, or to create a new article subject to a new AFD. Do changes to categories that were discussed several years ago come to DRV, as this one has done? If an editor recreated a category that was deleted nine years ago, would it be tagged for
G4? I know that categories have their own procedures and logic. Is DRV the review for a nine-year-old category discussion, or can that be reworked by category creation and a new CFD?
Robert McClenon (
talk) 00:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Robert McClenon, I'm not fully sure myself about Cfd procedures (I'm new to myself) but I was told this was the correct way for deletion review. If this Cfd were run today, it would have had more participation and, if recent Cfds are any indication, this category would have been kept.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 09:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I didn't particularly want to bring this here, since procedurally the close is sound. The AFD was left listed for the full 168 hours (and 9 minutes), and I'm sure, were I inclined to speculate, I could come up with a way a reasonable admin closer could have closed the discussion the same way. There were some last minute comments, but not being a stale discussion ordinarily would certainly not be grounds for an overturn or relist. My mistake for not nomming it on a weekend.
That said, I believe the
discussion I had with the closer patently does not meet the standards set out by
WP:ADMINACCT, which non-administrator closers are
also expected to adhere to. I won't tell you more than that I followed the rules and used the arguments raised in the discussion. is clearly not in any way, shape or form a justification, in my admittedly biased opinion. Additionally, while it is not the role of the closer (nor this review) to remedy a defective discussion, I believe (again, admitting my strong bias) any administrator exercising reasonable judgement would at least note the fact that a self-published book, as added by 扱. し. 侍. would not be considered a reliable source, and state whether they relied on that accordingly, if not instead relisted or left their own comment. That one of the others added a source that prominently displayed "Marketing Content" (תוכן שיווקי) at the top near the byline, is perhaps beyond the scope of a reasonable closer, applying an ordinary degree of scrutiny.
In my opinion, at minimum, even if the result is endorsed, this should be re-closed by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, and the closer advised not to do so in future. I am instead seeking a relist, or leave for an immediate renomination.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 11:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Here we are. My closure was not based on the book or the Marker source, as the nominator might think, but on a deep coverage provided by other reliable sources (including VentureBeat, Forbes staff, Globes, etc.) which were added during the discussion. I don't see a big issue in closing the discussion by the administrator as the nominator is biased and for some reason always mentions the weakest sources on the page. WP:BEFORE is a good rule and it must be followed. Not long ago, I nominated a page without a thorough review of sources and I was ashamed by the community. So, I was super attentive and skeptical in evaluating the sources of the page.
BoraVoro (
talk) 13:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
removed from the page the self-published book and the Marker paid placement source (I didn't count on them while closing the discussion anyway).
BoraVoro (
talk) 13:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You are not required to analyse the sources, as the closer. You are, however, required to furnish an explanation of your process, as requested, and as you have done so now.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 13:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I see your point. As I mentioned before, I followed the discussion and based my decision on it. The arguments seemed valid, but I did look at and analyze the sources to determine if they are reliable, though I was not required to do so.
BoraVoro (
talk) 14:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That's fine. I'm happy to withdraw at this point, and have this closed per Owen's suggestion, provided you take to heart the feedback provided (which it appears you have) I think the explanation you provided here is meets the required standard, and if you chose to close XfDs again after a bit more experience, would be the type of thing we would look for, with a bit more back and forth to hash out the details, for example, on the appropriate level of scrutiny.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 15:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Alpha3031 thank you so much! I completely agree with you and please accept my apologies for my unprofessional response on my talk page.
BoraVoro (
talk) 05:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Allow early renomination. The Keep !votes carry very little weight, which isn't surprising, seeing as they come from inexperienced users. One Keep was made by an account now used primarily for voting on AfDs, with a grand total of 52 edits to their name. The lone "per nom if not A7" Delete was also weak. A competent admin could have discarded all but the nom, and relisted to get more meaningful participation. As it stands, this is essentially little more than a contested PROD. Both the closing rationale and the closer's response above reads very much like a supervote. The closer's job is to weigh consensus among legitimate participants, not carry out their own source analysis.
Conduct aside, I can't fault the NAC for being duped by what superficially appears to be a clear consensus, so I don't think an outright overturn is called for. I also don't want to relist the same AfD, already tainted by weak !votes. A fresh AfD in a month, closed by an admin (or by an experienced, competent NAC, if applicable), is the way to go here.
BoraVoro would be well advised to stay away from closing XfDs until they gain more experience, and perhaps just as importantly, learn how to interact with fellow editors. This type of dismissive tone in response to a legitimate query is incompatible with administrative actions.
Owen×☎ 13:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Allow early/speedy renomination per OwenX. Relisting this is not going to give the best chance of achieving consensus so a new nomination in a few weeks would absolutely be a better choice, to start afresh so to speak. I also agree with Owen's comments that it was an inappropriate response to the talk page query about XfD by the closer, and support his advice regarding the closer staying away from XfD closes for a while. (While DRV is not a conduct forum, the nature of a response by a closer on a talk page is something that definitely falls within its purview.)
Daniel (
talk) 22:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your feedback. I have already admitted and apologized for my inappropriate response on my talk page. I hope my actions won't disrupt the Wikipedia community and guidelines anymore, and I will stay away from XfD for a while. It was a good lesson for me.
BoraVoro (
talk) 05:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Allow early renomination. This looks like a
UPE spam infested AFD. The article itself has hallmarks of UPE and the keep voters have similarities in behavior too. The same happened at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whiteshield with basically the same users. I ended up blocking the users concerned as UPE sock/meatpuppets.
MER-C 17:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This podcast page definitely deserves to be restored. It was one of the biggest podcasts of the 2010s. How could it possible not meet notability standards?
Nokia621 (
talk) 18:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy endorse - no policy and guideline based argument has been provided. You could try to make an actual argument based on the availability of coverage in reliable sources.
Overturn Strike bolded !vote by nominator First of all, the
original deletion had this argument: "Barely found anything about the podcast. Search results return only passing mentions." If you want to talk about baseless arguments, start there. The podcast was deleted from all major platforms due to a major controversial comments made by Dawson in several episodes. This was discussed by
Business Insider,
The Evening Standard,
The New Zealand Herald and many more. When the podcast did air from 2013 to 2017, it was incredibly popular.
USA Today credited him for partially reviving the podcasting genre in 2013. In 2015, iTunes featured the show in their
"Best of 2015" podcast list. It is definitely notable enough to be restored and the original deletion (with 3 people deciding) had completely baseless arguments.
Nokia621 (
talk) 19:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That all appears to be coverage of Dawson himself primarily. Meanwhile, you seem to be misconstruing a Medium blog with 907 followers
[2] for iTunes itself (and we generally don't report on single-vendor listings,
WP:SINGLEVENDOR) signed, Rosguilltalk 19:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The Medium blog was copying what iTunes Podcasts put on their page. I'm not misconstruing.
Nokia621 (
talk) 19:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Because the 2015 Best of iTunes list was in their iTunes app, never on a site.
Nokia621 (
talk) 19:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In regards to single vendor, Spotify didn't even have podcasts until 2015, so there's few lists available. iTunes was one of the only providers and Soundcloud doesn't have lists. It was however on the
Fullscreen app which is another platform, which he had an exclusive video deal with.
Nokia621 (
talk) 19:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy endorse. The minimally-attended AfD was closed as Redirect in July 2021. Since then, the appellant has been edit-warring, trying to restore the version prior to the AfD. The only reason they finally came here to DRV is that
Rosguill correctly indef page-blocked them from that battle zone. Had they come here earlier, or presented new sources on the Talk page, I would have gladly considered a new discussion. But under the
unclean hands legal doctrine, I refuse to entertain any petition coming from this disruptive editor relating to this or related pages. Not that they seem capable of mounting an argument better than, "But how can it not be notable?".
Owen×☎ 19:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You're factually incorrect. I had started this deletion review before he indefinitely page-blocked me. You can literally check the UTC timing. Also, you left this comment 1 minute after I gave a long explanation of why it is notable. So instead of insulting by calling me incapable of mounting arguments, why don't you fact-check your own lies?
Nokia621 (
talk) 19:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No, Owen is correct about the timing. As you should know, and
can be seen from your block log, you were blocked at 09:56, 20 May 2024 EDT. You opened this DRV at 15:02, 20 May 2024 EDT. I later corrected the block, which I had initially intended to be indefinite but was instead implemented as 24-hours (which would be silly, for an edit war spanning over 3 years). Arguing that the block post-dates your actions here is pretty transparent
wikilawyering. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for admitting you did a temporary ban at first. Once again confirming that Owen was lying about this debate starting after being "indef page-blocked" (his words). How am I supposed to read your mind and know the 24 hour ban was an initial "mistake"? No offense, but you're gaslighting me to the max. And considering I don't read your mind, please don't read my mind saying my actions are "transparent", because you are way off-base.
Nokia621 (
talk) 19:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yet another DRV appellant who did not even bother discussing with the closer (me) before rushing to file here. I'm also going to speedy endorse (as closer) per Owen and Rosguill.
Daniel (
talk) 22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Good close. No deletion has occurred, so unless you are challenging the close, this is out of scope of DRV. If you want to revisit the matter, essentially wanting to re-
WP:SPINOUT the podcast, propose it and seek consensus on the talk page of the redirect target. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse OP hasn't said anything policy-based and seems unlikely to do so.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse, except that this doesn't allege any error by the closer. Either Redirect or Relist would have been valid closes, and in 2021 a case could be made for overturning the Redirect to Relist. But, as per OwenX, the appellant has been edit-warring since then, and has passed up any chance to ask for a Relist.
DRV is not AFD Round 2, but the sources are garbage, so that the article should not have been Kept.
The redirect has not been locked. An editor in good standing may submit a draft with good sources for review to
Articles for Creation. The appellant is not an editor in good standing with respect to this title.
DRV is a content forum, but the appellant is engaging in
personal attacks, for which a real block may be in order.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 01:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
User:Robert McClenon, regarding your 2nd dot point, it is irresponsible to advocate for any editor to create content forks in draftspace. This is not productive, much more likely will be a waste of time for all involved, and as with all content forking, it creates attribution hazards.
Content on the Shane and Friends podcast is located at
Shane Dawson, and per consensus evident in the AfD, that’s where it belongs. If new good sources are found, they should be added to
Shane Dawson, and then, if a
WP:SPINOUT is warranted, it should be proposed at
Talk:Shane Dawson. Only then fork to draftspace if that’s the unlikely consensus on
Talk:Shane Dawson. Do not just fork to draftspace alone and in silence.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 02:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
User:SmokeyJoe - I have reread the guideline on
content forks, and I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. I have requested opinions at
Village Pump (policy). I don't think that a draft and content that has been replaced by a redirect are pages of the same type, but we shall see what other editors think.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 06:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. No deletion to review, and spinning a page back out after a redirect does not need to come here; it can just be taken forward by building a consensus at the article talk page.
Stifle (
talk) 08:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This was closed as "merge" but there was no actual consensus to merge. Neither side provided any clear guidelines to back up their position, and the numbers were equal. This should have been a "no consensus"
* Pppery *it has begun... 16:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Pppery, for this one, the keep !votes referred (implicitly) to the deprecated
WP:SMALLCAT guideline. The nom referred to
Wikipedia:Categorization by saying it's not useful for navigation, which I felt was reasonable enough. —
Qwerfjkltalk 17:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
"Useful for navigation" seems like a wholly subjective term to me, not a basis in which one can declare one side or the other right.
* Pppery *it has begun... 17:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Pppery, yes. This matter comes up fairly frequently at CfD; it would be nice to have some community consensus. —
Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It would indeed be nice to have such community consensus. But until that happens, would you be willing to revert your close and relist the CfD, so we can speedily close this DRV?
Owen×☎ 18:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
OwenX, I don't see how relisting will help here, that's just kicking the can down the road. A no consensus closure, I could agree to. —
Qwerfjkltalk 13:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A different can down a different road. Reverting your own close will allow an admin to close it in a way that better reflects consensus, or let it run for more views. You're not compelled to self-revert, of course. But it looks like this DRV is headed that way anyway, so the dignified thing to do would be to allow an early close.
Owen×☎ 13:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn, bad close. Consensus was to Keep. Insufficient rational, with
User:Smasongarrison’s “for now” and “can be recreated” rendering hisher !vote very weak, begging the question of why is she creating this
busywork.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My apologies. I originally misidentified you, and became befuddled. My advice for nominators is that they should make a strong case in starting an XfD discussion. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 00:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Knowing SmokeyJoe, this would have been a total accident, and I'm sure it will be fixed once seen (ping @
SmokeyJoe:) so we can focus on the review itself.
Daniel (
talk) 23:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Regardless, I don't see the point of calling me out for this argument. There is an entire essay on this
WP:Merge for now.
Mason (
talk) 23:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the link to the essay. I had never seen it before. I participated in many CfDs long ago, and I think that it suffers from excessive fiddling, busywork, and that “for now” fits that impression. I suggest that you change “for now” to “until when”. Give your audience something objective to respond to.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 00:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
SmokeyJoe, it's until there's enough articles to populate the category, which may well be never. —
Qwerfjkltalk 13:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn per Pppery. I will note that there's absolutely no reason to call out the nominator for this one, there just wasn't consensus.
SportingFlyerT·C 03:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it proper to call out weak nominations. Weak nominations often lead to trainwrecks, even if there’s a good underlying case.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 05:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The nomination was fine at the time it was made. The problem was the closure that didn't reflect consensus, not the nomination itself.
* Pppery *it has begun... 05:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Although I'm clearly biased as the one called out, @
SmokeyJoe, I think there were more constructive ways to say that the nomination could have been more compelling. However, I think that you made your argument less compelling by conflating two issues and implying that my efforts were pointless busywork. None of which was related to the closing itself.
Mason (
talk) 22:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don’t think “for now” conveys confidence. I feel it conveys hesitation. I had no idea that it was a term-of-art. I have raised my thought at
Wikipedia talk:Merge for now#For now.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 22:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Interesting. Your perspective is one that I hadn't considered. So I appreciate it. I was not aware that perceptions of confidence or hesitation were things to be considered in a CFD. Or that acknowledging that the facts may change is a bad thing. I think it merely acknowledges that this situation for the category could change and that the the nominator is not opposed to revisiting the facts.
Mason (
talk) 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There's at least one valid opinion in this DRV to overturn to Keep, so we can't just short-circuit the process unless SmokeyJoe changes their mind or this turns into a WP:SNOW situation. I appreciate you trying to build consensus here and close this sooner, but the best way to do that would be to revert your own close, and let an admin re-close or relist. There's no loss of face in taking your name off that CfD. On the contrary: the ability to admit one's mistake and promptly correct it is highly valued, and often comes up on the "Support" side at RfAs. As for an RfC, you are welcome to start one at any time.
Owen×☎ 14:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
“No consensus” is certainly defensible. An immediate RfC, no.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 15:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Personally, I'm fine with non consensus, and agree with Owen that this reverting the close might be easier. I'm not sure what an RfC would do because we had one relatively recently one that ended in a snow for not reinstating small cat.
Mason (
talk) 22:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Is there some reason I shouldn't close this as no consensus now? Or have I become too heavily
WP:INVOLVED to do so? The problem with CfD is that for a very long time there have been very few active admin closers so most discussions are closed by non-admins, and the discussion is now in limbo since the bot that processes old discussions doesn't deal with new discussions from months in the past being reopened.
* Pppery *it has begun... 16:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No objection from me.
Owen×☎ 17:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Pppery, I don't think expressing an opinion on my closure should disqualify you from closing it yourself; I, at least, have no problems with it. —
Qwerfjkltalk 18:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Whilst not a contentious topic, I believe that the the non-admin closer closed the discussion with insufficient evidence and rationale. At first, the closer did not provide a rationale and upon asking for one
[3], they stated "The noms contention that this was a "run of the mill event" is not accepted"
[4]. Upon inquiring even further pointing out that I had cited multiple policy-based guidelines, they simply stated that they had nothing to else add. Whilst there were no votes supporting a delete, I believe that, either, at the very least, the discussion be relisted to provide a clearer consensus and be closed by a more experienced editor or admin, or the result be overturned as I believe that the closer did not correctly interpret the results.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 10:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse There is unanimous consensus to keep. Skyshiftertalk 10:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:CLOSEAFD, Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. The strength of the arguments given depends more than the number of votes cast on either side.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 10:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is slightly misleading. Although there weren't any delete votes in the first AfD, there were merge votes.
[1]
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 10:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
And you ignored the first AfD result and renominated it for deletion again...The first AfD closed less than a month ago.
Desertarun (
talk) 10:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that that was my fault for renominating it as I didn't know that a renomination should normally take place after six months.
At the same time, you closing the first discussion as keep with four in favour (including a sock) vs three favouring a merge is contentious as both sides provided strong arguments.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn This AFD was not properly closed and the rationale for closing is not valid. -
UtherSRG(talk) 11:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak endorse. Firstly, renominating within a month of the previous Keep AfD puts the appellant on weak footing here. I believe them when they say it was an honest mistake, but in cases of rapid renomination of a substantially identical page, I think a closer may look at the views in the previous XfD, and determine consensus based on both (or all, if more than two) AfDs combined. This is the natural and most effective way to discourage the type of tendentious litigation we see in some perennially nominated pages. In our case, this would lead to a clear consensus to keep.
Secondly, while no policy forbids it, I find it in poor taste for the same closer, admin or not, to close two subsequent XfDs for the same page, especially in such rapid succession. I'm not saying Desertarun has any bias here, but the appearance of impartiality, and the opportunity to give another closer a chance to examine consensus, are also important. Looking at the second, appealed AfD by itself, I agree with the appellant that the Keep views are exceptionally weak, and do little to refute the nominator's P&G-based concern. I would advise the non-admin closer to either relist such marginal cases, or to leave them for an admin to close.
Owen×☎ 12:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Having closed a discussion, there will be a bias to close the same discussion repeated, the same way, especially if there is no substantial new information or arguments that make the second close a reevaluation of the first. This makes the closer INVOLVED forever, or at least for a long time, on similar questions on that topic. If WP:INVOLVED doesn’t say this, it should.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 00:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I fully agree, hence the weakness of my endorsement.
Owen×☎ 13:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It would be nigh on impossible for the admins that close many AfDs per week/month to remember everything they'd previously closed. So changing WP:Involved as mooted would be giving a stick to disgruntled users.
Desertarun (
talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think I'd remember if I closed an AfD about the same page three weeks earlier. And I do check the prior AfD links to make sure I haven't been involved in any recent ones about that page. Are you claiming you forgot you closed the the previous AfD? If so, admitting your mistake would be the honourable thing to do. "Giving a stick" to editors who find a flaw with the AfD process is exactly what DRV is all about.
Owen×☎ 20:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. There was a clear consensus to keep. Everything was done correctly. The closer stated that the nominator's rationale was "not accepted" (by consensus), which is fine. This is not a BADNAC, as the non-admin closer has not demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, the outcome was not a close call or likely to be controversial, the non-admin has a lot of experience editing Wikipedia generally and
has had much previous participation in deletion discussions, and the result did not require action by an administrator. Maybe something about this close could have been better but NACs don't have to be absolutely fabulous to stand, discussions don't have to be fabulous for NAC to be applicable when they're entirely one-sided and can't be closed any other way, and DRV is not about technicalities and not about through-expermentally workshopping could-have-been optimal closing statements and sharing thoughts about what ideal closes by which preferred closers would lead to our satisfaction.—
Alalch E. 13:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't understand how the given rationale is fine. Saying that the result depended on one of my arguments not being accepted doesn't exactly make sense. In the discussion, I provided multiple policy based guidelines demonstrating why the article should be deleted. But because one of my arguments which was that the event was a
run-of-the-mill was not accepted means that my entire argument is now baseless?
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 13:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
An AfD is not a formal debate. As consensus, not merely being right is needed to delete, your initiative to delete the article failed through a lack of consensus to do so. Since no one even !voted delete, but multiple people !voted keep, the outcome can not be "no consensus" and can only be "keep". Relisting would have been inappropriate as there was a normal level of participation and the comments were not "lacking arguments based on policy". An argument that the page is not
WP:NOT, for example, is not an argument not based in policy in an AfD. An editor can ignore complaints that notability isn't met and say that the page is suitable for inclusion as being within scope, citing NOT, and that is a perfectly policy-based argument to keep. If you cite a guideline that says that events about "common, everyday, ordinary items" may not be notable, and someone says "no, this is not a common, everyday, ordinary item", that's a policy-based argument. Try with a more complete nomination next time that in addition to
WP:LASTING also includes
WP:INDEPTH and
WP:GEOSCOPE, and explain why some sources may be unreliable and why those that are reliable lack in-depth coverage etc., and also explain how
WP:GNG isn't met. —
Alalch E. 14:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I too can also ignore the fact that the article was not
WP:NOT and cite guidelines that it fails. That too is a policy-based argument against a keep.
And just saying that the article should be kept because of the number of deaths is not a policy-based argument, nor is saying that an article should be kept because another one has less deaths. Arguing against someone saying that the article is not
run-of-the-mill and demonstrating why it is
run-of-the-mill is also a policy-based argument. If users do little to refute issues cited regarding policies and guidelines, where does that leave the result?
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 14:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You said, I too can also ignore the fact that the article was not WP:NOT and cite guidelines that it fails. That too is a policy-based argument against a keep. That is correct, and indeed, no one here is claiming that your arguments are not based on policy or guidelines. The fact that no one refuted your argument does not, by itself, automatically turn your legitimate view into a supervote. Here at DRV, we often get appeals that essentially boil down to, "Everyone except me was wrong!". The problem with that is that even if true, that still leaves your opinion alone. We do not delete an article based on a single, contested opinion, except in the clear cases spelled out in
WP:CSD.
Owen×☎ 14:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not trying to make my views equal to a supervote but the problem that I have is with the closing rationale since it is implying that the discussion was closed as keep because one of my arguments was not accepted even though there were plenty other of arguments.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 16:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The AfD was closed as a Keep because no one other than you suggested it not be kept. The fact that you're still arguing about it tells me you aren't clear on our basic principle of
WP:CONSENSUS.
Owen×☎ 16:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse per Alalch E. Perfectly fine NAC, entirely obvious consensus.
Jclemens (
talk) 16:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse per Alalch E. No error in the close - also not a bad NAC. The nomination was based on
WP:EVENT and
Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. While WP:EVENT is a guideline, it is not, by itself an exclusion criteria - as a subject can still pass GNG and merit an article. WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay. In this case, as GNG was not questioned. While passing GNG does not mean an article must be created, the question in an AFD is whether a stand-alone page should exist. Since the other participants all said that the subject was not an ordinary event (a policy-based argument), keep was the only appropriate outcome. --
Enos733 (
talk) 16:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse completely normal AfD here, with complete consensus to keep. Furthermore I do not see any particular reason to delete which was ignored by the participants.
SportingFlyerT·C 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse as the correct reading of consensus to Keep. I would have !voted Keep on account of
significant coverage of 23 lives lost, but DRV is not AFD round 3.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 20:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse.
WP:SLAPUser:Aviationwikiflight for
renominating too soon after an AfD consensus to not delete, and doing so without a better nomination that last time, noting that they !voted in the first AfD and therefore were aware of it.
Desertarun (
talk·contribs) should not be closing an AfD on the same topic twice, after closing once you are forever WP:INVOLVED in that topic. I would have requested speedy closure at
WP:ANRFC, and !voted “speedy close as too soon after the AfD1 consensus to keep”. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but per One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. if an admin would not have been INVOLVED based on a closure, a non-administrator cannot be presumed to be involved based on performing a NAC as a pseudo-administrative action which should, by virtue of what a NAC is, require less evaluation and opinion formation. Thus, not INVOLVED.
Jclemens (
talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
NAC-ers are especially prone to unconscious bias. They should not repeatedly close AfDs on the same article.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 12:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this is a reasonable opinion to hold. I don't think it's addressed, let alone required, by current policy. Have I missed something? If not, I'd certainly be up for saying INVOLVED should be construed exceptionally broadly for NACs, and would support that. I just don't think it's current P&G.
Jclemens (
talk) 01:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm with Jclemens on this. "Forever INVOLVED" seems a bit extreme. Involvement is a function of the depth and nature of interaction, and the time elapsed. We'd be running out of admins very quickly if closing one of the many WP:NSKATE AfDs would instantly and forever disqualify you from touching any of the others.
Owen×☎ 21:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Forever, is extreme. Three weeks is short. I would have done as I said. If it remains unclosed after a week at ANRFC, and you address the notion of possible repeat bias, that would be ok. I reckon.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 12:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No action I can not go as far as endorsing an
WP:INVOLVED NAC, but this is the correct result. There was unanimous consensus (outside the nominator) to keep this article. FrankAnchor 10:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse The appellant has acknowledged their error in renominating so quickly; the next step should be to drop the matter and move on. Also, whether or not it is prohibited by policy, I'm not comfortable with two NACs by the same editor on the same article in such rapid succession. But the close was technically correct.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 01:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree, it’s rather odd they’re still fighting to have it deleted even though vast majority have voted to keep it.
Alex Hoe (
talk) 14:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I still stand by my opinion but I accept the result of the AfD.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 14:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse My opinion has not changed since the last two attempted deletion attempts, the value of the cargo plus the high number of fatalities due to accident.
Alex Hoe (
talk) 12:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't believe this closure was appropriate. I provided legitimate points to clarify the raised issues to keep the page, there are as many "Keep" same as "Delete". None of the votes for "delete" replied to the comments. I recommend this AFD be reopened.
12eeWikiUser (
talk) 09:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy endorse as a bad-faith appeal. The appellant says, there are as many "Keep" same as "Delete". That is an outright lie. Even going by nose count alone, there are two Keeps and four Deletes. We could go into the weakness of those two Keep arguments, but I don't think DRV should entertain dishonest appeals even if they have merit, which this one doesn't.
Owen×☎ 10:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Couldn’t have been closed any other way.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 13:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse clear consensus to delete. However I do not believe this DRV was made in bad faith. FrankAnchor 17:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Do you believe the appellant got mixed up when counting "Keep" and "Delete" !votes? It strains credulity to think this is anything but their attempt to misrepresent facts.
Owen×☎ 17:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I believe it is most likely the appellant discounted some delete votes for unstated reasons. I don’t agree with that assessment if that is the case. FrankAnchor 17:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse - The only possible closure. There is a strange question about how and whether to
Assume Good Faith. Is the appellant misstating the numbers of Keeps and Deletes, or is the appellant unable to count, which is only a
competency issue?
Robert McClenon (
talk) 23:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict) I think we've completely missed here. The close was absolutely correct based on the discussion, but I'm convinced we've deleted an article on a notable topic. I can't see the deleted article, so it's possible it was written promotionally, and some very experienced editors participated at this AfD, so I understand I'm arguing up hill here. Still, I did my own
WP:BEFORE search and not only do I not see any promotional sources (the Nigerian ones I've found so far wouldn't count because they're interviews, but he's clearly being interviewed as an expert - and he worked in Nigeria, so it's not surprising that he'd be discussed there), I think he pretty clearly satisfies
WP:NPROF with many published articles, many references to those articles in books, and international press coverage (probably routine). AfD is getting a lot more difficult as fewer people participate and we've always had issues with notability outside specific areas, especially with African topics. Perhaps the deleted article's not worth restoring, but I think he's absolutely notable enough to write an article on, so even if this is endorsed I have no problem if someone wants to write a new draft here.
SportingFlyerT·C 23:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
If anyone thinks he is notable, request draftication and follow to advice at
WP:THREE.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
NPROF requires substantially more citations--by academics in academic RS--of the subject than would be seen for the average professor in their subfield, and for Dr Basinga I believe it is TOOSOON. He had one quite well-cited first-author paper, but NPROF C1 needs several extremely highly-cited papers. FWIW, I ran my Scopus metrics test on ~100 of his senior-research-position coauthors who had 15+ papers (to exclude those who are not in senior researcher/professor positions and thus not comparable for "average professor" purposes):
As you can see, Dr Basinga is not well above the average professor in this high-citation-rate field (he publishes alongside the likes of
Agnes Binagwaho,
Megan B. Murray, and
John Owusu Gyapong), so his notability needed to be assessed via GNG and that was also found lacking. In the course of running my test I did come across a few red-linked researchers whom I believe do qualify for pages through C1:
Françoise Portaels (19364 citations, h-index 73), Susheela Singh (14609, 60), Janneke van de Wijgert (8715, 50), Sodiomon Sirima (7649, 50), Ayola Akim Adegnika (6833, 44), and Joanna Schellenberg (12180, 62), among others.
JoelleJay (
talk) 05:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you JoelleJay, I am now satisfied. I apologize for being too desperate for not deleting the page, I am happy to learn about NPROF test I did not know much on it.
12eeWikiUser (
talk) 09:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. There was a consensus to delete for lack of notability and promotion.—
Alalch E. 11:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This was speedy deleted out of process. The admin who performed the deletion has defended it at
User talk:Pppery#Elephant population with their opinion on the merits of the redirect, and while I disagree with their opinion admins don't have the right to push the delete button because of their opinions but instead by must follow standard deletion procedures.
* Pppery *it has begun... 23:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn clear mis-application of G6. Not a “technical deletion” in any way, shape, or form. It can be taken to RFD if anyone desires. FrankAnchor 23:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Background - This page was created with the text;
It was recently confirmed by reliable source(s) that the elephant population has increased dramatically. This source says that the elephant population in Africa has tripled in the last six months and that if the population continues at this rate of increase, in two to five years the earth will be overrun by these giganic mamels. in that case, the source believes that elephant hunting will be legal soon. "it is only a matter of time," says source," Until congress will pass the law for elephant hunting and even promote this dangerous sport. Looks like my stash of ivory wont be illegal for long!" source exclaims with the sparkle of triumph in his eyes.
The Kato institute reports elephant populations have indeed increased despite liberal allegations. In a study by renowned palientologist Howard Berkman it was revealed that in the last 6 months there has been a 600% increase in the rural West African Great White Tusk elephant. For more see
http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html
As this was clearly nonsense, it was tagged for speedy deletion. The proper procedure at the time would have been to just delete the page. However, there was instead a common (though very much 'out of process') practice of making indefinitely protected redirects, since these had the added 'benefit' of preventing recreation. As such, the page was redirected to
Elephant and indefinitely protected "for now". That was clearly always meant to be a temporary solution, but got lost in the shuffle. Eighteen years later I removed the protection and deleted the page. To me, this seems like a standard G6 maintenance issue... finally implementing the proper / intended solution. Further, in the 18 years of its existence, no article on the site ever incorporated this redirect. It simply doesn't make sense to type 'Elephant population' to get to 'Elephant'. Thus, I feel the page should remain deleted... based on both 'benefit' to the encyclopedia AND process. --
CBD 00:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Like your earlier claim that "we don't have redirects from <title> <word> to <title>", your implication that "no incoming links from articles" is a reason to delete is simply untrue.
Close to two thirds of mainspace redirects have no incoming links, and this argument is explicitly called out at
WP:RFD#KEEP #2. —
Cryptic 00:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn, and optionally List - Even if this had been done six months after the redirection, it would not have been a non-controversial maintenance deletion. The existence of a concept of non-controversial maintenance implies that there is also controversial maintenance, and this is controversial maintenance, and can be debated at
RFD if there is a nomination.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 01:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy undelete and list at XfD, which should be immediately done on any reasonable request by and user in good standing. If there is anything to debate, the forum for the debate is XfD. If the allegation is that an admin is repeatedly misusing speedy deletion, that’s another matter. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 13:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn The cited text is fictitious and ludicrous, but because it can clearly be understood by a
reasonable person to be exactly that... it's not nonsense. But nor does G6 apply. Great candidate for a non-speedy process.
Jclemens (
talk) 13:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Close with no action. What exactly is the remedy sought by the appellant here? I agree that G6 was incorrectly applied. But what do we gain by overturning it? A wiki search for "Elephant population" gives
Elephant as the sixth result. This isn't a plausible typo, although after 18 years, it's clearly not a recently created one to fall under R3. Yes, it shouldn't have been summarily deleted out of process, and no, we don't need that redirect back just to be re-deleted at RfD. At most, I'd go for a half-hearted TROUTing of the deleting admin, along with a quiet Thank you for trying to save us the trouble of a pointless XfD, and get back to more important matters.
Owen×☎ 16:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The remedy sought is it to overturn the deletion, undelete the page, and allow anyone who wishes it nominate it at RfD to do so. I would have thought that was obvious. And I am not convinced this would have been deleted at RfD in the first place. This ends-justify-the-means reasoning is contrary to deletion policy, and you can't IAR around it either per
WP:IARUNCOMMON since this logic appears to apply just as well to anything any admin personally thinks would likely be deleted at a deletion discussion, which is a common scenario.
* Pppery *it has begun... 22:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Undelete and list at XfD puts the situation back on the track it should have been on, and provides a clear example to observers, and gives re-education to the admin misapplying G6.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In Victor Hugo's last novel, Ninety-Three, a sailor risks his life to secure a loose cannon on deck, the cannon that he himself failed to secure earlier. The captain awards him a medal for his bravery, and then proceeds to execute him for dereliction of duty. My question is, must we revive this redirect just to kill it again? The G6 was wrong, and IAR doesn't apply here, but DRV is a content forum, not a disciplinary one. It seems pointless to retrace our steps just to end up where we started, and we're not here to educate anyone. We don't know what a future RfD would decide, but we don't need to leave this for RfD. Policy gives DRV the authority to adjudicate the matter, not just to relist it. Just because a useless redirect has been in place for 18 years is no reason to keep it, and certainly no reason to resurrect it.
Owen×☎ 02:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
DRV is not XfD. The merits of the redirect are out of scope for DRV. The automatic links, tools, logging, etc, are set up to work from XfD. We are only still here because an admin is obstinately sticking by their bad G6. The purpose of this DRV is to establish consensus that the G6 was wrong and the redirect if it must be deleted must go through xfd.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The authority to delete is spelled out by our deletion policy, not by Twinkle or some template. DRV may overturn an XfD or a speedy to any other outcome. Specifically, it may overturn an incorrect speedy deletion to a consensus Delete. RfD doesn't provide any automatic links; we have all the information we need to decide this here and now, without listing it, and we don't need XFD Participation tool to voice our opinion, nor XFDcloser to carry out the result. I agree with you that CBDunkerson could have--and by this point should have--saved us from continuing this debate by undoing his G6. But he didn't, and now we have the choice between undoing it here and keeping the redir, undoing and sending to RfD, or leaving the page deleted while acknowledging G6 was a mistake. If you don't wish to adjudicate on the redir itself, it's certainly your prerogative to !vote "Overturn and list", but it's also the prerogative of those who don't see the need for the extra wonkery to !vote "Overturn to delete", which is basically no action beyond an implied finger wag at the out-of-process speedy.
Owen×☎ 06:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don’t wish to adjudicate on the redir itself, not here and now.
I am curious to see the history behind the redirect. I recall the Stephen Colbert call to edit
elephant from around the time, and it might be funny or interesting to read. I considered requesting a temp undeletion, but haven’t because that information has no bearing on my opinion that the G6 was improper and must be reversed. If this goes to RfD, undeleted, I will examine the history before expressing an opinion on whether it is better kept available or hidden from nonadmins.
I am not sure that is can be justifiably asserted that there is a consensus to delete the history.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 09:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree; I, too, see no consensus to delete, sadly. It seems some here are more concerned with Righting Great Wrongs, in this case, teaching that admin a lesson, than they are in giving that page the disposition I believe it deserves. I doubt any participant here would have createdElephant population as a redirect had it not existed, which means that the only reason they're now opting to restore it is that it already existed, and was deleted out of process. I don't believe that's a valid reason to keep--or restore--a page, but it seems I'm in the minority here.
Owen×☎ 13:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks. Let’s not say “Righting Great Wrongs”. I see this as filing rough edges in the cogs of deletion policy, in a place and a way that doesn’t stop anything else. G6 misuse diminishes the respect of WP:CSD, and disenfranchises the ordinary community in favour of an admin class in some aspects of the management of the community.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn. The "intended solution" was exactly what was done: removing inappropriate content and turning the page into a redirect, and that was done because it's at least a somewhat plausible redirect; someone thinking that this redirect makes some sense is the precondition to this solution. If it hadn't made at least some sense to someone, the page wouldn't have been redirected but deleted. This is a common reason redirects are created and protection isn't important; current protection practices differing from those xx years ago have nothing to do with the deletion/retention of the redirect. Today this same redirect could be created under the same circumstances, but the page would not be protected.—
Alalch E. 23:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
As a non-admin, I can't tell exactly what has happened here.
SportingFlyerT·C 04:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Elephant was persistently vandalized in August 2006, apparently at the behest of Stephen Colbert. When that article was protected, it inevitably spilled over into new titles. Since there's some value in this one, it was redirected to
Elephant and then protected, and lived happily on for almost eighteen years when CBDunkerson "uncontroversially" deleted it. —
Cryptic 05:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn In that case, it should be overturned, even though if I agree with the spirit of the deletion.
SportingFlyerT·C 22:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn as an improper deletion.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 00:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn. A G6 speedy deletion has the express requirement of being non-controversial. The fact that one or more editors have seen fit to raise a challenge here indicates it is not non-controversial and therefore the deletion cannot stand. It may be sent to
WP:RFD if anyone is willing to send it there, and I would be minded to support deleting it there.
Stifle (
talk) 08:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't believe this closure was appropriate. I provided a legitimate argument for deletion, and this was a PROD that had been removed. None of the votes for "keep" commented on the merits of the article and instead cast aspersions on my work. I recommend this AFD be reopened.
Bgsu98(Talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. The AfD ran for a full week, during which not a single participant supported your call for deletion. Whether or not you did a proper WP:BEFORE search is no longer relevant. There was no consensus to delete, and no compelling reason to relist it. I can't fault other editors for being suspicious of your nominations, seeing your poor track record. The ten examples that
JTtheOG provided tell a damning story. Go for quality nominations, not for quantity.
Owen×☎ 21:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak overturn to no consensus Endorse with no prejudice against immediate re-nomination (citing very low attendance). While there is clearly not anything close to consensus to delete, the keep !votes are attacking the nominator and do nothing to claim the subject is notable. I recommend this option rather than resisting because a potential future AFD can focus on the article rather than the nominator. If Bgsu98 wishes to renominate, I recommend this user take the advice at
WP:RENOM and put together a stronger case as to why this particular article should be deleted. FrankAnchor 22:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - In the past six years, there have been three ArbCom cases involving deletion discussions, and in those three cases I have proposed that ArbCom institute discretionary sanctions, now known as
contentious topics, for conduct in deletion discussions. ArbCom has evidently considered and not accepted that idea. This is another illustration of behavior in deletion discussions that appears to be disruptive.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 01:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
To which behavior are you referring?
Bgsu98(Talk) 11:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Endorse - There was no error by the closer. The nomination was properly listed, and at least two editors saw it, and two editors commented, opposing deletion. Relist would have been a valid action. No Consensus would not have been a valid close.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 01:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - There should be a Skating list at
Deletion Sorting, especially since the appellant is nominating large numbers of figure skaters for deletion.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 02:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: there are currently 52 open AfDs in the newly created
WP:DELSORT/Skating, of which 51 were nominated by Bgsu98, most using a copy-pasted nomination text. The exception was
WP:Articles_for_deletion/Nordic_cross_skating, which isn't about a skater, and arguably may not be about skating at all.
Did the appellant believe their chances are better with 51 separate nominations than with one, 51-entry discussion? Either way, DRV, as a second instance forum, may aggregate all 51 into a single merged AfD, for a more meaningful discussion about
WP:NSKATE and related guidelines. Leaving all 51, minimally-attended individual AfDs to the luck of who saw the AfD will result in inconsistent outcomes, encouraging more BEFORE-less nominations.
Owen×☎ 13:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse Bad AfD conduct as noted by the participants--too many at once, copy/paste rationale, no or inadequate BEFORE--are all rebuttals to the presumed good faith of the nominations. This is a perfectly fine reason to reject an AfD: if the nominator didn't pay the encyclopedia and community due respect, then no return consideration is necessary. Otherwise, shotgun XFD nominations would be a
WP:FAIT unless specifically and carefully rebutted.
Jclemens (
talk) 13:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse with no prejudice against immediate re-nomination This underlying discussion is not a great example of what a deletion discussion should look like. On one hand,
WP:NSKATE, as part of
WP:NSPORT, is largely depreciated and I believe should be seen more like
WP:OUTCOMES. However, since it still is an SNG, the community still thinks there is value in NSPORT, there is no obvious error in the nominator to nominate individuals who do not meet the criteria in
WP:NSKATE. That said, failing the SNG does not mean that a subject must be deleted - as the subject can still merit an article by meeting GNG, and the nominator should review the existing sources. For the subsequent comments in this deletion discussion, there was no attempt to find or provide sources to show that the subject meets GNG. Instead, the points raised were to procedurally keep the article. While quick nominations are usually frowned on by the community, entering them in quick succession is not necessarily a problem, especially if the nominator did their homework prior to the nomination. And, just because other nominated articles in the same sequence may have sources, does not necessarily mean that this nomination was in error. All of this means to me that the close should be seen as a procedural keep and any editor could re-nominate the article. --
Enos733 (
talk) 15:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse and allow immediate re-nomination the reason to delete was possibly not well thought through, the reasons to keep were procedural and not policy-driven, so it's basically like the discussion didn't happen at all. No problem with a new AfD, and if nominated by the same user, clear evidence of a
WP:BEFORE search would be wise.
SportingFlyerT·C 04:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse an editor filing ~50 related AfDs in rapid succession should expect to face criticism for flooding the process. The proper response is to learn from the experience and do better next time. This is not that.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 00:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Advice in general, if the nom cannot be grouped (and I think in this case they could not), you should probably keep it down to 3 or 4 noms a week in a given topic area. If someone is creating bad articles at a higher rate than that in a given topic area, talk to them and get them to slow down and see the AfD outcomes if you can. But yeah, flooding the system with these is never going to go well. Just don't do it.
Hobit (
talk) 18:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse closure but with permission to renominate on a slower and more careful basis.
Stifle (
talk) 08:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Buna ziua, a fost stearsa pagina creata de mine pt firma de proiectare Vasa Proiect. Administratorul Gikü a invocat motivul A7 “nici o indicatie a importantei”. Nu mi-a oferit nici o oportunitate sa ii raspund si mi-a sters pagina. I-am explicat ulteriror ca este vorba despre o firma renumita de proiectari din Sibiu care a facut numeroase cladiri, care au fost mentionate in detaliu in sectiunea portofoliu a paginii Wikipedia. I-am explicat ca am inclus referinte la cladirile construite pe baza proiectelor Vasa Proiect si la numeroasele companii, inclusiv internationale, cu care a colaborat Vasa Proiect, in masura in care acestea exista online. Dar, avand in vedere natura domeniului de actvitate, si anume proiectarea pt constructia de cladiri, importanta firmei o demonstreaza cladirile construite si nu toate sunt mentionate in presa/ online etc. De aceea am fost limitata in numaraul de referinte care l-am putut include. Deasemenea am vazut alte firme de proiectare din Romania care au pagini similare pe Wikipedia, chiar cu mai putine referinte decat Vasa Proiect, si care nu au fost sterse. Doresc sa mentionez si ca Gikü mi-a criticat pagina invocand probleme de copyright pt logoul firmei si imaginile caldirilor, pt ca proveneau de pe siteul siteul Vasa Proiect (
http://vasaproiect.ro/). Aceasta este o critica absurda pt ca acesta este siteul nostru, pozele si logul ne apartin, de aceea le-am inclus de pe pagina noastra de Wikipedia. Deci nu are sens sa se invoce o problema de copyright. Consider ca stergerea pagingii si motivele invocate sunt incorecte. Va rog sa ma ajutati. Va multumesc.
Danawiki2024 (
talk) 15:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - The following is a machine translation from Romanian:
Hello, the page I created for the design company Vasa Proiect has been deleted. Administrator Gikü cited reason A7 "no indication of importance". He didn't give me any opportunity to answer him and deleted my page. I explained to others that it is about a famous design firm from Sibiu that made numerous buildings, which were mentioned in detail in the portfolio section of the Wikipedia page. I explained to him that I had included references to the buildings built on the basis of Vasa Proiect projects and to the many companies, including international ones, with which Vasa Proiect collaborated, to the extent that they exist online. But, considering the nature of the field of activity, namely the design for the construction of buildings, the importance of the company is demonstrated by the buildings built and not all of them are mentioned in the press/online, etc. That is why I was limited in the number of references that I could include. I have also seen other design firms from Romania that have similar pages on Wikipedia, even with fewer references than Vasa Proiect, and which have not been deleted. I also want to mention that Gikü criticized my page invoking copyright issues for the company logo and the images of the boilers, because they came from the Vasa Project website (
http://vasaproiect.ro/ ). This is an absurd criticism because this is our website, the pictures and the logo belong to us, that's why we included them from our Wikipedia page. So it makes no sense to invoke a copyright problem. I believe that the deletion of the page and the reasons cited are incorrect. Please help me. Thank you
Comment - We need provisions for Speedy Endorse, similar to Speedy Keep at
AFD. In this case it is not even clear what if anything was deleted. The filer refers to something have been
A7, but also says that there is no copyright problem, which implies that an admin thinks that there is a copyright problem. We do consider A7 appeals, if we know what they are. We don't consider copyright appeals, even if we know what they are.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 16:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Close as wrong venue. This actually appears to be a dispute on
ro.wiki so not anything we can have a view on here. Doesn't appear to be a similar problem on en.wiki that I can find.
JMWt (
talk) 17:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I'd like to request a deletion review for the subject. It is a notable subject and remained there for almost a year. I would really appreciate a constructive dialog on said matter. Thank you! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
103.188.92.234 (
talk •
contribs)
Endorse the G5 but allow recreation by any editor in good standing. The article was created and substantially only edited by a confirmed sock of
User:Wrathofyazdan, and deleted as such. A quick look didn't reveal any independent SIGCOV about the subject, but I might have missed something. I see no reason to forbid recreation, ideally as a draft, by a legitimate editor.
Owen×☎ 16:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse G5 per OwenX. As the reason for this deletion is due to a blocked user being its only substantial author, and not due to content, recreation by any user in good standing is explicitly allowed. FrankAnchor 13:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse the G5 per above, you are welcome to re-create the article if notable though.
SportingFlyerT·C 23:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This page was speedily deleted under
G6 midway through an MfD discussion in which multiple editors had argued in favour of keeping it. The deletion was therefore not uncontroversial maintenance, and is (in my view) out of process. In my opinion, the page should be undeleted, and the MfD reopened to finish running its course. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 15:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse speedy deletion, (a) because as most people said at the MFD, there is no rational need for it, and (b) there is possibly a privacy aspect here. But mostly per (c) process for process sake is an actively harmful attitude.
WP:IAR is still a thing. That said,
Bbb23 was pretty optimistic when he deleted this to save people from having to argue some more. Silly Bbb23, the entire purpose of Wikipedia is to argue. --
Floquenbeam (
talk) 15:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. G6 was wrong, but the page clearly qualifies for speedy deletion under
WP:U2, with the same outcome. I have no problem moving
Mandiace's month-old request for help to their own Talk page. But frankly, I can't believe a dozen editors wasted time on that MfD, and who knows how many more will waste time on this pointless DRV. Please withdraw and I'll move that help tag myself.
Owen×☎ 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The help request was moved to Mandiace's Talk page. Still there although I think Mandiace is gone.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In response to your request to withdraw, I’m considering doing so, given the initial comments here. However, I don’t believe U2 would have been valid either, given that multiple editors in good faith had opposed the page’s deletion at all - it still would have short-circuited an ongoing deletion discussion in which such opposition had been expressed. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 15:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse speedy deletion, already consensus for that in the MfD. The whole business is a mind-numbing waste of editor time and energy, resources that could have been spent on actually improving the encyclopaedia.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 15:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment which is the reality: And if the MFD was a waste of time, this is also a waste of time. Just let it stay deleted, no point in trying to reinstate it. thetechie@enwiki:
~/talk/$ 16:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
janno Lieber – Speedy closed as a disruptive appeal for a disruptive AfD. Anon appellant blocked for one week,
User:Railrider12 indef blocked as an account created specifically for this trolling AfD. Both were warring with the non-admin closer, who correctly speedy closed the disruptive AfD.
Owen×☎ 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Endorse regretfullyAllow recreation. We need a good reason to delete a redirect, especially for a word that appears in the dictionary, and no such reason was provided by the Delete !voters on that RfD. But the closing admin correctly read the consensus. In a WP search for 'phone, the "
Telephone" result doesn't even appear in the top 200 results. This was a correct, but unfortunate closure that should now be amended.
Owen×☎ 18:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Allow recreation for how long its been since the RfD
Mach61 18:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no need to formally review a 17 year old XFD. Just recreate it and if someone has an issue, a new discussion can happen.
StarMississippi 00:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My understanding of this nomination is that it's per
WP:DRVPURPOSE #3, as otherwise a recreation of this redirect would potentially be liable to be
G4ed. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 00:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You may very well be correct, but I've seen that applied to maybe 17 month old discussions. Nothing of this vintage. No sane patroller is going to scream G4 at a 2007-era discussion. Oh wait, don't we have a 20 year old one here now? Oops
StarMississippi 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn [Send to RfD after Stifle's comment]. The participants made the wrong arguments based on a wrong understanding of the facts and the outcome is wrong. The RfD should be voided leading to undeletion. It doesn't matter how old it is.—
Alalch E. 12:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sending a redlink to RfD is silly.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 01:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
They (obviously) mean to restore the redirect and procedurally nominate it at RFD. Like, y'know, it used to be standard practice for anything restored by DRV and VFU before it. —
Cryptic 01:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Allow recreation as a plausible redirect. The closer correctly interpreted consensus, but the nomination was flawed. FrankAnchor 13:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Question - Are we being asked to overturn a 17-year-old close, or to allow recreation?
Robert McClenon (
talk) 18:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Allow Recreation subject to a new
RFD. There has to be a time limit on deletions of redirects.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 18:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep deleted. It would be an unlikely/implausible redirect; nobody types that into search.
Stifle (
talk) 07:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Allow recreation. In my opinion, the existence of
wikt:'phone demonstrates the plausibility of this as a redirect. No need to send directly to RfD from deletion review, as any editor who wishes to start an RfD may do so. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 10:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Waste of time nomination. Do not bring old things to DRV without a reason, such as an active disagreement, a warning, SALT, etc. Boldly create if you’re sure, anyone can RfD it, or if you’re not sure, find something else to do. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 01:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This recreated redirect would be liable to G4, and, for example, Stifle (who does not support its retention) could simply G4 it, uncontestably. —
Alalch E. 10:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
And that would be the proper time to bring this to DRV. —
Cryptic 11:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Exactly. This preemptive DRV serves to waste volunteer time now because someone might hypothetically waste volunteer time.
Things should not be brought to DRV just because something was done wrong, there should be an actual problem to fix.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 13:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I agree with that. —
Alalch E. 15:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Ami Dror – Was headed to an endorse close, and nom is OK with the close. Issues around AfD participation and best practices can be hashed out elsewhere
StarMississippi 12:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This is a extremely contentious Afd that was closed by the admin with a simple keep as though they were closing an Afd opened by mistake. None of the problem inherent in the Afd discussion were addresed. From the canvassing at the beginning, to the the whole course of the keep !votes being based on false premises, hand-waving and wilful (supposed) ignorance of policy, particularly ignorance of the
WP:O Note d, i.e. the idea that interviews can prove a person notable. These arguments have been given false creedence that has lead to a false keep !vote. It should have been delete, or at the worst no consensus. Now we have been left with a group that thinks its ok to use interviews to prove notability. I think the whole thing feels staged. scope_creepTalk 13:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I agree with the appellant that the closing statement could have benefited from at least a brief closing rationale. I also agree that there was plenty of obvious canvassing, a litany of meritless "Keep" votes (not "!votes"), and incorrect categorization of sources as independent. However, even when you discard all those votes, we're still left with no consensus to delete.
Doczilla is an experienced admin, and I'm sure he gave those canvassed, ILIKEIT-type votes the weight they deserve, namely, zero. Had he added a terse explanation of his close, it would be obvious. In my read of that AfD, the Delete views indeed carry more weight than the Keeps, but not overwhelmingly so. Is it really worth our while here to overturn this to a "No consensus", with the only practical effect being an earlier potential renomination? Unlike the appellant, I don't believe this close sets a precedent about the use of interviews as proof of notability. Most of those Keeps have no interest in our P&G, and are merely citing whatever they believe will get their pet page kept.
Owen×☎ 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Vacate and relist or alternatively overturn to no consensus and allow immediate renomination (involved), as per my comment in the AfD I found the vast majority of the keep votes/!votes to be just about worthless with regards to our P&G's (with one or two exceptions). I believe that the current closes available would be 'no consensus' or 'delete', but I also believe an extra 7 days may have led to an actual consensus (given the delete !votes came late). Alternatively, explicitly allowing immediate renomination (with a 'clean' restart) may also be beneficial to finding a true P&G-based consensus either way. I don't think this should have been closed as 'keep', and in the absence of an extended closing statement, I cannot see how that conclusion was reached.
Daniel (
talk) 20:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support the nom,
User:Scope creep, but really, he should be advocating a single outcome. Reading through the AfD, I cannot find two sources that meeting the GNG. It’s unfortunate that someone is saying interviews don’t meet
WP:SECONDARY, because that is not true. The problem with whether the sources are independent. Content sourced from the subject via interview of the subject con at be independent of the subject.
I’m leaning to “Overturn (to no consensus) and allow standard
WP:RENOM in two months”. I don’t see a case for unusual urgency in solving this one.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 21:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm involved, but I would have loved some sort of statement by Doczilla regarding the close, either in the close or on their talk page. I don't care what happens here, but the close does need a good explanation, which could have been provided with some talk page patience.
SportingFlyerT·C 22:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I closed this after one week when there were no delete votes. This was undone on the basis that it was a controversial close and required an admin. All I see is the nom badgering and threatening people with ANI in a lost and hopeless cause. So we're supposed to overturn this to no consensus and give "super weight" to the few delete votes? I don't agree. The closer could have given a few words of explanation especially given the nom has fought too hard here. But the close is correct.
Desertarun (
talk) 11:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I looked at your close, and can find no good reason to criticize.
scope_creep does not make himself look good on your user_talk page. I long observe that terse nominations often result in trainwrecks.
scope_creep should follow advice at
WP:RENOM. It's not enough to be right, you have to get people to agree with you. "A large number of references are terrible" is not convincing. For an article that looks good, the flipside of
WP:THREE applies. The nominator should make the case that the best three sources are not good enough.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 12:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Endorse. This was by no means an extremely contentious Afd, and only gave the appearance of being contentious because Scope Creep
forced their view on others by commenting 24(!) times (excluding the nom and stricken comments) throughout the discussion. Even discounting sock and
WP:PERX votes, there is clearly not consensus to delete and little indication such consensus would form. My endorse !vote is only "weak" due toThere was a late, well-reasoned delete !vote by Daniel (but not the other late delete vote, which is a glorified PERX). Relisting wouldcould be viable option to allow time to discuss this !vote, but my first preference is to endorse the keep close. FrankAnchor 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. - From this vantage point, it is obvious that general notability has been met. The level of scrutiny exhibited towards this specific article both here and on the previous Afd discussions, the underlying motives behind the incessant
WP:BADGERING, by members of this forum, which are transparent in previous discussions, and the obsessiveness in which actions are continually being taken, only make the importance of this article that much clearer to me. --
Omer Toledano (
talk) 17:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Endorse, or Relist, as discussed below - My reading of the participation is that, until 24 hours before closing, there was one policy-based Delete !vote, by the nominator/appellant, two policy-based Keep !votes, by North8000 and Longhornsg, and 86 Keep !votes of uncertain quality that may have just been
I Like It, and 2 Keep !votes from editors who were not Extended-Confirmed. At the end, there was one more policy-and-guideline based Delete and one more Delete that I consider of uncertain quality. So, at the close, there were two good-quality Keep !votes, two good-quality Delete !votes, 8 questionable Keeps, and one uncertain Delete. The closer was using reasonable judgment in giving some weight to the questionable Keeps and closing to Keep. Even if the closer had ignored all of the questionable Keeps, the result would have been No Consensus. There is no way that a closer could have twisted this to a Delete. Keep is a valid conclusion by the closer.
The closer should have made some statement concerning weighing the various comments, and addressing the nominator's concerns. DRV doesn't overturn a valid close simply because it was inadequately explained.
The arguments by the nominator/appellant are that the sources are garbage. Some of the sources are garbage. With 58 sources of varying quality, the burden should be on the nominator to provide a source analysis demonstrating that there are not
threeindependent sources that provide
significant coverage.
My own opinion, without having assessed the sources, is that it is in the interests of the readers for the
English Wikipedia to have an article about the subject. The
Ignore All Rules approach would be to say that it is in the interests of the reader for the encyclopedia to have an article on the subject. However, in my opinion, this is a situation where the rules can be applied carefully for the interests of the reader of the encyclopedia, by source assessment.
If the AFD is relisted, the purpose of the relist should be to give the nominator time to provide a source analysis showing that the sources are garbage. Other editors can provide source analyses showing that there are at least
threeindependent sources that provide
significant coverage.
It is true that assessing 58 sources will be work for the nominator/appellant. The burden of proving that all of the sources are garbage should be on the nominator. Most of the sources probably are garbage, and some of them probably are good sources.
Either leave the close standing, or give the appellant a week to show that all of the sources are garbage.
@
Robert McClenon: I'm not doing that. It is waste of time, like Afd. You seem to have taken a bullet list from somewhere without reading Afd. A source analysis was done. There is not 1 secondary source in that whole
WP:BLP. Not one. scope_creepTalk 08:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. With so many Keep votes there is little incentive to give lengthy thoughtful keep votes. I believe some of those weak/PERX votes would convert into something stronger in another AFD.
Desertarun (
talk) 18:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - Two of the Keep votes were from editors who were not Extended-Confirmed, and so should have been stricken as excluded under
Palestine-Israel restrictions. The nominator would have presented a less bad case if they had raised this issue, which is clear, instead of or in addition to
yelling "canvassing". That leaves 6 Keeps of arguable quality, and the close is still plausible.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 19:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse 1) Doczilla rarely if ever provides statements when closing AfDs; this is not a new phenomenon and heretofore not a particular problem. 2) The NAC should have been allowed to stand... "I wanted to add a vote" isn't a good reason to revert a close, and yes, a NAC closure after the initial relist was just fine in the absence of actual votes against the emerging consensus. 3) Interviews are not inherently non-independent. Good interviews from reputable journalists do their own fact checking, such that the subject's words aren't accepted uncritically and unrebutted. The policy summary that says "Interviews aren't independent" is a horrible and inappropriate oversimplification.
Jclemens (
talk) 21:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
DRV doesn't overturn a valid close simply because it was inadequately explained
DRV has to be able to overturn due to inadequate explanation, or there is no requirement on closers to provide adequate explanation.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Reclose or relist Step by step:
The discussion was bad. The keep !votes seemed to be canvased and the main delete contributor was way over the top (more than half of all the words in the AfD perhaps?).
The close was bad. A discussion with all the issues that one had needs a clearly explained close. As Robert notes, some (2?) of the keep !votes shouldn't have been counted. Were they? No clue, the closer gave us no idea. Was canvasing relevant? No idea? Strength of arguments? Again, no idea.
Keeping this is probably the right thing I don't have a horse in this race, but it seems very clear to me that this person is notable. Plenty of independent coverage. Is THREE met? Maybe not, but the weight of all the sources, many independent and reliable, is enough to get us well past WP:N. And that's the bar.
I lean toward a
WP:FISH for Scope creep (at the least learn to be more concise, but if you find yourself that invested in an AfD you need to walk away) and Doczilla (don't close continuous AfDs if you aren't willing to put in the time to explain what you're doing) and either a reclose or relist.
Hobit (
talk) 04:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I won't be doing that but your absolutely right. I was too close to it and shouldn't have been done it. Its impossible to get these trash article deleted now on Wikipedia. It cannot be done and everybody knows it and the reason Afd is failing. I'm tired of trying to fight battles that can't be won. The whole Afd system is broken and has been for a very long while and the whole thing feels like a group failure. No more Afd's for me. This can closed. I've no interest in it. scope_creepTalk 08:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The problem is, this isn't a trash article. There is a ton of coverage and the article is written fairly well. Is it over our inclusion bar? I'd say yes, you'd say no. AfD isn't failing--it's doing it's job and mostly (mostly) doing it well. The drop in participation is painful. This particular AfD is broken. And the big problem was that enough folks outside of the PI conflict didn't get involved. That's how to address AfDs with the issues we have here--lots of dispassionate outside eyes. And the drop in participation does make that more difficult.
Hobit (
talk) 12:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing
speedy deletions and outcomes of
deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "
Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the
instructions below.
if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be
renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
(This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per
this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
to point out
other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
to challenge an article's deletion via the
proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been
protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise
prohibited content will not be restored.
Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
Check that it is not on the list of
perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a
PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.
1.
Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:
{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 May 26}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 26}}</noinclude>
If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 May 26|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the
established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the
appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the
Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
*'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{
TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the
policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a
consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the
appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be
closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
If the decision under appeal was a
speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the
appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at
WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
(Note, this refers to the
4th nomination from April 28, 2024.) The nomination for deleting the article made a claim of
WP:NOTDIRECTORY but didn't include any explanations to back up the claim (and multiple previous nominations already rejected that claim). This goes against
WP:AFDFORMAT: "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." In addition, most of the comments were a combination of
WP:PERNOM and/or
WP:JUSTAPOLICY. This also goes against
WP:AFDFORMAT: "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments." Of the few arguments that were made, most referred erroneously to digital IMAX theaters, which weren't even part of the list and were actually called out in the intro paragraph as being excluded from the article (making it clear the commenters didn't even know what was in it). Therefore, the deletion was based on a flawed nomination, flawed votes, no real debate, and arguments against something that wasn't even in the article. Which means per Wikipedia's own guidelines, there was no solid basis for deleting it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jonovitch (
talk •
contribs) 00:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oops, sorry I forgot to sign -- thanks for adding that.
Jonovitch (
talk) 09:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse There was a very clear consensus to delete there, and this couldn't have been closed any other way.
* Pppery *it has begun... 01:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The consensus was entirely
WP:PERNOM and/or
WP:JUSTAPOLICY, which clearly go against Wikipedia's guidelines. Should those votes not be discarded? And if they are discarded, what's left? I'm sincerely asking; I don't understand why a decision can be made based on those votes.
Jonovitch (
talk) 09:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
OwenX: backed up that decision with this one, and now this decision is being backed up with that one -- circular logic. And both of those decisions ignored the multiple previous "keep" decisions where the same arguments were repeatedly considered and rejected. Why were the many previous "keep" decisions ignored while the single "delete" decision gets reinforced (even though it's full of problematic
WP:PERNOM and
WP:JUSTAPOLICY votes)?
I understand some people don't want this article to exist, but I and others did provide several policy-based reasons why it meets Wikipedia requirements and guidelines. Here are a few of them again:
1.
WP:NOTDATABASE says, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." The article's intro paragraphs provided context for the data in the list, plus explanations and definitions, with references to independent sources.
2.
WP:N says, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." IMAX 15/70 film theaters have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources for decades (also the new laser variants more recently). In the last year they have become even more notable, due to Oppenheimer and Dune 2. Countless news stories across the globe pointed out how these theaters are notable because of their technical superiority to regular theaters, immense size, unique aspect ratio, and rarity. The many citations in the article were from verifiable sources -- some from news articles, some from theater websites (for raw data purposes, not editorializing), and only a very small handful from the IMAX corporate website (again for data, not editorializing).
3.
WP:USEFUL says, "a cogent argument must be more specific: who is the content useful for, and why?" The different types of "IMAX" theaters (and the IMAX Corporation's lack of clarity) leads to a lot of confusion among moviegoers. The article was useful because it helped confused moviegoers understand the differences between the types of IMAX-branded theaters, it showed them the technical specifications of why one type of IMAX is superior (or inferior) than another, and it included this information in a list sorted by geography, so moviegoers could find which (if any) of the superior theater formats was near them.
4.
WP:LISTPURP says, "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list." Point 3 above explained why/how the structured list was a valuable source of information for moviegoers.
5.
WP:NLIST says, "a list topic is considered notable ... if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." The topic of IMAX 15/70 film theaters (and the newer laser formats) have been discussed in many independent news articles; a couple of specific examples were linked to in the other discussion (but apparently were ignored). Because the group is notable, the list of items in that group is valid.
6. Whenever
WP:NOTDIRECTORY came up, commenters asked the person who made the claim to explain how the article fit that guideline. Nobody was able to do so. But commenters repeatedly explained how the article isn't a directory. The arguments for deletion based on this point (which are most of them) seem to be a case of
proof by assertion.
(Note, none of the above falls under
WP:MUSTBESOURCES -- there are independent sources. The article cited many of them, and more could have been added if it hadn't been deleted. Because there are plenty in existence to choose from, this falls under
WP:NEXIST.)
Sincere question: The votes to delete were
WP:PERNOM and
WP:JUSTAPOLICY, which go against the policies and guidelines. The article itself did meet the policies and guidelines. So what else is needed? Or what am I missing?
Jonovitch (
talk) 09:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
What's needed is for this DRV to be closed as out of process because you have erroneously nominated the wrong deletion for discussion, when you should have nominated the deletion from the
last AfD (which is not the AfD here discussed), as it is the only close which can actionably be challeged. Nothing can happen out of this DRV, it's a big nothing. —
Alalch E. 19:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I may be partially to blame for this – at the most recent AfD, I suggested that DRV was more appropriate than recreating the article under a new title. Sorry if that led to confusion over which AfD should be the basis of a deletion review.
RunningTiger123 (
talk) 20:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse The close was correct and reflected consensus. I haven't seen the article, but I do think the deletion rationale is potentially wrong - I think it meets
WP:LISTN after a very cursory before search, and I'm not sure
WP:NOTDIRECTORY actually applies if it could be fixed with contextual editing - but I can't fault the deletion discussion here.
SportingFlyerT·C 04:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I would normally temp undelete, but it had so many revisions it needed a steward to delete, so I'm not sure it's possible. If someone else knows that it is, please do so.
StarMississippi 12:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It doesn't need a steward to undelete, but you do need to repeatedly partial undelete it in chunks of only a couple hundred revisions at once or it times out. The real problem is that it would need a steward to delete again once it exceeded 5000 undeleted revisions. It's a significant hassle on both ends. —
Cryptic 14:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse as the only possible outcome. (involved as the closing admin of the subsequent AfD for essentially the same article.) A closing admin may discard a !vote when a participant relies on an irrelevant policy or guideline, e.g., "Delete per IDONTLIKEIT". The closer may not discard an otherwise valid !vote when they disagree on a factual assessment, which is what the appellant is asking us to do here.
WP:NOTDIRECTORY is, prima facie, a relevant policy. Whether the article falls under this category or not is a question of fact, where the closing admin may not overrule a unanimous consensus with a supervote.
I also see no merit in appealing an AfD that was already relitigated the very next day, under a slightly different title, in a failed attempt to game the system. The appellant, who participated in the subsequent AfD ("AfD5"), is a "sleeper account", created in 2008 but with a total of nine edits before being awakened by a Reddit call to arms.
Contrary to the appellant's claim, I did not "back up" AfD5 based on the closing of AfD4. I mentioned AfD4 in my lengthy closing rationale, but AfD5 was closed on its own merits. Similarly,
Star Mississippi isn't backing up her decision with the result of the subsequent AfD, but merely pointing out the futility of appealing a decision that has already been relitigated. There is no "circular logic" here, just a clear, consistent, correct application of AfD policy.
Owen×☎ 11:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry about the back and forth, I know this has gotten messy. I'm trying to raise the right questions in the right place.
1. Here and in the other discussion, I showed how the votes of
WP:PERNOM and
WP:JUSTAPOLICY clearly violated the guidelines in
WP:AFDFORMAT, and how the votes introduced arguments that were irrelevant to the article being debated. Because of this, per your explanation above, shouldn't those votes have been discarded by the closing admin? I have yet to hear an explanation why those votes were valid. So I ask again sincerely, if they went against policy, why were they not discarded?
2. Additionally, I and others asked many times how the article fails under
WP:NOTDIRECTORY, the primary claim in both discussions. That question was never answered; the claims were only repeated (which goes against
WP:JUSTAPOLICY). I and others rebutted those (and other) claims using Wikipedia's own guidelines to back up the rebuttals. Further, we used the policies and guidelines to positively show how the article did meet requirements (see the direct quotes from the policies above). So how was the article just a directory? And why were the rebuttals and evidences ignored, even though they were based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Both of the above issues appear to be
proof by assertion, "in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction and refutation" and asserted as fact "solely due to a lack of challengers." But the claims were challenged and refuted using Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. What more is needed?
Lastly, attempts to dismiss arguments from a "sleeper account" (or other people making arguments, regardless of where they came from) goes against
WP:ATTP. Please speak to the arguments and questions regarding the policies and guidelines, not to the people making the arguments. Thank you!
Jonovitch (
talk) 18:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, but you did not show those !votes were irrelevant to the article being debated". You are asserting that they are incorrect. The two are very different. As I explained above, one is a question of policy, while the other is a question of fact. It is perfectly valid to argue whether or not the article met
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Both for- and against- arguments are relevant to a discussion about an article that at least at first blush looks like little more than a directory. Neither argument may be discarded in such a discussion. The WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY arguments you keep bringing up are a part of an essay, not a policy. They provide excellent advice on how to conduct oneself in an AfD, but you cannot use this essay to demand an otherwise valid !vote be discarded. You have yet to present a policy-based justification for discarding all !votes in that AfD.
I join you in lamenting that no one made the effort to educate you and others on why the article fails under WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but that is not the purpose of AfD. Had you and your fellow Keep voters been here for the bona fide purpose of writing an encyclopedia, I'm sure you would have found the answer by now. Alas, it is very clear from your contribution history that you are
not here to write an encyclopedia, which is why I brought up your record as a dormant, now-single-purpose account. Wikipedia has a low tolerance for people trying to use it as a
free web hosting service, not to mention for people engaging in
off-wiki canvassing to sway the result of discussions. If you have a legal background, I'm sure you're familiar with the
unclean hands doctrine. This type of behaviour will make it very difficult to find a sympathetic ear here. At this point, you are not only wasting everyone's time in an appeal that has already been identified as moot, but you are also squandering the little goodwill we may have had towards your cause.
Owen×☎ 19:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You're mixing up my words, and making up a few others. To clarify, I showed how most of the votes were
WP:PERNOM and
WP:JUSTAPOLICY. In addition to that, I pointed out that three of the nine votes referred to digital IMAX venues (which were never part of the list!) -- those were the irrelevant arguments I referred to. I then asked (not demanded) why the votes weren't discarded, because you stated above that a closing admin may discard votes that don't align with policies and guidelines.
It's true, I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia (though I have been registered for a long time and I use the site frequently). The few edits I've made were mostly to practice how to do it, and I've been trying to follow the directions I've been given and go through the correct processes here. So while I might not get everything right, you're completely wrong about me not being here to write an encyclopedia.
WP:NOTNOTHERE
I learned about this article's deletion by chance. I'm not a regular contributor to Reddit and only a sporadic visitor there. When I happened to see the post, I ignored it at first and didn't read it until a few days later. Then I took the time to understand the situation here before finally joining the discussion, doing my best to follow the rules, and pointing out where it appeared others failed to do so.
My motivation is simply this: I've used the information in this article in the past, I found it very helpful to research the technical differences and geographic locations of the different types of IMAX venues, and I'd like to help others who have the same questions and confusion that I did.
As a side note, I've been critical of IMAX as often as I have praised it. I'm not a fanboy, and I don't get anything out of this. I ask you again to refrain from speculating about my (and others') intentions. I'm trying to play by the rules here, and your hostility isn't helping.
WP:AGFJonovitch (
talk) 06:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Procedural close as moot. The challenged deletion is not from the last AfD. The last AfD was
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors. When there has been a later AfD for a given topic, DRV can not produce any outcome other than a declaratory outcome. For this reason, there is no chance of success, as overturning the close of the here challenged DRV can not result in undeletion of the page—being that the outcome of the later AfD is determinative and can not be bypassed—and therefore, the DRV should be closed.—
Alalch E. 17:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
To be honest, when viewing both AfDs together, there's not really a consensus to delete. Simply endorsing the close here is going to lead to an awkward result, as even though it looks like the community has definitively said we shouldn't have an article on this topic in the second-to-last AfD, the most recent AfD is a clear "no consensus," even with the canvassing, as clearly non-canvassed participants have noted the NOTDIR reason doesn't necessarily apply (and I could make a valid LISTN argument had I cared enough to participate, as was done in the second discussion). I'd argue there needs to be some sort of path to allow something on this topic to get back to mainspace.
SportingFlyerT·C 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think part of the issue is the group that came from Reddit - no judgement, just stating the origin - wants this to be in index of either kind of IMAX and seem to be under the impression that more "X Theatre has an Imax" helps, when we know that coverage of the kind of IMAX and maybe why they're predominant would be better to make the case. Aside from WP:ITSUSEFUL, I'm not actually sure this list as constructed is useful to anyone because neither the article under discussion at AfD4 nor 5 wasn navigable nor well organized. It probably needs to be chunked and re scoped. I think this could be incubated in draft space if @
Jonovitch or others are willing to. That unfortunately does not seem clear right now.
StarMississippi 02:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm totally willing to rework the list, since I agree it was a bit unwieldy in it's most recent format. I also agree that adding more IMAX types/venues doesn't necessarily improve the list, and can actually reduce its value. Here are my thoughts, if I were to rebuild it (whether from scratch or from a restored article):
I'd definitely include the Grand Theater format venues (15/70 film and dual 4K laser, in 1.43:1 aspect ratio on massive screens, often standalone locations). These are the rarest and most notable.
I lean toward including IMAX Dome theaters, since those are also rare and unique.
I'd of course exclude the crappy digital "LieIMAX" venues (dual 2K digital xenon projectors in multiplexes).
If only to avoid the arguments that the list is just a directory, I kind of lean toward excluding the "IMAX with Laser" venues (single 4K laser projectors in multiplexes). I might experiment with putting these in a separate section, so as to more easily distinguish between the types of venues.
I'd of course include an intro with definitions and an explanation of which types of venues are included and excluded.
I'd experiment with listing the venues first by type (15/70 film, dual 4K laser, dome, maybe single laser?) and then by geography.
I'm not sure what the next step for this would be, and I might need some help with Wikipedia's editing syntax (I'm learning as I go), but I'm definitely willing to try this route.
For what it's worth, as I stated elsewhere I'm not an IMAX fanboy (and I only sporadically visit Reddit), I just found this article to be very helpful and I'd like to help others.
What are your recommendations? What's the next step? What pitfalls should I avoid and what concerns should I address?
Jonovitch (
talk) 07:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Initially deleted as an
WP:R3, despite clearly not being eligible under that criterion, subsequently undeleted and redeleted under
WP:G6 which it likewise does not qualify for, a rather clear
WP:!G6 actually. As an
Template:R without mention its retention at RFD is highly questionable, but the community should have the chance to weigh in on this one. Deleting admin has not responded to the request for undeletion in some time, as such I am bringing this here.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (
talk) 20:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn and send to RfD. I correctly guessed who the deleting admin was before I clicked the link. Her out-of-process speedy deletions, as well as her brusque, dismissive responses to being questioned about them, make regular appearances here at DRV. G6 is not a catch-all "I think this doesn't belong here and I have a Delete button" tool.
Owen×☎ 21:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy overturn as we don't need 7 days here, just the 7 days at RfD, which is where it belongs as this is clearly not uncontested. Disappointed with the deleting admin's response to the IP's reasonable request.
StarMississippi 21:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Questions - What was this a redirect to? But why isn't the appellant logging on?
Robert McClenon (
talk) 21:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Dynamic IP who frequently participates around here if this is the editor I think it is.
Citizendium, to which it pointed for 16 years.
StarMississippi 21:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Because I don't have an account. I would not call myself a DRV regular by any stretch, but when admins refuse to overturn improper speedy deletions after being given reasonable time I list therm here per procedure.
2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (
talk) 21:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy overturn another out-of-process deletion. Support sending to RfD procedurally from DRV.—
Alalch E. 21:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Undelete all the history and send to RfD.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Undelete and send to RfD as above. And are we really seeing a deletion by Deb here again? They've shown up here far more than they should.
* Pppery *it has begun... 01:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy overturn grossly out of process G6. Send to RFD if desired. FrankAnchor 02:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I don't see a statement by the closer,
User:Deb (but she has been properly notified).
Robert McClenon (
talk) 15:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I think the redirect should be restored and kept, because I think that the subject should be known as that.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 15:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Send to RfD I might have done this myself. Probably worth updating what G6 is not to make it clear G6 shouldn't be used for this.
SportingFlyerT·C 20:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
afds are not popularity contests, they are not headcounts. they are based on the strength of policy based arguments. Yes the headcount here is very clearly on the delete side but a small local call does override long term wider policies. The first three delete comments here were based on the fact that this was an unreferenced blp. Once references were provided these three become moot. they are no longer valid and closers should dismiss them. After sources were provided we saw two delete comments. The first was a boilerplate comment from Tim the made a vague wave at wp:sirs which is a policy related to companies which is clearly irrelevant here. The next from Bearian was a vague wave at common outcomes where common outcomes do not actually mention nationally broadcast radio hosts. Neither is a valid policy based call for deletion and neither make any relevant comments on the sources provided. Since no one was made a relevant counter to the presentation of relevant sources claiming GNG pass there is no way this should have been closed delete. Uncomfortable based on headcount then relist asking for discussion of sources or close no consensus. Instead we have a close based on guessing what the previous voters may have thought if they had come back for another look [
[1]]. Sorry but afds are not decided on what someone might have had in mind but did not say. They are not decided by guesses by closers. Lets actually look at evidence provided during discussions instead of ignoring the fundamental idea of afDs were the D stands for discussion not for dismissing sources without analysis. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Duffbeerforme (
talk •
contribs) t12:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse close per essentially
User_talk:OwenX#Caroline_Tran_afd. The earlier comments don't become moot just because Duff declares them so. Editors could have returned to revise them following Duff's !vote, but they didn't. If you think you have a case, request the draft and improve it with the sources. It wouldn't be a G4 and you could bring it back to mainspace
StarMississippi 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse largely per StarMississipi. Adding that not only did any of the “delete” voters not change their mind after sources were presented, but two additional “delete” votes came in after the fact with one referencing the sources as not meeting
WP:SIRS. Allow restoration as draft if Duff or any other user wants to improve upon it. FrankAnchor 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse discussion was clearly to delete, and the sources presented don't make me think an obvious mistake was made.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse as clearly the best closure even based on the case made by the appellant:
Of the five Delete voters, two did their own searches, and two voted after the appellant provided their sources. Even if the one who said that it was an unsourced BLP (presumably because it was an unsourced BLP) is discounted, that leaves four. There was no need to Relist. There was a consensus to delete either after the appellant's sources or after searching for sources.
Temporary undeletion is not necessary, but I would be interested in seeing a temporary undeletion. I might want to do a source analysis, but it isn't necessary.
I am sure that occasionally, maybe very occasionally, when an appellant says that AFD is not a vote count, the appellant really has the stronger case than the majority of participants. However, when I see an appellant say that AFD is not a vote count, it usually means that they are saying that they wanted the closer to
supervote.
There was no need to Relist, and we would be overturning a Keep.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 21:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Request temp undeletion. Was the nom misleading with “completely unsourced”? —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Allow userfication/draftification and recommend attempts to overcome the deletion reasons follow advice at
WP:THREE. The sources listed in the AfD are worth looking at.
The discussion could have been relisted for detailed examination of new sources, but deletion was well within admin discretion.
I note that the article began as a 2004 stub, with a source. I also not that the article content did not contain information from the new sources listed at AfD, that the article never had good sources, and that
WP:TNT applies in my opinion.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 00:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment to
User:SmokeyJoe - Good question. The nominator was correct in saying that the article was completely unsourced. The external link to the subject's web site was removed at the end of December 2023 as a dead link.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 02:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment to appellant - The references that you have added are malformed, and cannot be viewed by reviewers. So the version that you had updated still did not satisfy
BLP guidelines.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 02:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - I am trying unsuccessfully to have discussion at
the DRV talk page about Speedy Closes for troublesome nominations.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 04:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:G4 excludes "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". Guidelines on the notability of companies and organisations (
WP:SIRS) are not relevant, user essays (
WP:THREE) are not guidelines, and there is no requirement for sources to be linked or available online. Without access to the sources I don't know if they are enough, but the positions of the inline citations within the text suggests they don't verify much, and would not be enough for an article; when the article was deleted it still had no source cited for most of the content.
Peter James (
talk) 09:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse Peter James is quite correct. Even so, I did attempt to find these sources online without success. I know that DRV is not a second pass at AFD, but even so I did cast a wider net and went looking for other sources. Searches are complicated by the fact there is a Caroline Tran (born ~1986) in Australia involved in the fashion industry. What I did find are
primary sources such as
this. Maybe there is enough material out there on which to base a BLP, but I'm not finding it. Duffbeerforme, I think your best bet is to have this draftified, and work on it over time, trying to establish better sourcing to support this BLP. The article being deleted at AFD doesn't mean it's never going to exist. There's no deadline here. --
Hammersoft (
talk) 11:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse per Star Mississippi.—
Alalch E. 17:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This category was deleted for reasons I can't understand (and with no debate discussion at all) because dividing occupations up - particularly athletes - by populated is something normal. Request recreation.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 13:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
For smaller cities certainly. But Monterrey is not a small city.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 17:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Again, not a category expert, but if it were re-created and populated, how many notable individuals would be covered?
Jclemens (
talk) 18:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Baseball-Reference lists 7 major league players born in Monterrey
here, so at least that many. There might be others who are notable despite not reaching that level, but I'm not sure how to find out.
Hatman31 (
talk) 16:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Hatman31, that's current players. There are almost certainly more former players from there. There are also other baseball sites which list beyond MLB players too, like those who played before integration of MLB in the Mexican League as well as minor leaguers and so on.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 18:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The link I posted includes both current and former MLB players.
Hatman31 (he/him ·
talk ·
contribs) 21:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Good catch. I skimmed through it so my apologies.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 09:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It's a very old, poorly attended CfD, but my sense is that it would still be an
WP:OVERCAT.
SportingFlyerT·C 18:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SportingFlyer, there are at least 300 "Baseball players from *city*" categories and similar number for footballers, basketball players and so on... so deleting this particular one is rather strange. In fact, I was quite surprised there WASN'T a category for a major city where baseball is a popular sport.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 22:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Question - There were two DRVs a few days ago about categories (one of which has been dealt with), and I left them alone because I don't know enough about categories to take an informed part in a
CFD discussion or a review of a
CFD discussion. But I can see that this has to do with a discussion that took place nine years ago. If a DRV is about an
AFD discussion that took place several years ago, we usually don't review the discussion, but advise the appellant to create a draft for review, or to create a new article subject to a new AFD. Do changes to categories that were discussed several years ago come to DRV, as this one has done? If an editor recreated a category that was deleted nine years ago, would it be tagged for
G4? I know that categories have their own procedures and logic. Is DRV the review for a nine-year-old category discussion, or can that be reworked by category creation and a new CFD?
Robert McClenon (
talk) 00:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Robert McClenon, I'm not fully sure myself about Cfd procedures (I'm new to myself) but I was told this was the correct way for deletion review. If this Cfd were run today, it would have had more participation and, if recent Cfds are any indication, this category would have been kept.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 09:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I didn't particularly want to bring this here, since procedurally the close is sound. The AFD was left listed for the full 168 hours (and 9 minutes), and I'm sure, were I inclined to speculate, I could come up with a way a reasonable admin closer could have closed the discussion the same way. There were some last minute comments, but not being a stale discussion ordinarily would certainly not be grounds for an overturn or relist. My mistake for not nomming it on a weekend.
That said, I believe the
discussion I had with the closer patently does not meet the standards set out by
WP:ADMINACCT, which non-administrator closers are
also expected to adhere to. I won't tell you more than that I followed the rules and used the arguments raised in the discussion. is clearly not in any way, shape or form a justification, in my admittedly biased opinion. Additionally, while it is not the role of the closer (nor this review) to remedy a defective discussion, I believe (again, admitting my strong bias) any administrator exercising reasonable judgement would at least note the fact that a self-published book, as added by 扱. し. 侍. would not be considered a reliable source, and state whether they relied on that accordingly, if not instead relisted or left their own comment. That one of the others added a source that prominently displayed "Marketing Content" (תוכן שיווקי) at the top near the byline, is perhaps beyond the scope of a reasonable closer, applying an ordinary degree of scrutiny.
In my opinion, at minimum, even if the result is endorsed, this should be re-closed by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, and the closer advised not to do so in future. I am instead seeking a relist, or leave for an immediate renomination.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 11:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Here we are. My closure was not based on the book or the Marker source, as the nominator might think, but on a deep coverage provided by other reliable sources (including VentureBeat, Forbes staff, Globes, etc.) which were added during the discussion. I don't see a big issue in closing the discussion by the administrator as the nominator is biased and for some reason always mentions the weakest sources on the page. WP:BEFORE is a good rule and it must be followed. Not long ago, I nominated a page without a thorough review of sources and I was ashamed by the community. So, I was super attentive and skeptical in evaluating the sources of the page.
BoraVoro (
talk) 13:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
removed from the page the self-published book and the Marker paid placement source (I didn't count on them while closing the discussion anyway).
BoraVoro (
talk) 13:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You are not required to analyse the sources, as the closer. You are, however, required to furnish an explanation of your process, as requested, and as you have done so now.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 13:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I see your point. As I mentioned before, I followed the discussion and based my decision on it. The arguments seemed valid, but I did look at and analyze the sources to determine if they are reliable, though I was not required to do so.
BoraVoro (
talk) 14:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That's fine. I'm happy to withdraw at this point, and have this closed per Owen's suggestion, provided you take to heart the feedback provided (which it appears you have) I think the explanation you provided here is meets the required standard, and if you chose to close XfDs again after a bit more experience, would be the type of thing we would look for, with a bit more back and forth to hash out the details, for example, on the appropriate level of scrutiny.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c) 15:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Alpha3031 thank you so much! I completely agree with you and please accept my apologies for my unprofessional response on my talk page.
BoraVoro (
talk) 05:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Allow early renomination. The Keep !votes carry very little weight, which isn't surprising, seeing as they come from inexperienced users. One Keep was made by an account now used primarily for voting on AfDs, with a grand total of 52 edits to their name. The lone "per nom if not A7" Delete was also weak. A competent admin could have discarded all but the nom, and relisted to get more meaningful participation. As it stands, this is essentially little more than a contested PROD. Both the closing rationale and the closer's response above reads very much like a supervote. The closer's job is to weigh consensus among legitimate participants, not carry out their own source analysis.
Conduct aside, I can't fault the NAC for being duped by what superficially appears to be a clear consensus, so I don't think an outright overturn is called for. I also don't want to relist the same AfD, already tainted by weak !votes. A fresh AfD in a month, closed by an admin (or by an experienced, competent NAC, if applicable), is the way to go here.
BoraVoro would be well advised to stay away from closing XfDs until they gain more experience, and perhaps just as importantly, learn how to interact with fellow editors. This type of dismissive tone in response to a legitimate query is incompatible with administrative actions.
Owen×☎ 13:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Allow early/speedy renomination per OwenX. Relisting this is not going to give the best chance of achieving consensus so a new nomination in a few weeks would absolutely be a better choice, to start afresh so to speak. I also agree with Owen's comments that it was an inappropriate response to the talk page query about XfD by the closer, and support his advice regarding the closer staying away from XfD closes for a while. (While DRV is not a conduct forum, the nature of a response by a closer on a talk page is something that definitely falls within its purview.)
Daniel (
talk) 22:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your feedback. I have already admitted and apologized for my inappropriate response on my talk page. I hope my actions won't disrupt the Wikipedia community and guidelines anymore, and I will stay away from XfD for a while. It was a good lesson for me.
BoraVoro (
talk) 05:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Allow early renomination. This looks like a
UPE spam infested AFD. The article itself has hallmarks of UPE and the keep voters have similarities in behavior too. The same happened at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whiteshield with basically the same users. I ended up blocking the users concerned as UPE sock/meatpuppets.
MER-C 17:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This podcast page definitely deserves to be restored. It was one of the biggest podcasts of the 2010s. How could it possible not meet notability standards?
Nokia621 (
talk) 18:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy endorse - no policy and guideline based argument has been provided. You could try to make an actual argument based on the availability of coverage in reliable sources.
Overturn Strike bolded !vote by nominator First of all, the
original deletion had this argument: "Barely found anything about the podcast. Search results return only passing mentions." If you want to talk about baseless arguments, start there. The podcast was deleted from all major platforms due to a major controversial comments made by Dawson in several episodes. This was discussed by
Business Insider,
The Evening Standard,
The New Zealand Herald and many more. When the podcast did air from 2013 to 2017, it was incredibly popular.
USA Today credited him for partially reviving the podcasting genre in 2013. In 2015, iTunes featured the show in their
"Best of 2015" podcast list. It is definitely notable enough to be restored and the original deletion (with 3 people deciding) had completely baseless arguments.
Nokia621 (
talk) 19:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
That all appears to be coverage of Dawson himself primarily. Meanwhile, you seem to be misconstruing a Medium blog with 907 followers
[2] for iTunes itself (and we generally don't report on single-vendor listings,
WP:SINGLEVENDOR) signed, Rosguilltalk 19:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The Medium blog was copying what iTunes Podcasts put on their page. I'm not misconstruing.
Nokia621 (
talk) 19:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Because the 2015 Best of iTunes list was in their iTunes app, never on a site.
Nokia621 (
talk) 19:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In regards to single vendor, Spotify didn't even have podcasts until 2015, so there's few lists available. iTunes was one of the only providers and Soundcloud doesn't have lists. It was however on the
Fullscreen app which is another platform, which he had an exclusive video deal with.
Nokia621 (
talk) 19:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy endorse. The minimally-attended AfD was closed as Redirect in July 2021. Since then, the appellant has been edit-warring, trying to restore the version prior to the AfD. The only reason they finally came here to DRV is that
Rosguill correctly indef page-blocked them from that battle zone. Had they come here earlier, or presented new sources on the Talk page, I would have gladly considered a new discussion. But under the
unclean hands legal doctrine, I refuse to entertain any petition coming from this disruptive editor relating to this or related pages. Not that they seem capable of mounting an argument better than, "But how can it not be notable?".
Owen×☎ 19:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You're factually incorrect. I had started this deletion review before he indefinitely page-blocked me. You can literally check the UTC timing. Also, you left this comment 1 minute after I gave a long explanation of why it is notable. So instead of insulting by calling me incapable of mounting arguments, why don't you fact-check your own lies?
Nokia621 (
talk) 19:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No, Owen is correct about the timing. As you should know, and
can be seen from your block log, you were blocked at 09:56, 20 May 2024 EDT. You opened this DRV at 15:02, 20 May 2024 EDT. I later corrected the block, which I had initially intended to be indefinite but was instead implemented as 24-hours (which would be silly, for an edit war spanning over 3 years). Arguing that the block post-dates your actions here is pretty transparent
wikilawyering. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for admitting you did a temporary ban at first. Once again confirming that Owen was lying about this debate starting after being "indef page-blocked" (his words). How am I supposed to read your mind and know the 24 hour ban was an initial "mistake"? No offense, but you're gaslighting me to the max. And considering I don't read your mind, please don't read my mind saying my actions are "transparent", because you are way off-base.
Nokia621 (
talk) 19:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yet another DRV appellant who did not even bother discussing with the closer (me) before rushing to file here. I'm also going to speedy endorse (as closer) per Owen and Rosguill.
Daniel (
talk) 22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Good close. No deletion has occurred, so unless you are challenging the close, this is out of scope of DRV. If you want to revisit the matter, essentially wanting to re-
WP:SPINOUT the podcast, propose it and seek consensus on the talk page of the redirect target. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse OP hasn't said anything policy-based and seems unlikely to do so.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse, except that this doesn't allege any error by the closer. Either Redirect or Relist would have been valid closes, and in 2021 a case could be made for overturning the Redirect to Relist. But, as per OwenX, the appellant has been edit-warring since then, and has passed up any chance to ask for a Relist.
DRV is not AFD Round 2, but the sources are garbage, so that the article should not have been Kept.
The redirect has not been locked. An editor in good standing may submit a draft with good sources for review to
Articles for Creation. The appellant is not an editor in good standing with respect to this title.
DRV is a content forum, but the appellant is engaging in
personal attacks, for which a real block may be in order.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 01:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
User:Robert McClenon, regarding your 2nd dot point, it is irresponsible to advocate for any editor to create content forks in draftspace. This is not productive, much more likely will be a waste of time for all involved, and as with all content forking, it creates attribution hazards.
Content on the Shane and Friends podcast is located at
Shane Dawson, and per consensus evident in the AfD, that’s where it belongs. If new good sources are found, they should be added to
Shane Dawson, and then, if a
WP:SPINOUT is warranted, it should be proposed at
Talk:Shane Dawson. Only then fork to draftspace if that’s the unlikely consensus on
Talk:Shane Dawson. Do not just fork to draftspace alone and in silence.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 02:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
User:SmokeyJoe - I have reread the guideline on
content forks, and I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. I have requested opinions at
Village Pump (policy). I don't think that a draft and content that has been replaced by a redirect are pages of the same type, but we shall see what other editors think.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 06:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. No deletion to review, and spinning a page back out after a redirect does not need to come here; it can just be taken forward by building a consensus at the article talk page.
Stifle (
talk) 08:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This was closed as "merge" but there was no actual consensus to merge. Neither side provided any clear guidelines to back up their position, and the numbers were equal. This should have been a "no consensus"
* Pppery *it has begun... 16:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Pppery, for this one, the keep !votes referred (implicitly) to the deprecated
WP:SMALLCAT guideline. The nom referred to
Wikipedia:Categorization by saying it's not useful for navigation, which I felt was reasonable enough. —
Qwerfjkltalk 17:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
"Useful for navigation" seems like a wholly subjective term to me, not a basis in which one can declare one side or the other right.
* Pppery *it has begun... 17:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Pppery, yes. This matter comes up fairly frequently at CfD; it would be nice to have some community consensus. —
Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It would indeed be nice to have such community consensus. But until that happens, would you be willing to revert your close and relist the CfD, so we can speedily close this DRV?
Owen×☎ 18:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
OwenX, I don't see how relisting will help here, that's just kicking the can down the road. A no consensus closure, I could agree to. —
Qwerfjkltalk 13:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
A different can down a different road. Reverting your own close will allow an admin to close it in a way that better reflects consensus, or let it run for more views. You're not compelled to self-revert, of course. But it looks like this DRV is headed that way anyway, so the dignified thing to do would be to allow an early close.
Owen×☎ 13:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn, bad close. Consensus was to Keep. Insufficient rational, with
User:Smasongarrison’s “for now” and “can be recreated” rendering hisher !vote very weak, begging the question of why is she creating this
busywork.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My apologies. I originally misidentified you, and became befuddled. My advice for nominators is that they should make a strong case in starting an XfD discussion. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 00:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Knowing SmokeyJoe, this would have been a total accident, and I'm sure it will be fixed once seen (ping @
SmokeyJoe:) so we can focus on the review itself.
Daniel (
talk) 23:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Regardless, I don't see the point of calling me out for this argument. There is an entire essay on this
WP:Merge for now.
Mason (
talk) 23:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the link to the essay. I had never seen it before. I participated in many CfDs long ago, and I think that it suffers from excessive fiddling, busywork, and that “for now” fits that impression. I suggest that you change “for now” to “until when”. Give your audience something objective to respond to.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 00:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
SmokeyJoe, it's until there's enough articles to populate the category, which may well be never. —
Qwerfjkltalk 13:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn per Pppery. I will note that there's absolutely no reason to call out the nominator for this one, there just wasn't consensus.
SportingFlyerT·C 03:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it proper to call out weak nominations. Weak nominations often lead to trainwrecks, even if there’s a good underlying case.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 05:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The nomination was fine at the time it was made. The problem was the closure that didn't reflect consensus, not the nomination itself.
* Pppery *it has begun... 05:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Although I'm clearly biased as the one called out, @
SmokeyJoe, I think there were more constructive ways to say that the nomination could have been more compelling. However, I think that you made your argument less compelling by conflating two issues and implying that my efforts were pointless busywork. None of which was related to the closing itself.
Mason (
talk) 22:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don’t think “for now” conveys confidence. I feel it conveys hesitation. I had no idea that it was a term-of-art. I have raised my thought at
Wikipedia talk:Merge for now#For now.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 22:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Interesting. Your perspective is one that I hadn't considered. So I appreciate it. I was not aware that perceptions of confidence or hesitation were things to be considered in a CFD. Or that acknowledging that the facts may change is a bad thing. I think it merely acknowledges that this situation for the category could change and that the the nominator is not opposed to revisiting the facts.
Mason (
talk) 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There's at least one valid opinion in this DRV to overturn to Keep, so we can't just short-circuit the process unless SmokeyJoe changes their mind or this turns into a WP:SNOW situation. I appreciate you trying to build consensus here and close this sooner, but the best way to do that would be to revert your own close, and let an admin re-close or relist. There's no loss of face in taking your name off that CfD. On the contrary: the ability to admit one's mistake and promptly correct it is highly valued, and often comes up on the "Support" side at RfAs. As for an RfC, you are welcome to start one at any time.
Owen×☎ 14:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
“No consensus” is certainly defensible. An immediate RfC, no.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 15:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Personally, I'm fine with non consensus, and agree with Owen that this reverting the close might be easier. I'm not sure what an RfC would do because we had one relatively recently one that ended in a snow for not reinstating small cat.
Mason (
talk) 22:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Is there some reason I shouldn't close this as no consensus now? Or have I become too heavily
WP:INVOLVED to do so? The problem with CfD is that for a very long time there have been very few active admin closers so most discussions are closed by non-admins, and the discussion is now in limbo since the bot that processes old discussions doesn't deal with new discussions from months in the past being reopened.
* Pppery *it has begun... 16:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No objection from me.
Owen×☎ 17:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Pppery, I don't think expressing an opinion on my closure should disqualify you from closing it yourself; I, at least, have no problems with it. —
Qwerfjkltalk 18:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Whilst not a contentious topic, I believe that the the non-admin closer closed the discussion with insufficient evidence and rationale. At first, the closer did not provide a rationale and upon asking for one
[3], they stated "The noms contention that this was a "run of the mill event" is not accepted"
[4]. Upon inquiring even further pointing out that I had cited multiple policy-based guidelines, they simply stated that they had nothing to else add. Whilst there were no votes supporting a delete, I believe that, either, at the very least, the discussion be relisted to provide a clearer consensus and be closed by a more experienced editor or admin, or the result be overturned as I believe that the closer did not correctly interpret the results.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 10:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse There is unanimous consensus to keep. Skyshiftertalk 10:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:CLOSEAFD, Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. The strength of the arguments given depends more than the number of votes cast on either side.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 10:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is slightly misleading. Although there weren't any delete votes in the first AfD, there were merge votes.
[1]
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 10:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
And you ignored the first AfD result and renominated it for deletion again...The first AfD closed less than a month ago.
Desertarun (
talk) 10:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that that was my fault for renominating it as I didn't know that a renomination should normally take place after six months.
At the same time, you closing the first discussion as keep with four in favour (including a sock) vs three favouring a merge is contentious as both sides provided strong arguments.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn This AFD was not properly closed and the rationale for closing is not valid. -
UtherSRG(talk) 11:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak endorse. Firstly, renominating within a month of the previous Keep AfD puts the appellant on weak footing here. I believe them when they say it was an honest mistake, but in cases of rapid renomination of a substantially identical page, I think a closer may look at the views in the previous XfD, and determine consensus based on both (or all, if more than two) AfDs combined. This is the natural and most effective way to discourage the type of tendentious litigation we see in some perennially nominated pages. In our case, this would lead to a clear consensus to keep.
Secondly, while no policy forbids it, I find it in poor taste for the same closer, admin or not, to close two subsequent XfDs for the same page, especially in such rapid succession. I'm not saying Desertarun has any bias here, but the appearance of impartiality, and the opportunity to give another closer a chance to examine consensus, are also important. Looking at the second, appealed AfD by itself, I agree with the appellant that the Keep views are exceptionally weak, and do little to refute the nominator's P&G-based concern. I would advise the non-admin closer to either relist such marginal cases, or to leave them for an admin to close.
Owen×☎ 12:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Having closed a discussion, there will be a bias to close the same discussion repeated, the same way, especially if there is no substantial new information or arguments that make the second close a reevaluation of the first. This makes the closer INVOLVED forever, or at least for a long time, on similar questions on that topic. If WP:INVOLVED doesn’t say this, it should.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 00:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I fully agree, hence the weakness of my endorsement.
Owen×☎ 13:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It would be nigh on impossible for the admins that close many AfDs per week/month to remember everything they'd previously closed. So changing WP:Involved as mooted would be giving a stick to disgruntled users.
Desertarun (
talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think I'd remember if I closed an AfD about the same page three weeks earlier. And I do check the prior AfD links to make sure I haven't been involved in any recent ones about that page. Are you claiming you forgot you closed the the previous AfD? If so, admitting your mistake would be the honourable thing to do. "Giving a stick" to editors who find a flaw with the AfD process is exactly what DRV is all about.
Owen×☎ 20:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. There was a clear consensus to keep. Everything was done correctly. The closer stated that the nominator's rationale was "not accepted" (by consensus), which is fine. This is not a BADNAC, as the non-admin closer has not demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, the outcome was not a close call or likely to be controversial, the non-admin has a lot of experience editing Wikipedia generally and
has had much previous participation in deletion discussions, and the result did not require action by an administrator. Maybe something about this close could have been better but NACs don't have to be absolutely fabulous to stand, discussions don't have to be fabulous for NAC to be applicable when they're entirely one-sided and can't be closed any other way, and DRV is not about technicalities and not about through-expermentally workshopping could-have-been optimal closing statements and sharing thoughts about what ideal closes by which preferred closers would lead to our satisfaction.—
Alalch E. 13:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't understand how the given rationale is fine. Saying that the result depended on one of my arguments not being accepted doesn't exactly make sense. In the discussion, I provided multiple policy based guidelines demonstrating why the article should be deleted. But because one of my arguments which was that the event was a
run-of-the-mill was not accepted means that my entire argument is now baseless?
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 13:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
An AfD is not a formal debate. As consensus, not merely being right is needed to delete, your initiative to delete the article failed through a lack of consensus to do so. Since no one even !voted delete, but multiple people !voted keep, the outcome can not be "no consensus" and can only be "keep". Relisting would have been inappropriate as there was a normal level of participation and the comments were not "lacking arguments based on policy". An argument that the page is not
WP:NOT, for example, is not an argument not based in policy in an AfD. An editor can ignore complaints that notability isn't met and say that the page is suitable for inclusion as being within scope, citing NOT, and that is a perfectly policy-based argument to keep. If you cite a guideline that says that events about "common, everyday, ordinary items" may not be notable, and someone says "no, this is not a common, everyday, ordinary item", that's a policy-based argument. Try with a more complete nomination next time that in addition to
WP:LASTING also includes
WP:INDEPTH and
WP:GEOSCOPE, and explain why some sources may be unreliable and why those that are reliable lack in-depth coverage etc., and also explain how
WP:GNG isn't met. —
Alalch E. 14:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I too can also ignore the fact that the article was not
WP:NOT and cite guidelines that it fails. That too is a policy-based argument against a keep.
And just saying that the article should be kept because of the number of deaths is not a policy-based argument, nor is saying that an article should be kept because another one has less deaths. Arguing against someone saying that the article is not
run-of-the-mill and demonstrating why it is
run-of-the-mill is also a policy-based argument. If users do little to refute issues cited regarding policies and guidelines, where does that leave the result?
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 14:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You said, I too can also ignore the fact that the article was not WP:NOT and cite guidelines that it fails. That too is a policy-based argument against a keep. That is correct, and indeed, no one here is claiming that your arguments are not based on policy or guidelines. The fact that no one refuted your argument does not, by itself, automatically turn your legitimate view into a supervote. Here at DRV, we often get appeals that essentially boil down to, "Everyone except me was wrong!". The problem with that is that even if true, that still leaves your opinion alone. We do not delete an article based on a single, contested opinion, except in the clear cases spelled out in
WP:CSD.
Owen×☎ 14:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not trying to make my views equal to a supervote but the problem that I have is with the closing rationale since it is implying that the discussion was closed as keep because one of my arguments was not accepted even though there were plenty other of arguments.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 16:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The AfD was closed as a Keep because no one other than you suggested it not be kept. The fact that you're still arguing about it tells me you aren't clear on our basic principle of
WP:CONSENSUS.
Owen×☎ 16:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse per Alalch E. Perfectly fine NAC, entirely obvious consensus.
Jclemens (
talk) 16:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse per Alalch E. No error in the close - also not a bad NAC. The nomination was based on
WP:EVENT and
Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. While WP:EVENT is a guideline, it is not, by itself an exclusion criteria - as a subject can still pass GNG and merit an article. WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay. In this case, as GNG was not questioned. While passing GNG does not mean an article must be created, the question in an AFD is whether a stand-alone page should exist. Since the other participants all said that the subject was not an ordinary event (a policy-based argument), keep was the only appropriate outcome. --
Enos733 (
talk) 16:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse completely normal AfD here, with complete consensus to keep. Furthermore I do not see any particular reason to delete which was ignored by the participants.
SportingFlyerT·C 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse as the correct reading of consensus to Keep. I would have !voted Keep on account of
significant coverage of 23 lives lost, but DRV is not AFD round 3.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 20:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse.
WP:SLAPUser:Aviationwikiflight for
renominating too soon after an AfD consensus to not delete, and doing so without a better nomination that last time, noting that they !voted in the first AfD and therefore were aware of it.
Desertarun (
talk·contribs) should not be closing an AfD on the same topic twice, after closing once you are forever WP:INVOLVED in that topic. I would have requested speedy closure at
WP:ANRFC, and !voted “speedy close as too soon after the AfD1 consensus to keep”. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but per One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. if an admin would not have been INVOLVED based on a closure, a non-administrator cannot be presumed to be involved based on performing a NAC as a pseudo-administrative action which should, by virtue of what a NAC is, require less evaluation and opinion formation. Thus, not INVOLVED.
Jclemens (
talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
NAC-ers are especially prone to unconscious bias. They should not repeatedly close AfDs on the same article.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 12:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this is a reasonable opinion to hold. I don't think it's addressed, let alone required, by current policy. Have I missed something? If not, I'd certainly be up for saying INVOLVED should be construed exceptionally broadly for NACs, and would support that. I just don't think it's current P&G.
Jclemens (
talk) 01:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm with Jclemens on this. "Forever INVOLVED" seems a bit extreme. Involvement is a function of the depth and nature of interaction, and the time elapsed. We'd be running out of admins very quickly if closing one of the many WP:NSKATE AfDs would instantly and forever disqualify you from touching any of the others.
Owen×☎ 21:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Forever, is extreme. Three weeks is short. I would have done as I said. If it remains unclosed after a week at ANRFC, and you address the notion of possible repeat bias, that would be ok. I reckon.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 12:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
No action I can not go as far as endorsing an
WP:INVOLVED NAC, but this is the correct result. There was unanimous consensus (outside the nominator) to keep this article. FrankAnchor 10:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse The appellant has acknowledged their error in renominating so quickly; the next step should be to drop the matter and move on. Also, whether or not it is prohibited by policy, I'm not comfortable with two NACs by the same editor on the same article in such rapid succession. But the close was technically correct.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 01:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree, it’s rather odd they’re still fighting to have it deleted even though vast majority have voted to keep it.
Alex Hoe (
talk) 14:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I still stand by my opinion but I accept the result of the AfD.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk) 14:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse My opinion has not changed since the last two attempted deletion attempts, the value of the cargo plus the high number of fatalities due to accident.
Alex Hoe (
talk) 12:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't believe this closure was appropriate. I provided legitimate points to clarify the raised issues to keep the page, there are as many "Keep" same as "Delete". None of the votes for "delete" replied to the comments. I recommend this AFD be reopened.
12eeWikiUser (
talk) 09:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy endorse as a bad-faith appeal. The appellant says, there are as many "Keep" same as "Delete". That is an outright lie. Even going by nose count alone, there are two Keeps and four Deletes. We could go into the weakness of those two Keep arguments, but I don't think DRV should entertain dishonest appeals even if they have merit, which this one doesn't.
Owen×☎ 10:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Couldn’t have been closed any other way.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 13:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse clear consensus to delete. However I do not believe this DRV was made in bad faith. FrankAnchor 17:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Do you believe the appellant got mixed up when counting "Keep" and "Delete" !votes? It strains credulity to think this is anything but their attempt to misrepresent facts.
Owen×☎ 17:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I believe it is most likely the appellant discounted some delete votes for unstated reasons. I don’t agree with that assessment if that is the case. FrankAnchor 17:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse - The only possible closure. There is a strange question about how and whether to
Assume Good Faith. Is the appellant misstating the numbers of Keeps and Deletes, or is the appellant unable to count, which is only a
competency issue?
Robert McClenon (
talk) 23:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict) I think we've completely missed here. The close was absolutely correct based on the discussion, but I'm convinced we've deleted an article on a notable topic. I can't see the deleted article, so it's possible it was written promotionally, and some very experienced editors participated at this AfD, so I understand I'm arguing up hill here. Still, I did my own
WP:BEFORE search and not only do I not see any promotional sources (the Nigerian ones I've found so far wouldn't count because they're interviews, but he's clearly being interviewed as an expert - and he worked in Nigeria, so it's not surprising that he'd be discussed there), I think he pretty clearly satisfies
WP:NPROF with many published articles, many references to those articles in books, and international press coverage (probably routine). AfD is getting a lot more difficult as fewer people participate and we've always had issues with notability outside specific areas, especially with African topics. Perhaps the deleted article's not worth restoring, but I think he's absolutely notable enough to write an article on, so even if this is endorsed I have no problem if someone wants to write a new draft here.
SportingFlyerT·C 23:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
If anyone thinks he is notable, request draftication and follow to advice at
WP:THREE.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 04:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
NPROF requires substantially more citations--by academics in academic RS--of the subject than would be seen for the average professor in their subfield, and for Dr Basinga I believe it is TOOSOON. He had one quite well-cited first-author paper, but NPROF C1 needs several extremely highly-cited papers. FWIW, I ran my Scopus metrics test on ~100 of his senior-research-position coauthors who had 15+ papers (to exclude those who are not in senior researcher/professor positions and thus not comparable for "average professor" purposes):
As you can see, Dr Basinga is not well above the average professor in this high-citation-rate field (he publishes alongside the likes of
Agnes Binagwaho,
Megan B. Murray, and
John Owusu Gyapong), so his notability needed to be assessed via GNG and that was also found lacking. In the course of running my test I did come across a few red-linked researchers whom I believe do qualify for pages through C1:
Françoise Portaels (19364 citations, h-index 73), Susheela Singh (14609, 60), Janneke van de Wijgert (8715, 50), Sodiomon Sirima (7649, 50), Ayola Akim Adegnika (6833, 44), and Joanna Schellenberg (12180, 62), among others.
JoelleJay (
talk) 05:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you JoelleJay, I am now satisfied. I apologize for being too desperate for not deleting the page, I am happy to learn about NPROF test I did not know much on it.
12eeWikiUser (
talk) 09:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. There was a consensus to delete for lack of notability and promotion.—
Alalch E. 11:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This was speedy deleted out of process. The admin who performed the deletion has defended it at
User talk:Pppery#Elephant population with their opinion on the merits of the redirect, and while I disagree with their opinion admins don't have the right to push the delete button because of their opinions but instead by must follow standard deletion procedures.
* Pppery *it has begun... 23:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn clear mis-application of G6. Not a “technical deletion” in any way, shape, or form. It can be taken to RFD if anyone desires. FrankAnchor 23:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Background - This page was created with the text;
It was recently confirmed by reliable source(s) that the elephant population has increased dramatically. This source says that the elephant population in Africa has tripled in the last six months and that if the population continues at this rate of increase, in two to five years the earth will be overrun by these giganic mamels. in that case, the source believes that elephant hunting will be legal soon. "it is only a matter of time," says source," Until congress will pass the law for elephant hunting and even promote this dangerous sport. Looks like my stash of ivory wont be illegal for long!" source exclaims with the sparkle of triumph in his eyes.
The Kato institute reports elephant populations have indeed increased despite liberal allegations. In a study by renowned palientologist Howard Berkman it was revealed that in the last 6 months there has been a 600% increase in the rural West African Great White Tusk elephant. For more see
http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html
As this was clearly nonsense, it was tagged for speedy deletion. The proper procedure at the time would have been to just delete the page. However, there was instead a common (though very much 'out of process') practice of making indefinitely protected redirects, since these had the added 'benefit' of preventing recreation. As such, the page was redirected to
Elephant and indefinitely protected "for now". That was clearly always meant to be a temporary solution, but got lost in the shuffle. Eighteen years later I removed the protection and deleted the page. To me, this seems like a standard G6 maintenance issue... finally implementing the proper / intended solution. Further, in the 18 years of its existence, no article on the site ever incorporated this redirect. It simply doesn't make sense to type 'Elephant population' to get to 'Elephant'. Thus, I feel the page should remain deleted... based on both 'benefit' to the encyclopedia AND process. --
CBD 00:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Like your earlier claim that "we don't have redirects from <title> <word> to <title>", your implication that "no incoming links from articles" is a reason to delete is simply untrue.
Close to two thirds of mainspace redirects have no incoming links, and this argument is explicitly called out at
WP:RFD#KEEP #2. —
Cryptic 00:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn, and optionally List - Even if this had been done six months after the redirection, it would not have been a non-controversial maintenance deletion. The existence of a concept of non-controversial maintenance implies that there is also controversial maintenance, and this is controversial maintenance, and can be debated at
RFD if there is a nomination.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 01:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy undelete and list at XfD, which should be immediately done on any reasonable request by and user in good standing. If there is anything to debate, the forum for the debate is XfD. If the allegation is that an admin is repeatedly misusing speedy deletion, that’s another matter. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 13:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn The cited text is fictitious and ludicrous, but because it can clearly be understood by a
reasonable person to be exactly that... it's not nonsense. But nor does G6 apply. Great candidate for a non-speedy process.
Jclemens (
talk) 13:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Close with no action. What exactly is the remedy sought by the appellant here? I agree that G6 was incorrectly applied. But what do we gain by overturning it? A wiki search for "Elephant population" gives
Elephant as the sixth result. This isn't a plausible typo, although after 18 years, it's clearly not a recently created one to fall under R3. Yes, it shouldn't have been summarily deleted out of process, and no, we don't need that redirect back just to be re-deleted at RfD. At most, I'd go for a half-hearted TROUTing of the deleting admin, along with a quiet Thank you for trying to save us the trouble of a pointless XfD, and get back to more important matters.
Owen×☎ 16:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The remedy sought is it to overturn the deletion, undelete the page, and allow anyone who wishes it nominate it at RfD to do so. I would have thought that was obvious. And I am not convinced this would have been deleted at RfD in the first place. This ends-justify-the-means reasoning is contrary to deletion policy, and you can't IAR around it either per
WP:IARUNCOMMON since this logic appears to apply just as well to anything any admin personally thinks would likely be deleted at a deletion discussion, which is a common scenario.
* Pppery *it has begun... 22:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Undelete and list at XfD puts the situation back on the track it should have been on, and provides a clear example to observers, and gives re-education to the admin misapplying G6.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In Victor Hugo's last novel, Ninety-Three, a sailor risks his life to secure a loose cannon on deck, the cannon that he himself failed to secure earlier. The captain awards him a medal for his bravery, and then proceeds to execute him for dereliction of duty. My question is, must we revive this redirect just to kill it again? The G6 was wrong, and IAR doesn't apply here, but DRV is a content forum, not a disciplinary one. It seems pointless to retrace our steps just to end up where we started, and we're not here to educate anyone. We don't know what a future RfD would decide, but we don't need to leave this for RfD. Policy gives DRV the authority to adjudicate the matter, not just to relist it. Just because a useless redirect has been in place for 18 years is no reason to keep it, and certainly no reason to resurrect it.
Owen×☎ 02:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
DRV is not XfD. The merits of the redirect are out of scope for DRV. The automatic links, tools, logging, etc, are set up to work from XfD. We are only still here because an admin is obstinately sticking by their bad G6. The purpose of this DRV is to establish consensus that the G6 was wrong and the redirect if it must be deleted must go through xfd.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The authority to delete is spelled out by our deletion policy, not by Twinkle or some template. DRV may overturn an XfD or a speedy to any other outcome. Specifically, it may overturn an incorrect speedy deletion to a consensus Delete. RfD doesn't provide any automatic links; we have all the information we need to decide this here and now, without listing it, and we don't need XFD Participation tool to voice our opinion, nor XFDcloser to carry out the result. I agree with you that CBDunkerson could have--and by this point should have--saved us from continuing this debate by undoing his G6. But he didn't, and now we have the choice between undoing it here and keeping the redir, undoing and sending to RfD, or leaving the page deleted while acknowledging G6 was a mistake. If you don't wish to adjudicate on the redir itself, it's certainly your prerogative to !vote "Overturn and list", but it's also the prerogative of those who don't see the need for the extra wonkery to !vote "Overturn to delete", which is basically no action beyond an implied finger wag at the out-of-process speedy.
Owen×☎ 06:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don’t wish to adjudicate on the redir itself, not here and now.
I am curious to see the history behind the redirect. I recall the Stephen Colbert call to edit
elephant from around the time, and it might be funny or interesting to read. I considered requesting a temp undeletion, but haven’t because that information has no bearing on my opinion that the G6 was improper and must be reversed. If this goes to RfD, undeleted, I will examine the history before expressing an opinion on whether it is better kept available or hidden from nonadmins.
I am not sure that is can be justifiably asserted that there is a consensus to delete the history.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 09:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree; I, too, see no consensus to delete, sadly. It seems some here are more concerned with Righting Great Wrongs, in this case, teaching that admin a lesson, than they are in giving that page the disposition I believe it deserves. I doubt any participant here would have createdElephant population as a redirect had it not existed, which means that the only reason they're now opting to restore it is that it already existed, and was deleted out of process. I don't believe that's a valid reason to keep--or restore--a page, but it seems I'm in the minority here.
Owen×☎ 13:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks. Let’s not say “Righting Great Wrongs”. I see this as filing rough edges in the cogs of deletion policy, in a place and a way that doesn’t stop anything else. G6 misuse diminishes the respect of WP:CSD, and disenfranchises the ordinary community in favour of an admin class in some aspects of the management of the community.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 23:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn. The "intended solution" was exactly what was done: removing inappropriate content and turning the page into a redirect, and that was done because it's at least a somewhat plausible redirect; someone thinking that this redirect makes some sense is the precondition to this solution. If it hadn't made at least some sense to someone, the page wouldn't have been redirected but deleted. This is a common reason redirects are created and protection isn't important; current protection practices differing from those xx years ago have nothing to do with the deletion/retention of the redirect. Today this same redirect could be created under the same circumstances, but the page would not be protected.—
Alalch E. 23:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
As a non-admin, I can't tell exactly what has happened here.
SportingFlyerT·C 04:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Elephant was persistently vandalized in August 2006, apparently at the behest of Stephen Colbert. When that article was protected, it inevitably spilled over into new titles. Since there's some value in this one, it was redirected to
Elephant and then protected, and lived happily on for almost eighteen years when CBDunkerson "uncontroversially" deleted it. —
Cryptic 05:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn In that case, it should be overturned, even though if I agree with the spirit of the deletion.
SportingFlyerT·C 22:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn as an improper deletion.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 00:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn. A G6 speedy deletion has the express requirement of being non-controversial. The fact that one or more editors have seen fit to raise a challenge here indicates it is not non-controversial and therefore the deletion cannot stand. It may be sent to
WP:RFD if anyone is willing to send it there, and I would be minded to support deleting it there.
Stifle (
talk) 08:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't believe this closure was appropriate. I provided a legitimate argument for deletion, and this was a PROD that had been removed. None of the votes for "keep" commented on the merits of the article and instead cast aspersions on my work. I recommend this AFD be reopened.
Bgsu98(Talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. The AfD ran for a full week, during which not a single participant supported your call for deletion. Whether or not you did a proper WP:BEFORE search is no longer relevant. There was no consensus to delete, and no compelling reason to relist it. I can't fault other editors for being suspicious of your nominations, seeing your poor track record. The ten examples that
JTtheOG provided tell a damning story. Go for quality nominations, not for quantity.
Owen×☎ 21:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak overturn to no consensus Endorse with no prejudice against immediate re-nomination (citing very low attendance). While there is clearly not anything close to consensus to delete, the keep !votes are attacking the nominator and do nothing to claim the subject is notable. I recommend this option rather than resisting because a potential future AFD can focus on the article rather than the nominator. If Bgsu98 wishes to renominate, I recommend this user take the advice at
WP:RENOM and put together a stronger case as to why this particular article should be deleted. FrankAnchor 22:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - In the past six years, there have been three ArbCom cases involving deletion discussions, and in those three cases I have proposed that ArbCom institute discretionary sanctions, now known as
contentious topics, for conduct in deletion discussions. ArbCom has evidently considered and not accepted that idea. This is another illustration of behavior in deletion discussions that appears to be disruptive.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 01:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
To which behavior are you referring?
Bgsu98(Talk) 11:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Endorse - There was no error by the closer. The nomination was properly listed, and at least two editors saw it, and two editors commented, opposing deletion. Relist would have been a valid action. No Consensus would not have been a valid close.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 01:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - There should be a Skating list at
Deletion Sorting, especially since the appellant is nominating large numbers of figure skaters for deletion.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 02:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: there are currently 52 open AfDs in the newly created
WP:DELSORT/Skating, of which 51 were nominated by Bgsu98, most using a copy-pasted nomination text. The exception was
WP:Articles_for_deletion/Nordic_cross_skating, which isn't about a skater, and arguably may not be about skating at all.
Did the appellant believe their chances are better with 51 separate nominations than with one, 51-entry discussion? Either way, DRV, as a second instance forum, may aggregate all 51 into a single merged AfD, for a more meaningful discussion about
WP:NSKATE and related guidelines. Leaving all 51, minimally-attended individual AfDs to the luck of who saw the AfD will result in inconsistent outcomes, encouraging more BEFORE-less nominations.
Owen×☎ 13:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse Bad AfD conduct as noted by the participants--too many at once, copy/paste rationale, no or inadequate BEFORE--are all rebuttals to the presumed good faith of the nominations. This is a perfectly fine reason to reject an AfD: if the nominator didn't pay the encyclopedia and community due respect, then no return consideration is necessary. Otherwise, shotgun XFD nominations would be a
WP:FAIT unless specifically and carefully rebutted.
Jclemens (
talk) 13:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse with no prejudice against immediate re-nomination This underlying discussion is not a great example of what a deletion discussion should look like. On one hand,
WP:NSKATE, as part of
WP:NSPORT, is largely depreciated and I believe should be seen more like
WP:OUTCOMES. However, since it still is an SNG, the community still thinks there is value in NSPORT, there is no obvious error in the nominator to nominate individuals who do not meet the criteria in
WP:NSKATE. That said, failing the SNG does not mean that a subject must be deleted - as the subject can still merit an article by meeting GNG, and the nominator should review the existing sources. For the subsequent comments in this deletion discussion, there was no attempt to find or provide sources to show that the subject meets GNG. Instead, the points raised were to procedurally keep the article. While quick nominations are usually frowned on by the community, entering them in quick succession is not necessarily a problem, especially if the nominator did their homework prior to the nomination. And, just because other nominated articles in the same sequence may have sources, does not necessarily mean that this nomination was in error. All of this means to me that the close should be seen as a procedural keep and any editor could re-nominate the article. --
Enos733 (
talk) 15:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse and allow immediate re-nomination the reason to delete was possibly not well thought through, the reasons to keep were procedural and not policy-driven, so it's basically like the discussion didn't happen at all. No problem with a new AfD, and if nominated by the same user, clear evidence of a
WP:BEFORE search would be wise.
SportingFlyerT·C 04:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse an editor filing ~50 related AfDs in rapid succession should expect to face criticism for flooding the process. The proper response is to learn from the experience and do better next time. This is not that.
LEPRICAVARK (
talk) 00:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Advice in general, if the nom cannot be grouped (and I think in this case they could not), you should probably keep it down to 3 or 4 noms a week in a given topic area. If someone is creating bad articles at a higher rate than that in a given topic area, talk to them and get them to slow down and see the AfD outcomes if you can. But yeah, flooding the system with these is never going to go well. Just don't do it.
Hobit (
talk) 18:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse closure but with permission to renominate on a slower and more careful basis.
Stifle (
talk) 08:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Buna ziua, a fost stearsa pagina creata de mine pt firma de proiectare Vasa Proiect. Administratorul Gikü a invocat motivul A7 “nici o indicatie a importantei”. Nu mi-a oferit nici o oportunitate sa ii raspund si mi-a sters pagina. I-am explicat ulteriror ca este vorba despre o firma renumita de proiectari din Sibiu care a facut numeroase cladiri, care au fost mentionate in detaliu in sectiunea portofoliu a paginii Wikipedia. I-am explicat ca am inclus referinte la cladirile construite pe baza proiectelor Vasa Proiect si la numeroasele companii, inclusiv internationale, cu care a colaborat Vasa Proiect, in masura in care acestea exista online. Dar, avand in vedere natura domeniului de actvitate, si anume proiectarea pt constructia de cladiri, importanta firmei o demonstreaza cladirile construite si nu toate sunt mentionate in presa/ online etc. De aceea am fost limitata in numaraul de referinte care l-am putut include. Deasemenea am vazut alte firme de proiectare din Romania care au pagini similare pe Wikipedia, chiar cu mai putine referinte decat Vasa Proiect, si care nu au fost sterse. Doresc sa mentionez si ca Gikü mi-a criticat pagina invocand probleme de copyright pt logoul firmei si imaginile caldirilor, pt ca proveneau de pe siteul siteul Vasa Proiect (
http://vasaproiect.ro/). Aceasta este o critica absurda pt ca acesta este siteul nostru, pozele si logul ne apartin, de aceea le-am inclus de pe pagina noastra de Wikipedia. Deci nu are sens sa se invoce o problema de copyright. Consider ca stergerea pagingii si motivele invocate sunt incorecte. Va rog sa ma ajutati. Va multumesc.
Danawiki2024 (
talk) 15:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - The following is a machine translation from Romanian:
Hello, the page I created for the design company Vasa Proiect has been deleted. Administrator Gikü cited reason A7 "no indication of importance". He didn't give me any opportunity to answer him and deleted my page. I explained to others that it is about a famous design firm from Sibiu that made numerous buildings, which were mentioned in detail in the portfolio section of the Wikipedia page. I explained to him that I had included references to the buildings built on the basis of Vasa Proiect projects and to the many companies, including international ones, with which Vasa Proiect collaborated, to the extent that they exist online. But, considering the nature of the field of activity, namely the design for the construction of buildings, the importance of the company is demonstrated by the buildings built and not all of them are mentioned in the press/online, etc. That is why I was limited in the number of references that I could include. I have also seen other design firms from Romania that have similar pages on Wikipedia, even with fewer references than Vasa Proiect, and which have not been deleted. I also want to mention that Gikü criticized my page invoking copyright issues for the company logo and the images of the boilers, because they came from the Vasa Project website (
http://vasaproiect.ro/ ). This is an absurd criticism because this is our website, the pictures and the logo belong to us, that's why we included them from our Wikipedia page. So it makes no sense to invoke a copyright problem. I believe that the deletion of the page and the reasons cited are incorrect. Please help me. Thank you
Comment - We need provisions for Speedy Endorse, similar to Speedy Keep at
AFD. In this case it is not even clear what if anything was deleted. The filer refers to something have been
A7, but also says that there is no copyright problem, which implies that an admin thinks that there is a copyright problem. We do consider A7 appeals, if we know what they are. We don't consider copyright appeals, even if we know what they are.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 16:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Close as wrong venue. This actually appears to be a dispute on
ro.wiki so not anything we can have a view on here. Doesn't appear to be a similar problem on en.wiki that I can find.
JMWt (
talk) 17:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I'd like to request a deletion review for the subject. It is a notable subject and remained there for almost a year. I would really appreciate a constructive dialog on said matter. Thank you! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
103.188.92.234 (
talk •
contribs)
Endorse the G5 but allow recreation by any editor in good standing. The article was created and substantially only edited by a confirmed sock of
User:Wrathofyazdan, and deleted as such. A quick look didn't reveal any independent SIGCOV about the subject, but I might have missed something. I see no reason to forbid recreation, ideally as a draft, by a legitimate editor.
Owen×☎ 16:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse G5 per OwenX. As the reason for this deletion is due to a blocked user being its only substantial author, and not due to content, recreation by any user in good standing is explicitly allowed. FrankAnchor 13:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse the G5 per above, you are welcome to re-create the article if notable though.
SportingFlyerT·C 23:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This page was speedily deleted under
G6 midway through an MfD discussion in which multiple editors had argued in favour of keeping it. The deletion was therefore not uncontroversial maintenance, and is (in my view) out of process. In my opinion, the page should be undeleted, and the MfD reopened to finish running its course. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 15:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse speedy deletion, (a) because as most people said at the MFD, there is no rational need for it, and (b) there is possibly a privacy aspect here. But mostly per (c) process for process sake is an actively harmful attitude.
WP:IAR is still a thing. That said,
Bbb23 was pretty optimistic when he deleted this to save people from having to argue some more. Silly Bbb23, the entire purpose of Wikipedia is to argue. --
Floquenbeam (
talk) 15:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. G6 was wrong, but the page clearly qualifies for speedy deletion under
WP:U2, with the same outcome. I have no problem moving
Mandiace's month-old request for help to their own Talk page. But frankly, I can't believe a dozen editors wasted time on that MfD, and who knows how many more will waste time on this pointless DRV. Please withdraw and I'll move that help tag myself.
Owen×☎ 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The help request was moved to Mandiace's Talk page. Still there although I think Mandiace is gone.--
Bbb23 (
talk) 15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In response to your request to withdraw, I’m considering doing so, given the initial comments here. However, I don’t believe U2 would have been valid either, given that multiple editors in good faith had opposed the page’s deletion at all - it still would have short-circuited an ongoing deletion discussion in which such opposition had been expressed. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 15:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse speedy deletion, already consensus for that in the MfD. The whole business is a mind-numbing waste of editor time and energy, resources that could have been spent on actually improving the encyclopaedia.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 15:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment which is the reality: And if the MFD was a waste of time, this is also a waste of time. Just let it stay deleted, no point in trying to reinstate it. thetechie@enwiki:
~/talk/$ 16:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
janno Lieber – Speedy closed as a disruptive appeal for a disruptive AfD. Anon appellant blocked for one week,
User:Railrider12 indef blocked as an account created specifically for this trolling AfD. Both were warring with the non-admin closer, who correctly speedy closed the disruptive AfD.
Owen×☎ 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Endorse regretfullyAllow recreation. We need a good reason to delete a redirect, especially for a word that appears in the dictionary, and no such reason was provided by the Delete !voters on that RfD. But the closing admin correctly read the consensus. In a WP search for 'phone, the "
Telephone" result doesn't even appear in the top 200 results. This was a correct, but unfortunate closure that should now be amended.
Owen×☎ 18:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Allow recreation for how long its been since the RfD
Mach61 18:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no need to formally review a 17 year old XFD. Just recreate it and if someone has an issue, a new discussion can happen.
StarMississippi 00:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
My understanding of this nomination is that it's per
WP:DRVPURPOSE #3, as otherwise a recreation of this redirect would potentially be liable to be
G4ed. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 00:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You may very well be correct, but I've seen that applied to maybe 17 month old discussions. Nothing of this vintage. No sane patroller is going to scream G4 at a 2007-era discussion. Oh wait, don't we have a 20 year old one here now? Oops
StarMississippi 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Overturn [Send to RfD after Stifle's comment]. The participants made the wrong arguments based on a wrong understanding of the facts and the outcome is wrong. The RfD should be voided leading to undeletion. It doesn't matter how old it is.—
Alalch E. 12:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sending a redlink to RfD is silly.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 01:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
They (obviously) mean to restore the redirect and procedurally nominate it at RFD. Like, y'know, it used to be standard practice for anything restored by DRV and VFU before it. —
Cryptic 01:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Allow recreation as a plausible redirect. The closer correctly interpreted consensus, but the nomination was flawed. FrankAnchor 13:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Question - Are we being asked to overturn a 17-year-old close, or to allow recreation?
Robert McClenon (
talk) 18:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Allow Recreation subject to a new
RFD. There has to be a time limit on deletions of redirects.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 18:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep deleted. It would be an unlikely/implausible redirect; nobody types that into search.
Stifle (
talk) 07:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Allow recreation. In my opinion, the existence of
wikt:'phone demonstrates the plausibility of this as a redirect. No need to send directly to RfD from deletion review, as any editor who wishes to start an RfD may do so. All the best, —a smart kitten[
meow 10:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Waste of time nomination. Do not bring old things to DRV without a reason, such as an active disagreement, a warning, SALT, etc. Boldly create if you’re sure, anyone can RfD it, or if you’re not sure, find something else to do. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 01:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This recreated redirect would be liable to G4, and, for example, Stifle (who does not support its retention) could simply G4 it, uncontestably. —
Alalch E. 10:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
And that would be the proper time to bring this to DRV. —
Cryptic 11:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Exactly. This preemptive DRV serves to waste volunteer time now because someone might hypothetically waste volunteer time.
Things should not be brought to DRV just because something was done wrong, there should be an actual problem to fix.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 13:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I agree with that. —
Alalch E. 15:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Ami Dror – Was headed to an endorse close, and nom is OK with the close. Issues around AfD participation and best practices can be hashed out elsewhere
StarMississippi 12:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This is a extremely contentious Afd that was closed by the admin with a simple keep as though they were closing an Afd opened by mistake. None of the problem inherent in the Afd discussion were addresed. From the canvassing at the beginning, to the the whole course of the keep !votes being based on false premises, hand-waving and wilful (supposed) ignorance of policy, particularly ignorance of the
WP:O Note d, i.e. the idea that interviews can prove a person notable. These arguments have been given false creedence that has lead to a false keep !vote. It should have been delete, or at the worst no consensus. Now we have been left with a group that thinks its ok to use interviews to prove notability. I think the whole thing feels staged. scope_creepTalk 13:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I agree with the appellant that the closing statement could have benefited from at least a brief closing rationale. I also agree that there was plenty of obvious canvassing, a litany of meritless "Keep" votes (not "!votes"), and incorrect categorization of sources as independent. However, even when you discard all those votes, we're still left with no consensus to delete.
Doczilla is an experienced admin, and I'm sure he gave those canvassed, ILIKEIT-type votes the weight they deserve, namely, zero. Had he added a terse explanation of his close, it would be obvious. In my read of that AfD, the Delete views indeed carry more weight than the Keeps, but not overwhelmingly so. Is it really worth our while here to overturn this to a "No consensus", with the only practical effect being an earlier potential renomination? Unlike the appellant, I don't believe this close sets a precedent about the use of interviews as proof of notability. Most of those Keeps have no interest in our P&G, and are merely citing whatever they believe will get their pet page kept.
Owen×☎ 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Vacate and relist or alternatively overturn to no consensus and allow immediate renomination (involved), as per my comment in the AfD I found the vast majority of the keep votes/!votes to be just about worthless with regards to our P&G's (with one or two exceptions). I believe that the current closes available would be 'no consensus' or 'delete', but I also believe an extra 7 days may have led to an actual consensus (given the delete !votes came late). Alternatively, explicitly allowing immediate renomination (with a 'clean' restart) may also be beneficial to finding a true P&G-based consensus either way. I don't think this should have been closed as 'keep', and in the absence of an extended closing statement, I cannot see how that conclusion was reached.
Daniel (
talk) 20:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Support the nom,
User:Scope creep, but really, he should be advocating a single outcome. Reading through the AfD, I cannot find two sources that meeting the GNG. It’s unfortunate that someone is saying interviews don’t meet
WP:SECONDARY, because that is not true. The problem with whether the sources are independent. Content sourced from the subject via interview of the subject con at be independent of the subject.
I’m leaning to “Overturn (to no consensus) and allow standard
WP:RENOM in two months”. I don’t see a case for unusual urgency in solving this one.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 21:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm involved, but I would have loved some sort of statement by Doczilla regarding the close, either in the close or on their talk page. I don't care what happens here, but the close does need a good explanation, which could have been provided with some talk page patience.
SportingFlyerT·C 22:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I closed this after one week when there were no delete votes. This was undone on the basis that it was a controversial close and required an admin. All I see is the nom badgering and threatening people with ANI in a lost and hopeless cause. So we're supposed to overturn this to no consensus and give "super weight" to the few delete votes? I don't agree. The closer could have given a few words of explanation especially given the nom has fought too hard here. But the close is correct.
Desertarun (
talk) 11:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I looked at your close, and can find no good reason to criticize.
scope_creep does not make himself look good on your user_talk page. I long observe that terse nominations often result in trainwrecks.
scope_creep should follow advice at
WP:RENOM. It's not enough to be right, you have to get people to agree with you. "A large number of references are terrible" is not convincing. For an article that looks good, the flipside of
WP:THREE applies. The nominator should make the case that the best three sources are not good enough.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 12:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Endorse. This was by no means an extremely contentious Afd, and only gave the appearance of being contentious because Scope Creep
forced their view on others by commenting 24(!) times (excluding the nom and stricken comments) throughout the discussion. Even discounting sock and
WP:PERX votes, there is clearly not consensus to delete and little indication such consensus would form. My endorse !vote is only "weak" due toThere was a late, well-reasoned delete !vote by Daniel (but not the other late delete vote, which is a glorified PERX). Relisting wouldcould be viable option to allow time to discuss this !vote, but my first preference is to endorse the keep close. FrankAnchor 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse. - From this vantage point, it is obvious that general notability has been met. The level of scrutiny exhibited towards this specific article both here and on the previous Afd discussions, the underlying motives behind the incessant
WP:BADGERING, by members of this forum, which are transparent in previous discussions, and the obsessiveness in which actions are continually being taken, only make the importance of this article that much clearer to me. --
Omer Toledano (
talk) 17:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Endorse, or Relist, as discussed below - My reading of the participation is that, until 24 hours before closing, there was one policy-based Delete !vote, by the nominator/appellant, two policy-based Keep !votes, by North8000 and Longhornsg, and 86 Keep !votes of uncertain quality that may have just been
I Like It, and 2 Keep !votes from editors who were not Extended-Confirmed. At the end, there was one more policy-and-guideline based Delete and one more Delete that I consider of uncertain quality. So, at the close, there were two good-quality Keep !votes, two good-quality Delete !votes, 8 questionable Keeps, and one uncertain Delete. The closer was using reasonable judgment in giving some weight to the questionable Keeps and closing to Keep. Even if the closer had ignored all of the questionable Keeps, the result would have been No Consensus. There is no way that a closer could have twisted this to a Delete. Keep is a valid conclusion by the closer.
The closer should have made some statement concerning weighing the various comments, and addressing the nominator's concerns. DRV doesn't overturn a valid close simply because it was inadequately explained.
The arguments by the nominator/appellant are that the sources are garbage. Some of the sources are garbage. With 58 sources of varying quality, the burden should be on the nominator to provide a source analysis demonstrating that there are not
threeindependent sources that provide
significant coverage.
My own opinion, without having assessed the sources, is that it is in the interests of the readers for the
English Wikipedia to have an article about the subject. The
Ignore All Rules approach would be to say that it is in the interests of the reader for the encyclopedia to have an article on the subject. However, in my opinion, this is a situation where the rules can be applied carefully for the interests of the reader of the encyclopedia, by source assessment.
If the AFD is relisted, the purpose of the relist should be to give the nominator time to provide a source analysis showing that the sources are garbage. Other editors can provide source analyses showing that there are at least
threeindependent sources that provide
significant coverage.
It is true that assessing 58 sources will be work for the nominator/appellant. The burden of proving that all of the sources are garbage should be on the nominator. Most of the sources probably are garbage, and some of them probably are good sources.
Either leave the close standing, or give the appellant a week to show that all of the sources are garbage.
@
Robert McClenon: I'm not doing that. It is waste of time, like Afd. You seem to have taken a bullet list from somewhere without reading Afd. A source analysis was done. There is not 1 secondary source in that whole
WP:BLP. Not one. scope_creepTalk 08:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment. With so many Keep votes there is little incentive to give lengthy thoughtful keep votes. I believe some of those weak/PERX votes would convert into something stronger in another AFD.
Desertarun (
talk) 18:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - Two of the Keep votes were from editors who were not Extended-Confirmed, and so should have been stricken as excluded under
Palestine-Israel restrictions. The nominator would have presented a less bad case if they had raised this issue, which is clear, instead of or in addition to
yelling "canvassing". That leaves 6 Keeps of arguable quality, and the close is still plausible.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 19:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Endorse 1) Doczilla rarely if ever provides statements when closing AfDs; this is not a new phenomenon and heretofore not a particular problem. 2) The NAC should have been allowed to stand... "I wanted to add a vote" isn't a good reason to revert a close, and yes, a NAC closure after the initial relist was just fine in the absence of actual votes against the emerging consensus. 3) Interviews are not inherently non-independent. Good interviews from reputable journalists do their own fact checking, such that the subject's words aren't accepted uncritically and unrebutted. The policy summary that says "Interviews aren't independent" is a horrible and inappropriate oversimplification.
Jclemens (
talk) 21:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
DRV doesn't overturn a valid close simply because it was inadequately explained
DRV has to be able to overturn due to inadequate explanation, or there is no requirement on closers to provide adequate explanation.
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Reclose or relist Step by step:
The discussion was bad. The keep !votes seemed to be canvased and the main delete contributor was way over the top (more than half of all the words in the AfD perhaps?).
The close was bad. A discussion with all the issues that one had needs a clearly explained close. As Robert notes, some (2?) of the keep !votes shouldn't have been counted. Were they? No clue, the closer gave us no idea. Was canvasing relevant? No idea? Strength of arguments? Again, no idea.
Keeping this is probably the right thing I don't have a horse in this race, but it seems very clear to me that this person is notable. Plenty of independent coverage. Is THREE met? Maybe not, but the weight of all the sources, many independent and reliable, is enough to get us well past WP:N. And that's the bar.
I lean toward a
WP:FISH for Scope creep (at the least learn to be more concise, but if you find yourself that invested in an AfD you need to walk away) and Doczilla (don't close continuous AfDs if you aren't willing to put in the time to explain what you're doing) and either a reclose or relist.
Hobit (
talk) 04:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I won't be doing that but your absolutely right. I was too close to it and shouldn't have been done it. Its impossible to get these trash article deleted now on Wikipedia. It cannot be done and everybody knows it and the reason Afd is failing. I'm tired of trying to fight battles that can't be won. The whole Afd system is broken and has been for a very long while and the whole thing feels like a group failure. No more Afd's for me. This can closed. I've no interest in it. scope_creepTalk 08:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The problem is, this isn't a trash article. There is a ton of coverage and the article is written fairly well. Is it over our inclusion bar? I'd say yes, you'd say no. AfD isn't failing--it's doing it's job and mostly (mostly) doing it well. The drop in participation is painful. This particular AfD is broken. And the big problem was that enough folks outside of the PI conflict didn't get involved. That's how to address AfDs with the issues we have here--lots of dispassionate outside eyes. And the drop in participation does make that more difficult.
Hobit (
talk) 12:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.